"Protective Parents Crazy, Abusers sane" Says court

Mothers who raise child abuse in family court are being labeled as mentally ill in Australia. This reflects the use of the debunked custody diagnosis, "Parental Alienation Syndrome" promoted by mens groups. Whilst Australian family lawyers have been known to label mothers as, "Access Bitches" and "Maternal Gatekeepers", the syndrome has never been accepted by any credible organisation. The only use of PAS is in closed courtrooms where human rights cannot touch: Australian Family Court. The investigation of child abuse in the family court terms is regarded by the court as, "Medical abuse". This is how they get around it and systematically abuse children and parents who raise abuse and want it to be dealt with properly.

Even the Family Courts Magellan program, boasted by the court to protect children is negligent as it relies on evidence of their own staff which is not independent to the court, aims to be dealt with "quickly" and still tests abuse in accordance of the family law act which excludes an experts ability to investigate without being penalized. In fact, experts must look for psychological abuse and "Ill treated" children. "Ill treated" is one of the few words in the family law act that does not have a legal definition and is left open to interpretation. Experts are not allowed by the family court to look for child abuse.

Mothers misdiagnosed with mental illness in by family court staff often have no history of diagnosis and the information is based upon the other parties perception and not a real assessment. Disorders and stressors related to horrific incidents of abuse appear after the family court case as the shock of an outrageously negligent courtroom that works together in unison to disregard and punish those who raise abuse. In a organisational culture perspective, raising child abuse challenges the courtrooms position of power which is often superficial and results in retaliation. Staff in these settings often have traits of a psychopath(corporate) where they are devoid of empathy and seek out situations where they are gratified by the emotional reactions to cruelty.

The family court has had a large history of defending their behavior towards victims of child abuse and domestic violence. Often the reaction is to seek out those who challenge them and retaliate in hearings or through lobby groups. This is often part of the obsession to control the perceptions of the court and appear as a just body of government.

Globalization has thwarted such efforts as social media debunks such claims and more often exposes the ongoing cruelty and human rights abuses that the court is responsible for, but not legally accountable. The legal pathway to class action is much longer than a traditional lawsuit where it is against a corporation, but achievable nevertheless.

Its not the first time Australia has violated human rights in recent times especially that of children in closed institutions.

Cries of child abuse bounce back on mums

ALICIA WOOD

March 28, 2010

CHILD protection campaigners say women who accuse their former partners of sexually abusing their children are being unfairly labelled as mentally ill in the Family Court.

Child sex abuse researcher Freda Briggs and child protection advocate Charles Pragnell say recent cases show the emphasis on shared parenting responsibilities is putting children in danger.

Professor Briggs and Mr Pragnell are part of the Safer Family Law campaign and argue that amendments to the Family Law Act in 2006 were geared towards the rights of parents rather than those of children.

Professor Briggs, from the University of South Australia, specialises in research into child sex abuse. Mr Pragnell is from the National Council for Children Post-Separation, which is part of the Safer Family Law campaign. He has been called as an expert witness in child sex abuse cases in Australia, Britain and New Zealand.

They cite a Sydney case of a child who was allegedly put at risk of danger by being forced to live with her father.

An interim decision was made to order the six-year-old to live with her father, at whose house she was photographed in pornographic poses by one of his friends.

A court counsellor alleged the girl's mother was manipulative and might suffer from a mental illness.

"The courts should focus on the needs and wants of the child, and the rights of a child to be protected from abuse," Mr Pragnell said.

"Too often we see that a parent's right to contact is given at all costs."

Amendments to the Family Law Act in 2006 emphasised "co-operative" parenting and shared responsibilities.

In January, Attorney-General Robert McClelland released three reviews into these amendments.

A review by the Australian Institute of Family Studies accepts that some of the consequences of a focus on shared parenting responsibilities have been "less than favourable".

Child Abuse Prevention Service manager Karen Craigie said women and men contacted the service regularly after raising concerns of sexual abuse and being labelled mentally ill.

"We get lots of calls about this. It is common. Women involved are often subjected to domestic violence and are very traumatised," Ms Craigie said.

"I have heard of cases where women are so afraid of losing their children and solicitors will advise them that raising concerns of sexual abuse will make them look like they are being obstructive."

Angela Lynch, a solicitor for the Women's Legal Service in Queensland who has advised women in these situations, said the family court system was too "pro-father involvement".

"In a nice family, that is a great thing. When there are issues of abuse and domestic violence, it is a huge problem," Ms Lynch said. "If you raise sexual abuse in court, you are seen as an unfriendly parent, which is the worst thing you can be in family court."

The Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court of Australia would not comment.

Source: The Sun-Herald