Family Violence is still on the menu on Australian Family Court

Despite recent changes implementing family violence laws in the Family Court, Family Violence is still thriving.  Whilst the past year I have barely spent online, I have talked to hundreds of mothers affected by this mostly with recent cases where the judgments favor the perpetrator above the child and all victims involved.  Victims still barely have a voice.

Despite all the well crafted speeches from the court in public space, private-sphere is a different story.  Alike all forms of abuse occurring in private, so does human rights violations against the most vulnerable and least likely to afford the fine things in life that the courts actors enjoy at their expense(and sometimes the cost of a life): children and women.

The court relies all too heavily upon the notion that it makes its decisions based upon the rights of the convention of the child.  This is used to protect child's privacy, "best interests" and right to know the other parent.  I make no error in my judgement when I write that these interests are only upheld when the courts interests are upheld first and if they are compatible, the child's rights are not violated.

When family violence(not limited to domestic violence) is historical to the family, these interests usually clash with the courts.  This is because most victims are robbed of resources that the perpetrator has at his disposal.  The gender divide is just touching the surface when examining the root of the issue. Its why these laws do not work.  We could lobby again and change the laws to ensure that every child's voice is heard, but the reality is that the court navigates around these laws creatively and completely at each judges whim.  The political culture of the courts is ingrained in neoconservative values, over-toned by patriarchy with the old fashioned, "children and women should be seen and not heard".  One only needs to read the views of the judgments to find their own perfect flavor of disgust.  For many years, activists have continuely recommended the court become more open and tested with community values, but the best recommendation I have heard is a royal commission.  The court needs to be investigated, not merely touched superficially by a 2d tabloid view, but a thorough investigation where every aspect is examined.  Where the money trail is followed all the way to the end and every name of every child homicide is checked against the court records with or without the courts approval.  It is something that is no longer a request, idea or merely a discussion point:  Its an expectation.  Without it, the court remains liable to the deaths of all victims affected.

"We're not into case fixing...I can assure you that we have absolutely no knowledge, so there. Where was I..."

Jane*, a mother of three had corresponded over the years as other mothers have providing a horrific account of her story.  Leaving a violent paranoid schitzophrenic after the violence spilled out upon the children should have ended when she left.  "All I ever asked for was supervised contact, but they kept claiming that I was trying to get no contact at all", Jane provided the author correspondence confirming this was the case.
A man who had been evidentially violent and homicidal was allowed unsupervised access to the children and provided with their home address where he openly stalked and harrassed her at her home.
Despite contact with various legal advisers, officials and child protection, she was diverted back to the court that failed to protect the children.  Of course, there are many cases like these that are still being endured in silence, but what stands out is how a psychiatrists report claiming that he is suddenly cured of paranoid schitzophrenia, just in time for the court case.  The most interesting recommendation from the psychiatrist whom had not met the child at all was, "for the wellbeing of the father".  Despite an affidavit by the father raising concerns about the childs writing interpreted as a "secret code" to the mothers phone number, he is considered well enough to care fulltime on half the medication he was on previously.
"One has to wonder..whatever motivated them to act, was not in consideration of the child".
If there was any other motivator above political or idealogical, it has to be money and in *Janes case, money it was.  Googling her judges name one day, she found a document from the vicbar.  "I heard rumors that the entire bar was corrupt, but I simply put it down to a rumor".

Camoflaged in plain language, without its commentators conclusion, the reference to the judge could have been easily undone.  Its the fact that he defined his reference further to interpretation, denying unconvincingly that Federal Magistrate Norah Hartnett is "Not into case fixing", he needed to assure that they had no knowledge of a well defined description on how "case fixing" works.  "It explains why the judge told me one day that she read everything she needed to read(referring to his affidavit), she didn't need to read anything else".
*Jane is a pseudonym

If you think feminism is bad, you should check out patriachy...

Feminism in all its simplicity, is about womens rights. Some have skewed the argument and made stupid claims about what they believe it is. Lazy women who dont want to work(or do anything at all), often use the feminists of the past as something to blame for all their problems. Women who have spent their entire life consumed by men are often brainwashed into whatever political ideals he has, all in the name of gaining his affections(please see: "He's Not That Into You" for further reading). Men subjected to intervention orders, most often because there was a need for it to be in place, have created their own mythological tale on what they believe feminism to be. Some are psychopaths who have in their worklife, bullied their way to the top of the corperate ladder, used to going home to their perfect victim. They have a masterful tale on what they believe feminism is. In fact, these types are so driven and obsessed at changing the structures itself to purport these fanciful notions on what feminism is in their sadistic mind. Compulsive liars, that comes with the title, would have you believe that any women that stands against a mans right to beat her senseless and have her body removed without a whisper is a god given right. Such types would probably go to lengths to even create a religion out of it...whoops, they already have.
In reality, they would never say to you straight out, "I want the right to rape, beat, murder and do what I please to women". There are too many humanists out there that would be outraged. So tact is the game of these losers whom seek sadism as a source of pleasure at the cost of womens human rights. The perhaps, less educated tend to ask why not address all human beings at once in protecting rights for that not to happen to them. Racism and slavery towards african americans continued well beyond the signing of the declaration of human rights. In order to deal with the issue that targets a particular group of people, the group needs to be acknowledged. One needs to think what might have happened had everyone simply referred to generalising the issue on slavery and racism and if anything at all might have been resolved. There were various tricks and tactics to condone violence, slavery and other horrific aspects towards these people and no different to the experience of attacks towards women today. Whilst laws significently clarify that such acts are illegal, often perpetrators of racism attacked subversively. eg. Klu Klux Klan and white power(comparable to black shirts or Fathers for justice groups. Their lobbying is skewed and attracts media attention to provoke hatred and incite the same type of violence towards women. One tactic, is to abscond with the children or use court orders to inhibit her freedom of movement and dictate her daily routine as so she will give in and return to him. Some have been known to use the children by attacking them over the phone, so that the mother will comply in distress to the childs screams.
Further subversive lobby groups, have managed to formulate laws to impinge on the evidence gathering and prevent victims from being able to speak of these crimes. Throughout history, there have always been tyrants, but lesser acknowledged are the ones who repeatedly attack those in the home and justify it as a "right". For as long as women and children are targeted, there is a need to protect them, monitor the laws that are harming them and ensure that they can thrive in the international community as any other fellow human being. That is the heart of feminism and deep down everyone knows that women and children deserve it. They both deserve to be respected and not harmed emotionally, socially, physically and systematically. They deserve to live above the poverty line with dignity and freedom as any other person enjoys. Naturally children are acknowledged here, simply because mothers; the least voiced amongst feminists are always thinking of them and wanting to see their rights realised too.

Patriarchal Parasites

Once were seen as glorious esteemed men with dozens of skeletons in the closets that noone would ever find out about in a time where everyone was an accomplice. When she questioned his power in the slightest, everyone was ready to help. From the man down the road willing to lend a shovel to dig her grave, to the priest ready to introduce him to a new wife. Now, that helpful community is dwindling, thanks to the men that not only loved the women in their lives, but also respect them as fellow human beings. What is left, remains the worst of the worst. From the blackshirts that terrorised women in Melbourne to the mens rights groups lobbying under the guise of "fathers rights". They claimed to have been treated unfairly in the family court system, due to being fathers, yet over 3000 court judgements over a decade tell the dedicated reader otherwise. The largest reason these groups were so successful was a flaw in time. The fact that they had so much time, whilst those defending the barrage of lies did not. Blogging and networking for mothers, professionals and child abuse survivors are always done in between things, with efficiency or during one of those episodes of PSTD where the possibility of sleep is not an option. So where did the time come from? Why was there so much time? What jobs did these men sacrifice to initiate and fund these organizations? The answer is that none of these men were working. If they were, they left their jobs to avoid paying child support and if they were working, they became part of a large network full of men leeching off cash in hand work. I am sure that any taxman whom was determined to catch these guys out would have already through the same connections they have in these groups. Then there are the retired bitter still attached to the past ideology where a mans dream is to aquire the house, car women and the kids. The problem is that the last two are not identified by these types as human beings. They are not tools, nor vehicles of use as these men would have them or try to mould them to be. The tactics fail and these types have gone to extraordinary lengths to destroy all structures that would recognise them otherwise than mere pieces of property. Even the second women set up against the first is another vehicle. She is of course treated much better than the first in order to accomplish the distant goal, but in the end she is also another subject dated in the product line set to be released as another piece of the set after she has carried out her duty to destroy the first. I have met some of these women and they are often lack education, have issues with their mother and extremely insecure. Appearence wise, these women are considered "lucky" to recieve any affections from men. Thus, they are craving it even before he meets her. As calculated as the parasitic wasp whom chooses its target, releases a chemical that subjects it to a zombie - like state whilst it lays eggs into the cockroach that will mean its eventual death. Patriachy in our times, has little allies. It cannot compete with the trendsetting consumerisitic giants that find independent women sexy or the economy that requires both genders to work. It cannot change the grotesque history known to all of us where women were the canaries in the goldmine of every war, slaves for the rich and burned at the stake in medievil times. Women are remembered throughout history for being the least recognised in the human worth ladder. Now in times of great uncertainty as climate change starts to rear its ugly head and threaten humanity altogether, it is no question that patriachy did this. It is now a fact that it is not only an untenable and unworkable regime, but a great threat to human life. Patriachal structures never gave, they simply took. Whether it be our shared resources for life or the women and children unable to flee as he took out his rifle in the peak of the financial crisis. Which leaves us back to the initial statement: Patriachs are nothing but parisites. Time for a vaccination.

Derryn Hinch: Doing Time For Their Crime

Outspoken, veteran journalist Derryn Hinch is facing a jail term for a crime that should never exist. He named two child sex offenders.

Derryn Hinch is no saint and I am sure over that fifty year period there are some things that even he himself regrets saying or maybe feels differently with age. One thing, he and many other brave journalists will never regret is exercising freedom of speech, especially if it means saving a future victim of child abuse. The wide coverage of articles on Derryn Hinch's case is mostly appeasing to the status quo. As though we need to protect perpetrators more than we do for children. There is something deeply disturbing about our judicial system, if a sex offender can be jailed for less than a year in Australia, but naming them can cause up to four years of imprisonment for exercising freedom of speech.

There have been numerous reports on the failure of the system in protecting children in and out of care. Where children are saved from abuse only to end up into another abusive situation, simply because child protection did not screen the parents properly. It was only a few years ago that some states in Australia introduced a system where people working with children are screened properly for prior offences. Those abused before its introduction would have had to endure this in silence. Laws in both child protection and Family Court are designed so that children's cases like these, even after deaths are restrained from speaking out to the media.

There is a good reason to be protective of children and how the impact of the media can be destructive, but I would argue that an act of abuse by another does not damage the child's reputation. Its the stigma and shame others chose to place upon victims that is damaging. Where the media is selective in portraying one angle of what the victim conveys that degrades them is what poses a difficult question on children and the media. It does not mean children should not have access to the media at all, but there should be strict guidelines on how they are portrayed and their rights to remove it if they wish. The media is and will always be a double edged sword. We need the media for transparency, especially where vulnerable members of our society are abused under the veil of secrecy. We need to protect children from sex offenders as we know that they are likely to do it again.

Its not a normal crime, treating it so, only provides more loopholes these perpetrators can jump through. But the least we need right now is to know who these perpetrators are so that we can protect our children. In many other countries, parents are at least given that right. The right to know and prevent these abuses from occurring again. The right to be outraged when one is placed near a school or a daycare centre. The right to protect our children, our future is one that is universally agreed:

The fact not only is a man dying of liver cancer going to jail, but the fact that he is going to jail for doing something that is legal in many other countries and considered by most as a favour to the Australian community. The media has successfully smeared this act as though he is wrong for doing so. Yet it is bizarre that such a question is not being actively challenged.

NewsMaker - Men's Groups Attack Victims Protections

Page Views: 57

• Currently 5.0/5 Stars.
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Give this press release a star rating...

The ongoing challenge for advocates against violence towards women and children at every step has been from men's groups with the recurring rhetoric that women and children make false claims, that they somehow do not deserve these protections. Within the past year, there has been numerous reports validating the necessity of protecting victims post separation.

In particular, Dr Michael Flood has written extensively on the issue about these groups. He states, 'In large part due to publicity efforts by fathers' rights groups, an uncritical assumption that children's contact with both parents is necessary now pervades the courts and the media. In Australia, the Family Court's new principle of the "right to contact" is overriding its principle of the right to "safety from violence." In short, family law increasingly is being guided by two mistaken beliefs: that contact with both parents is in children's best interests in every case, and that a violent father is better than no father at all."

The influence of community attitudes survey revealed that the wider community believed women routinely make false allegations in custody cases, yet we have seen some horrific deaths as a result. A great deal of research has gone into studies on allegations in custody cases and a majority of these studies point to false allegations being a very small factor. It is far more rational to err on the side of protecting victims of family violence, than to err on the side of the perpetrator. The reason why this has become both a child protection and women's issue is because these two groups are the ones most adversely affected across the board in many empirical studies. Its an issue that can no longer be ignored.

One has to ask why these groups are fighting basic protections that is written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Like Climate change deniers, these groups continue to distort the pervasive issue of violence against women and children by using selective figures that support their rhetoric. Yet, Violence against women has been recognised globally affecting women across classes, cultures and races. Its rare to find research that supports otherwise and usually research supporting that is often linked to organisations advocating for these groups.

Family violence is a problem in our community that no government should condone and without the implementation of these laws. Forcing children to endure these situation by court order is not only condoning the violence, but becoming every perpetrators accomplice. For every victim enduring these circumstances, the experience is horrific.
When government engages in this form of systematic abuse, it is violating every victims human rights in many ways.

If all of the homicide victims of family violence were in one location, the figures would be beyond 9/11 and it would supersede as the greatest act of terrorism ever recorded. Family violence is also a silent genocide against women and children that is not raised as an issue enough, that is why it is crucial that these laws are not derailed by groups with a selfish agenda.

About Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate

The shared parenting debate examines issues affecting Australians within the family law system.

Melanie Smith
Ph: 0469622409
Mob:
URL: http://aspld.blogspot.com/
Email: smith@ssl-mail.com

Avoiding jury duty, violent crime, and dodgy NSW Courts.

This is a well constructed collection of injustices in courts including murders, rape and child abuse. It is not for the feint hearted, but it does pose a question:

What are we doing about our courts altogether?

Sometimes, its the criminal courts or the initial investigation that leads to later failure in the Family Courts. Because of the widely misconstrued sentiment that a child should be with the father no matter what, we have situations where police may avoid investigation or legal aid might be hesitant at providing funding or Judges might be more sympathetic despite evidence simply because the perpetrator abuses the name, "father". As much as there are mothers that also abuse this title, I draw attention to this simply because male perpetrators in statistics are much higher but because family violence has become part of the norm in Australia, little attention is paid to it. The criminal justice system certainly does have a lot to answer for and not just restricted to NSW, but everywhere. There must be more accountability and transparency to avoid practices where coercion, corruption and injustice occurs.

Review: Broken Bonds Catalysts For Family Disputes

Helen Gregory begins the article by summarizing the few public murders associated with Family courts omitting any reference whatsoever to data collected by the domestic violence homicide team or any other credible research.

She even went further to override consistent empirical research that supports that a majority of homicides linked to family court proceedings are not out of propriety, revenge or hatred. She refers to another male supremacy campaigner who also happens to a psychologist. Not a professor or a researcher, just a local psychologist prepared to support the same rhetoric.

He claims that the reason behind homicides is because men feel helpless, as though we should sympathize with the murderer above the murdered. It kind of brings a new meaning to the phrase, "The dead don't tell tales". Not only do they tell no tales, but the death they never wanted, brought shorter than the natural course but how it ended was all in vein. One can delve into politics, philosophy, science and introduce theories that become popular and novice in its own merit, but if its not logical - then its a complete waste of time. What is logical about comparing the value of a life over needing to hierarchy one mans urges over the plight of a child or mother whose life is at risk.

No different than the oil companies who hired people with a degree to battle in the academia arena a truth that was in plain sight: Climate Change. They were just as selective with statistics as these people are. It was quite a simple formula that kept the truth at bay for many years: Just provide data from five years instead of fifty and shout it out as loud as you can so that the truth cannot be heard. This is how these recent deaths occurred. Its because a bunch of abusers collaborated to fight for laws so that they can continue to abuse without challenge and anyone who knew would turn a blind eye. There is quite a history on these groups linking to actual abusers that have been found out and given that they wish to fight against laws that protect children from family violence, it is bizarre that three years later, they got exactly what they wanted at the cost of life.

Then there is Carl Boyd, a barrister who is stretching beyond his credentials in the realm of psychology, sociology and psychiatry to reaffirm the notion that parents kill due to lack of control. Its either Law Degrees are offering far more than promised these days or the writer was really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find a bunch of misogynist's who had some type of title. Any title, it seems - but wrong context. Let me repeat that phrase again, "Lack of control". How much power does one need? So, let me get this straight, should we sympathize with murders, simply because they were distressed? Never mind the turmoil their victims would have gone through until their last breath. I wonder if the last lingering thought of the children these fathers killed were, "Why daddy? Why did you do this?". You know they say that suicide is selfish, yet there is obviously not enough attributed to how selfish taking away another's life is. According to this article, we should feel sorry for them, forget the kids, give them what they wanted and pray that they don't kill the children because they began to want more or they had another urge. Boyd also claims that child homicides and familicide's are predictable, that they occur within 6 months to 1 year. Thats a dangerous assumption, considering that Arthur Freeman's killing took a lot longer than that and many other killings happened even up to seven years in the making after separation.

Greg Andresen, where do I start...this troll has been around attacking womens experience of domestic violence for years. Its not exactly an intelligent strategy, as you can quite clearly see that first he denies womens experience of violence and then goes on to purport that men are far more likely to be victimized. One only has to look at Mens health and realize that its nothing to do with mens health. Where is the information about prostate cancer or any other medical issues affecting men? Carl Boyd the camouflages the issue completely by stating that mothers making allegations of violence or child abuse as the issue. Whilst he uses the term "false", I am dubious on how a barrister with such emotive views tilted towards men would be able to reach a legible conclusion.

The article drags on to promote dad's in distress that has received yet another million dollars to fund unqualified counselors facilitating groups of men discussing child custody issues. Just as the shared parenting bill came into affect, family violence workers were instructed not to discuss any issues or grievances with their clients as it might be considered, "coaching". The reason why there are few groups supporting women going through the family court is because of section 121 of the Family Law act and a group is also considered a "public forum". One may wonder where the real bias is.

In no place in the article was there a consideration for the victims they blamed or the mothers they accused or any real credibility to the rhetoric.

Rating:

Propaganda Level: 100%

Misogynous level: 100%

Intelligence level: -0.05%

Best use for this article: kitty litter

Not the Family Courts Fault - No, that cannot be...

Any domestic violence expert or advocate would only need to take a two second glance at the latest articles on Kyla Rogers, to know that there must have been a family violence history leading up to this tragedy. Most murder suicides are. In light of sentencing Arthur Freeman, they thought they were able to close the book on family court triggered violence breaking out into the public and causing outrage - but here we are again. Its another one. I use to try and keep track of the murder suicides in US after family court, but there were too many. Anyone who attempts to will begin to pick up on the pattern. There is the traits of a family violence perpetrator; the control, the sense of propriety eg, "If I can't have them, no one will".

Its another growing story in the public realm that I am sure if Chief Justice Diana Bryant was to grace us with her opinion, we are most likely going to hear some sort of creative reason why this particular event was "rare" or "unforeseeable". Of course with all of the suppression with the courts room to pick and choose which stories they will allow the public to see, it may appear rare. Not to mention all of the trouble in disconnecting statistics derived from family violence homicide cases that were exacerbated by court orders. It is why during the Howard era, the only views that were heard on family courts were right wing male supremacists. Chief Justice Diana Bryant was elected during that era and whilst such figures are meant to be apolitical, she has been an outspoken supporter of these groups and said much that has trivialized and degraded the experience of family violence survivors. Why it might be unforeseeable for the Family Court is working from the mindset that all victims are liars and therefore should be punished if there is not enough evidence. The evidence that has been traditionally considered "enough" is often more than they require to convict someone for homicide in Australia. The stringent rules around what can be presented in court to "save paper", is so restricted that it is not until the final hearing that the survivor is allowed to speak. The affidavits are edited heavily with the advice of lawyers that are instructed to act impartial(which is often against) the survivor leaving most complaints of violence out. If it was a case funded by legal aid, then the survivor is not allowed to raise concerns at all. The laws also require survivors to provide their location at all times, leaving the victim wide open to danger. Any kind of protection such as intervention orders are often distorted in the court as attempting to stop contact. The culture of the family court is not just "unhelpful" towards victims, but against them with a vengeance.

Of course, there is the issue of accountability where these courts are not only violating childrens and womens human rights, but also working to conceal that they are. When there is lack of transparency in reporting in these cases, well..you know where it derives from.

Melanie Smith on Family Law Amendments

International Womens Day

Today marks the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day and I wonder why on earth we are celebrating it. Its become not a day where real action and insight is provoked on advancing the position for women, but a “show day” where we celebrate the few who were acknowledged as outstanding women. There are more women than I could count that deserve acknowledgement as outstanding. Perhaps those who knew how to create bombs and undo the ongoing oppression with terrorism could be acknowledged for choosing not to. Perhaps we can celebrate the fact that only three percent of corporate psychopaths are women. We could celebrate the fact that only a small portion of the female population are hired to kill people when their government orders it so. We can celebrate the fact that due to the fact that women make up a small portion of the worlds leaders, police force and military – we have not contributed greatly towards the ongoing hunger, corruption and violence.

But I do not celebrate women’s day as it was not really our day, but a “show day” where the male dominated media really celebrated how we really have no part in how society runs, there is no real place for us here – except to serve men. Occasionally, there might be women co hosts to compliment the ego of its host or a token women to participate on boards and the occasional female political women that is not really there to promote the rights of women, but for our entertainment. A way of saying, “No need to fight for women's rights, everything looks equal here”. I cannot help but know that the clothes I buy, the food I eat and the home I reside in is controlled, designed and made by men. It might be why our clothes are made not to last as long or provide adequate resistance to the weather and generally cost more than it does for men. It might be why we are constantly being told to “Loose weight” and become frail, because it “Looks good”. Good to whom? It might be why our homes are designed to feed into the ever consuming male dominated market that eats away at the life that surrounds us as we know it. It could be why there is a competition on which city has the worlds tallest building that strangely resemble the shapes of men's anatomy.

I cannot help but wonder what our world would really look like if women had equal participation and rights in society. I wonder whether women would have shot at children and a journalist in Iraq as though it were a game or whether women would be so eager to destroy marine wildlife to extract oil. In fact women have barely participated in the most destructive acts we hear about on the news everyday. It is not that we are angels, but there is a logical explanation. Our bodies are designed to give life and some of us do. For those of us who have, it seems an extraordinary waste to take life away when it takes so much effort to bring life into the world. In a world dominated by men, many mothers struggle to nurture life under harsh conditions like poverty, discrimination and violence. In fact that’s what most campaigns by women have been about – life. Before patriarchal religions took over, women were truly celebrated as they should be today, for creating and nurturing life. Then “God” took the credit and then it became a competition of whose man – god created life by ironically destroying it. Perhaps it should be written, “She giveth life, he taketh it away”. It would after all have been a bit more honest in how patterns have been woven post patriarchal religion.

If only it were as simple as, “You have your side of the planet and I'll have mine” and see which one does better. I wonder whether half the earth would be blown to bits. Then some survivor asking whether we could, “clean it up”. Because, it was after all, “our fault for leaving them”. I cannot help but wonder as to why our male leaders do not take responsibility for their actions or consequences of their decisions, why we who have little participation in some of the most important life and death decisions are often adversely affected by them. Why we are tortured by having to watch our children suffer. Why we even speak as though the problems of the world today as a consequence of action or inaction when women played and continue to play a very small part. Most of the achievers announced, did it for free. Yet with men's work, there is always a cost. A cost to the environment, our children’s future, to the animals that share this planet and most of all: life. I even wonder whether any increasing of women’s participation is only because men have lost the plot and as many of us are requested to “clean it up”. I therefore consider that in our world today, International Women's day is really a day of mourning. Mourning of what could have been before it got to this stage if women were allowed to equally participate in the last 100 years. Lets hope that the next 100 years are a little saner.

Violence and Control is Not The Way To My Heart

Murder Suicides, Mothers on the run and billions of dollars spent cleaning up the aftermath of family violence should be a lesson enough.

Not a lesson for those who are or have been victims of violence, but those who consider that this is the only way to coexist. Controlling another human being and using violence as a means to maintain it is not the way to love. This subject is often confused. I want to make it clear that this subject should never be confused.

Control is not love, its control - there is no argument to justify the means. Could you imagine if Romeo was controlling? Would Juliet love him if he was? Many have tried to distort the message from the heart of stopping both violence against women and child abuse. Its not about being against marriage or fatherhood, but being against the very action that causes mostly women and children harm. That is the control, the distorted perception that this is the only way to a women or childs heart. It is a complete lie.

When we care about our friends and family properly, we care for what they want to achieve in life. We may not choose to do the same things, but we care more for their happiness than anything. That's real love. Its what makes us better people for that. Putting the right things into perspective and respecting that they are a precious human life that may not fit into the perfect picture that we may have dreamed of, but that they are happy and life treats them well. That they are not harmed, that they are autonomous with the full potential to express themselves as an individual and we love them for that.

It is why there are creative events to highlight some of the beautiful aspects that were robbed from women during domestic violence such as "Dance Against Domestic Violence" or the infamous quilt that is on display every year at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference or beating hearts. Some of the phrases from survivors are consistent:

"I use to sing and everyone loved my voice, but he made me stop"

"He never let me dance"

"He tore up my drawings"

The very essence that makes a human being shine is dimmed over an emotion that should never be allowed to breed: Jealousy. The need to diminish what attracted him in the first place is what drives such acts. Some symbolise surviving domestic violence in the form of butterflies. As the old saying goes, "You cannot catch a butterfly". We admire the beauty and magnificence of such a creature from a distance is a perfect lesson. Catching a butterfly as we know, destroys it. The only way to be close to a butterfly is to be open to it landing on your hand and being gentle so not to cause harm. Whoever invented the phrase, "Gentleman" certainly had a wise idea in mind. The only problem is that the concept of "Gentleman" only seems to apply to first impressions, not everyday relationships. Perhaps living in a box shaped world of consumerism has dulled the senses in the way that we interact with each-other as human beings or that the overpopulated world might have taught some to respect each human less because there are too many.

Whatever the case, every human being is important and worth more than the prize of status or approval. Trophy wives, "seen but not heard" pretty children are and should remain a dark part of our human past as we evolve in a wiser mindset rising above the surface of superficialities. Those are things that never last.

But true love...well that is up to you.

Uniting Against Violence Towards Women And Children

One of our team members travelled across the pacific ocean to unite with other mothers at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference. On the spare of the moment, she stopped by at the UN and picked up a UN badge. She wore this badge at the conference, not to symbolise the UN, but a new uprising of a movement that is worldwide. Because this problem is a global one. Its not a "my country - your country" thing. Women and children are being affected by family violence everywhere. Sometimes incorporated or not, there is also child sexual abuse. All these, not only ignored by the system, but arrogantly disregarded with a menace to all those who dare to raise the need for protection as an issue. Its now been proved as a farce that family court cases consist of parents engaging in petty disputes. Some cases may be mistakenly reduced to that behind the scenes by lawyers constrained by Australian legal aids monopoly over the cases as to not raise violence or child abuse. Both are important. The reason why Americans use the word, "mother" is because its a strain of the violence against women disease that affects our planet and needs to be raised. If we raise just child abuse, then we lose the plot by forgetting that it is beyond preferable for the child to have a living mother to raise them.

The problem in Australia is not just about the courts, but also how we raise the issue and balancing the needs of all involved. There is sometimes a need to raise the issue where the mother is not fit, needing the child to be raised by another caregiver. This is not disputed by anyone. This does not mean that "mother" needs to be taken out of the equation. There is alot of mothers out there right now that are getting abused during handovers and this affects the children profoundly. We cannot ignore that. I keep asking people if they have met a women who has not been raped or beaten at least once in their lives. I am still looking. I believe that in Australia, that it must be more than one in three and that the government has been shirking its responsibility to protect these women because of the ambiguity. We cannot ignore the childrens mothers who are surviving violence. You cannot accuse them of not being child focused if they want to be free from violence. They need to be there intact for their children. There is simply no negotiation there. Whoever thought of taking battered mothers out of the equation was extremely ignorant and it is therefore no wonder the early Greeks considered that ignorance was evil. I do not agree with that, but I do agree that the outcome is evil. Its poor form to ignore anyone enduring any kind of suffering.

Mothers are say, alot better off than they were in the 1900's. but there is a long way to go before they are treated with as much dignity as the average human being. Single women escaping violence have an easier avenue than mothers as they do not have children that they care for and want to protect from the violence they know.

Forget Fathers rights arguments - they do not even make sense. Its not about fathers. Its not even about men. Its just about gratifying their fetish for abuse and control. Because of their threats, bullying behaviour - they got their way. The bad behaviour was sadly rewarded. Another poor form example of the Australian government. The problem for both is that apart of this movement are some of the most smartest people in the world are working everyday on this issue. They are from every pocket of expertise whom are also mothers too who know what is really happening. It is inevitable that by uniting as a global movement, laws will have to change everywhere, including treaties and the hague convention as this is a human rights issue and it must be addressed. Conservatives can simply brush this off as a cost that will inevitably bite back later as a long term debt of society as this effects every other part because this was not addressed now. A majority of mothers work and they work hard. Those who don't provide billions of dollars worth of unpaid work within their local schools that governments use as a long term tool to strengthen the economy. Without mothers, this economic wheel stops turning. It was foolish to believe that only men mattered above all, including children. Mental illness as a result of witnessing or being a victim of family violence is continually on the rise. If it were a stock, there would be some very rich people jumping up and down in wall street right now. This is because governments only distribute bandaid proposals without stitching up the gaping wound. Playing upon the factor of local popularity, but forgetting those silent but powerful voices who decide every election who can stop violence against women and children forever. Who is has the brightest ideas on how it can be done?

Relocation: The Path of Peace

In the wake of Human Rights day, many sentiments were shared about Family court ordered violence being a major issue. An issue that is rarely discussed is the more complex issue. For those who have lobbied for the recent changes wont be able to benefit from the protections available. "Family Law Act: Too Little, Too late" the title for Patricia Merkins article, is an understatement.

This is where victims of violence need the right to leave. The right to leave the state or sometimes the country they are in and convert contact in supervised visits over skype as what would have been offered for them if they had escaped post 2010 Family Law Amendments. The Hague convention, originally designed to stop perpetrators from abusing has now become a major tool to keep the victims within a range where they can continue the abuse.

There has been much controversy over addressing the issue on the freedom to roam and little room promoting the other basic human rights on "freedom to roam". International nomadic families is not only a phenomenon, but becoming a proven, healthy way of life. I have met children who are now adults who have spent their childhoods as nomads within the international realm and they are far more educated, cultured and wiser than those who are constrained to a suburb, just because a father demands it be that way. Why should nuclear families be the only ones privy to this existence?

Mothers, are the ones after all the ones that gave those children life. Mens groups, feminism and the rest have forgotten that fact alone. They use and particularly abuse the fact that there are a few mothers out there that are not mothers at all. Chemicals, disability or other factors have robbed the ability for some women to be able to connect with the very essence of what makes them a good mother. There is a natural instinct, no different from the results that were derived from twin studies that mothers do have a natural connection with their children. I state this important fact not to exclude others that are not mothers within this community, but to raise awareness that mothers are often placed at the last of the que when consideration is concerned. Even in psychiatric textbooks, mothers are the scapegoat of societies ills, they are the problem, the burden - but not realised that if treated properly, they are the cure. The problem is that mothers are the least listened to and considered amongst many subcultures as doormats for the abominations that people have chosen to become.

Thus, when the word, "Mother" arises, the ugly head of how every mother did not meet the pristine 15th century characterture on what mothers must be, what place within society they must be and how they must conform. There are too many ridiculous expectations on what a mother should be that have absolutely nothing to do with the raising of children. How a mother dresses has absolutely no impact on a child who is exposed to Kate Perry in her latest music video featuring all of the things young children are attracted to with the contrast of her naked body on a cloud and a gummy bear using the middle finger.

How could a mother or any parent for that matter compete with the foreboding irresponsibility of our leaders ignoring climate change or killing millions of civilians in war? The eight hours a day, five days a week of schooling indoctrination that our children to follow a state dying within a digitally globalist world? Mothers, have little influence on our children. They are already positioned within the media as an invisible member of the international community. When mothers needed help, it was the plight of fathers that were pedestaled before them and the only thing they ever wanted, was for them and their children to be safe. It is a request that should have never been difficult to ask of, yet one that has taken an enormous amount of time and effort.

Now, there still remains the problem where the families that have already exhausted family court avenues to stop violence against them and the children will continue to struggle. They are the ones that have been re-victimized by the court system, by the governments and by the general community - just for needing to be away from violence. Many argued that such acts were"maternal gatekeeping" or somehow an act of malevolence with little fact or explanation. Yet, when one of the most renown peaceful figures in the world were faced with the choice of fighting or flighting, they chose the most peaceful path and so the Dalai Lama left Tibet.

There is little refuge away from this within the current and future laws for these families. What can be done without little effort is to consider these cases properly as a necessity to grant relocation when they request for it. After all they have been through, both the children and mother can heal from their ordeal with a fresh start, new faces and a diverse learning experience that will equip them for life.

10 Reasons The Family Court is Not Just About Conflict

1. Family Violence is often referred as "High Conflict", "Entrenched Conflict" to mask the severity of the situation.

Mentioned in the latest report on Family Violence in Family Courts, high conflict has often been a tool to diminish support for victims within the media and inside the courts andwritten judgments.

For Instance, a judge referred to death threats, property damage and stalking towards the mother as, "High Conflict":

In assessing the probative value I have considered my finding that the father had slashed the tyre of Mr U’s car in the company of another person. Around the same time and in the circumstances of high conflict (the father attending at the mother’s place of work and the father threatening the mother at an intersection including the clear threat of cutting her throat) indicates that there is a tendency or coincidence such that the slashing of the tyres, scratching of the car and putting nails into the tyres of the mother’s car are so similar as to believe that some, if not all, of those events are related to the father’s ongoing stalking and terrorising the mother. I make this finding ignoring my subsequent findings in relation to the words asserted by Mr J in January 2009.

2. Family Violence is the core business of the Family Court

Originally a popular statement amongst legal professionals as a tool to brush off concerns as just allegations, has become the new spotlight on an old phrase. It use to be used to view all concerns as just court tactics in obtaining custody of children. Now, it is often used to highlight how courts have been profiting from extending the horror for victims of family violence. Originally re interpreted by an anonymous group of women writers, it has become a major point for reform.

3. Gender equality has not been reached within the international community, thus all conflicts are not born equal.

Whilst the advancement of women in public and political life has improved over time, most laws are developed within a male dominated setting. In theShared Parenting responsibility statistics, the family court decided that 31% of mothers were mentally ill and only 3% of fathers were mentally ill and not fit to see the children. Whereas, in the general population on statistics around that time, 22% of females and 20% of males were mentally ill. What a lot of people fail to note is that the family court is a slice of the general population and thus should provide results consistent to general population data. This is because, there is bias in diagnosis by court selected psychologists and psychiatrists. Parent Alienation, is a fictitious syndrome that has been used in court rooms in the US for many years and traveled to Australia in the 1980's. This syndrome is often used to divert the spotlight from the alleged perpetrator to the protective parent and diminish their concerns to something spiraling from mental illness. Once established in a Family Court report, its often very difficult to debunk because of its popularity amongst the pseudo - psy- legal community.

4. There is no separation of church and state in Family Law matters.

Family types that clash with religious groups in Australia are often single mothers, same sex couples and new age religious based families. The Family Council identified these groups as "opposing" groups when conducting a think-tank on lobbying for shared parenting. Their values, naturally excluded consideration of young people, women, same sex couples and even basic human rights. The motivation behind the laws were to reverse the right for women to; work, to abort, to leave domestic violence, to shield the children from abuse. Whilst the site is a radical example and one would assume no person with a rational mind would support this organisation, many of these values were reflected within laws surrounding their targets. This organisation whilst small, is still funded and active.

5. You cannot negotiate with a psycho.

Could you ever imagine a scenario where mediation would work with Ted Bundy and his only surviving victim? Or perhaps mediation between Ivan Milat and Paul Onions? There is a good reason why there is no mediation between them: You cannot negotiate with a psycho. The very thought of that is some kind of sick joke, yet at resolution dispute centers, they do this everyday.

In fact, Relationships Australia boasts that their mediators are specially trained in negotiating with psychos.

The victim of course has only two choices:

1. Negotiate with a psycho
2. Relive the whole experience under scrutiny in the Family Court.

This is why so many family violence cases ended in consent orders. Consent orders were such a wonderful blanket when the victim was murdered, that spokespeople had the opportunity to explain away that no-one is responsible except for the victim who "consented".

6. Family Court cases are in secret

Anyone who wants to take their case to the media, even when the only surviving child has died, must get the courts permission. Controversially, the most common excuse for the secrecy is to protect the children's names. The secrecy law however, does not reflect that and the practices are more consistent to "the best interests of the court".

This prevents public accountability and understanding of some of the issues that affect victims that go through the family court.

7. False allegations of Child Abuse are rare.

Even children know that child abuse is a serious matter and telling the truth about these things is really important. Despite this, on a community attitudes survey, it was found that half of the community believed that women make up stories of rape, violence and child abuse to gain custody of children. In one of the largest family court samples, findings not only debunked the myth that false allegations dominated family court proceedings, but also the myth that mothers were the main culprits. As little as 12%, were false allegations and most of them were fathers.

8. Its a human rights issue too.

Try to contact Amnesty International and they will tell you that they do not deal with family court cases. Try to contact the Australian Human Rights Commission and they will tell you that its out of jurisdiction. That does not mean its not a human rights issue. Many aspects of family court cases apply to human rights. In rare cases, the Australian Human Rights Commission have intervened, but not as often as they should. This is because the human rights violations are ambiguous in the family law realm. There are too many violations to list them all here, but one can peruse the declaration here. Below is the UN's report on Australia in the context of womens human rights:

9. Sometimes its a matter of life or death

Some victims thought they could survive by avoiding his anger and complying with the orders. Unfortunately, its deeper than that. Homicides relating to family violence is usually because the perpetrator sees the children and their mother as chattel rather than human beings. Just like an angry mechanic might damage a car for not doing what he wants, the perpetrator will find ways to punish them or adopt the, "If I can't have them, no-one will" attitude".

In a way, Family Violence is a silent genocide especially in the context that courts entrap victims from being able to escape the perpetrator and seek proper safety. They are forced to endure the trauma and some even learn that it was safer for the children to return to the relationship, because at least she could be there for them.

Without Family Courts forcing victims to remain in the residence that the perpetrator is aware of and bring the children to him unsupervised, I have no doubt that statistics in general for the years to come would be dramatically reduced. I have no doubt that the death rate would also be reduced significantly. There are so many murders relating to the family court, some reported and others where families endure the loss alone, unacknowledged for the severe violation that the courts orders caused.

10. Its about the children

As much as laws regarding children have been manipulated to serve the agendas of the courts revenue, the agenda of MRAs and the agenda of churches, it is still clearly reflecting the needs of children with the urgency that these situations outside of these courts warrant. Clearly, a man who beats a child's mother does not earn the title "father" in any way, shape or form. Some self proclaimed "experts" believe that they have the ability to play Russian roulette with children's lives by anticipating with little empirical foundation that somehow the father would not be violent to the child too. I have far more respect for the expert that honestly states, "I don't know" when they reach an area that is out of their league, than the one who is desperately career driven that they will make statements to please at all costs. These costs right now are lives and time is ticking away.

"More to be done" says Proffessor Elspeth McInnes

Nothing can be further from the truth, when Dr Elspeth McInnes writes her opinion on the experience of children and women enduring the family courts in Australia.

Dr Elspeth McInnes has been speaking about this long before many. Her patience and endurance over the years to continue to speak out against these atrocities needs to be commended.

It is sad that so many have ignored hers and others plights over the years and continue to see what they have wanted to see, instead of what is.

Safety first in family law is long overdue

By Elspeth McInnes - posted Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Sign Up for free e-mail updates!

---

---

Do you remember what you were doing when you heard the news that a man had thrown his four year old daughter , Darcey Freeman, off Westgate Bridge in Melbourne on January 30 2009? It was a shocking event which brought to a close a protracted custody dispute between the separated parents.

A week or two ago I attended a Family Relationships Services conference in Melbourne and had a chat with a Family Relationships Centre worker who commented that the death of Darcey Freeman in January 2009 had really shaken people up because "there was nothing to indicate it would happen".

I responded that the mother and her parents complained they had repeatedly raised concerns about violence before the killing but no-one in the system had taken notice. The worker gently shook her head at me "Nearly all the mothers complain about violence and abuse and we normally discount them. This case was no different."

Advertisement

This brief conversation again highlighted the difficulties which face mothers and children leaving violent and abusive men. Many are advised by state child protection workers that they will have their children taken into care if they stay living in a domestically violent relationship. Once they leave, the current family law system normally ensures that the children will have time in the care of the violent or abusive parent. The task of Family Relationship Centre workers and legal system professionals has been to get mothers to co-operate in handing their children into the care of abusive parents.

In our research into family violence and family law (Bagshaw, Brown, Wendt, Campbell, McInnes, Tinning, Batagol, Tyson, Baker and Fernandez-Arias 2010) many mothers reported they were advised not to raise allegations of violence in case they are seen as an "unfriendly" parent who would not foster a relationship between the child and the other parent. Mothers also reported being required to mediate with the other parent despite disclosing violence.

Mothers who refuse to comply with court orders are required to attend education programmes to make them comply, or face imprisonment and loss of care of the children. A small number of mothers with abusive ex-partners are imprisoned, some flee the country with their children and go into hiding, but most witness their children's injuries, hear their children's disclosures of abuse and hand their children over for more abuse by order of the court.

The Federal Attorney General, Robert McClelland has announced planned changes to Australia's Family Law Act to better support children's safety in family law. The key proposed changes include

• prioritising the safety of children ahead of a relationship with both parents;
• widening the definition of "family violence" and "abuse" to include a wider range of harmful conduct
• increasing the obligations of lawyers, family dispute resolution practitioners, family consultants and family counsellors to support children's safety in making parenting arrangements;
• improving courts' access to evidence of family violence and abuse; and
• making it easier for state and territory child protection authorities to participate in family law proceedings where appropriate.

These changes are significant improvements, but there is still more to be done. The current laws provide that children be protected from exposure to violence and abuse but research reveals that these measures are not effective because of the way the law is being implemented in Family Relationship Centres, in the Federal Magistrates Court and in the Family Court.

Advertisement

The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility remains in the Act and presents its own hurdle in determining risks to children's safety arising from violence and abuse. A safer option for children would be to adopt the New Zealand model of a rebuttable presumption of no contact where allegations of violence and abuse have been raised and substantiated on the balance of probabilities. Persons found to have used violence would have to show they were considered safe before contact was allowed.

Another problem is that whilst family law system professionals routinely discount disclosures of violence and abuse and construct children's best interests as a relationship with both parents, there will be continued judicial and practitioner resistance to prioritising safety from violence and abuse.

There needs to be compulsory training in family violence and child development for all family law system professionals making decisions or agreements involving children. There needs to be accountability for decisions which put parents and children in harm's way and statutory compensation available to those who are killed or injured as a result of family law rulings. There is an urgent need to prevent lawyers being able to select specific providers of family reports to support an outcome for their client.

There is now ample research to show that many Australian children have been seriously harmed and, in some cases killed, by a family law system that has prioritised children's relationship with dangerous parents ahead of their safety. Damage to infants' development and well-being has been established in research as a consequence of exposure to family violence and abuse, yet there remains an apparently enormous gap between court judgements and scientific knowledge that has somehow to be closed.

In a recent case a Family Court in Tasmania ruled that two primary school age children be in the unsupervised care of a domestically violent convicted child sex offender every second weekend and half the school holidays (Robins & Ruddock [2010] FamCA 35 (22 January 2010) .The court said the father had to have someone else stay over at night and put a lock on the children's bedroom door to keep them safe from the threat of his sexual activity.

Whilst Australian family law is capable of producing judgements where primary school age children are made to continually manage the threat of incestuous sexual abuse, a problem remains. The test of the changes to the law will be whether more children can grow up in safety from abusive parents.