Australia's Family Court Triage System

We don't get much news on the Family Court because of the secrecy provisions. Few researchers are allowed access to court records. Fewer statistics are made publicly available and are often selective no different than the climate deniers research where years were purposely removed to convey propaganda. What we do know is that there is a very small portion of children being protected from child abuse and an even smaller portion of women protected from family violence. "No Contact" cases are as low as 6%, despite 98.5% of fatal crimes committed against children were by a family member.

The acknowledgement that violence against women is disproportionate to violence against men in intimate partner relationships, is outside the confines of the family law research community.

Fused with a male dominated court culture where women lawyers obtain few positions and opportunities to appear before the court, the culture creates an atmosphere of contempt for mothers and a proprietary view of children. The court deals with both property and children within the same venue as if there were little difference. Psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers are internal and external experts are dismissed as the court contains patriarchal views.

A paper called, "Bad Mothers and invisible fathers" is correct to challenge the courts ignorance and negligence towards children and mothers experiencing family violence. The last two reforms have only made these cases worse and the consequences less visible to a public that would challenge them. The hierarchy of priority in Family Court cases is clear within its judgements as it is in the picture this article accompanies. The most important thing to the courts is funding and this is reflected in the way its programs are presented. For instance, the Magellan program is renown for its "efficiency" in dealing with child abuse. In other words, like the federal magistrates court the focus is to cut as many corners as possible with more cases and the exorbitant amounts of money that accompanies it. There is of course a great need to ensure that there is adequate funding for necessary luxuries such as fine bone china that costs 60k alone. The next level of importance is to serve the gender that is more likely to preserve their expensive taste and of course the gender that a male dominated culture can understand and relate with. The angry men's groups rhetoric is well served amongst this culture and in fact the differences are only in the dressing up of the language.

The mothers and children are of course at the bottom of the family court food chain. If the child does not support the fathers wishes, then their voice is unheard. If the mother raises violence, her claims are often treated by the courts as a 'nuisance", rather than something to be aware of.

Despite consistent global research supporting the fact that child abuse and family violence allegations are mostly true, the family court treats every allegation as though it were false. Evidence is routinely overlooked, no matter what the members have gone through to acquire it and most disturbing is the restriction of children to have access to specialists that can determine either way. The court in fact refers to such investigations as, "medical abuse". It is beyond clear that there is a crisis in Australian Family Courts. It is obvious that key stakeholders must be proactive in changing the culture to provide a safer standard to both the children and mother who is enduring family violence.

When family violence occurs, the focus needs to ensure that all victims are safe from harm. This is the only circumstances where the child and the parents best interests should be considered on the same level. Finding ways to stop family violence in the therapy area, is the job of the therapists and simply making orders of contact for all but the perpetrator to endure is not going to make the problem go away. The choice to cease those behaviours is the choice of the perpetrator alone. All members of society have tried different antidotes to convince the perpetrator to cease the violence to no avail. Most of the time attempts that have involved continuing the relationship has only exacerbated the situation. The power to abuse is what needs to be removed and considering some of the positions perpetrator's pursue, it can be a very difficult task at that.

The Secrecy Law Scandal Part 2: The John Aster Files

In part one of the Secrecy Law Scandal, we revealed that John Aster had written publicly, "they had not found child porn in 9 years". We asked a question as to why such a statement would be made. In the chat box below, John Aster reveals how he was not only charged for child sex abuse images, but how the court allowed him to enter a plea bargain where he received no jail time:

Mr Aster has connected himself with Safer Family Law Campaigners and Mens Groups . He has started a few face-book groups designed to attract parents from both groups and offers to assist members often asking for court documents and copies of evidence from court cases. Evidential photos of child abuse often contain graphic images that may be misused by Mr Aster. After some parents received this information upon his disclosure and began to alert other parents, he proceeded to launched a disinformation campaign where he attacked the members of Mako for their campaigns in requesting the media releases on child predators:

Despite pleading guilty for having over 1500 images of child sexual abuse, John Aster not only has access to a child through the family court, but is able to effectively manipulate the community into believing he never participated in such an act. That he is a father that is, "falsely accused". The charge he refers to is on or about 2000. Last year an offence that matched his age, location and amount of images recovered was reported.

Australia currently has no public register of sex offenders, but many public campaigns to help the, "falsely accused". The closest thing to a sex offender register is mako and only cases that are leaked to the public make it into the registry. As demonstrated in, "Where do all of the perpetrators go?", Australia's sex offenders receive an average of 4-8 years jail time and their identities are protected. After that, they are released back into the community where they are most likely to re-offend.

Not only does the secrecy provisions of the Family Law Act protect the decisions of the court from public scrutiny combined with a closed sex offender registry, Australia has become a playground for sex offenders and a prison for children. It is therefore no wonder the laws we have today reflect the wishes of abusers.

There are 3000 children in the Australian sex industry(source).

700 paedophiles in Australia were identified(source).

Few sexual abuse cases make it to court, 95% of cases reported are not prosecuted(source).

Even fewer cases are acknowledged as a risk in the Family Court.

Court Like Communist China

Australians are well aware of Chinas censorship laws among other human rights atrocities committed in China. The Department primarily responsible for censorship in China is called, "Central Propaganda department". All information that is against Chinas communist beliefs are censored and those who speak out are persecuted for such actions.

As demonstrated in Samantha Gratwick's article, "The Secrecy Law Scandal" media that is aligned with the beliefs of the Australian Family Court is not restricted, but media that is against the Family Courts are censored and persecuted.

Amnesty International widely publicized a case where China had forcibly confined a blogger to a psychiatric institution for expressing opinions against the beliefs of communism.

In Australian Family Courts most cases where children have lost most or even all contact with their mothers is due to mental illness and reasons not specified:

In a thesis by Amanda Shea Hart, "Children Exposed To Domestic Violence: Whose 'Best Interests' in the Family Court?" are some disturbing revelations contrary to Chisholm findings. In the Chisolm report, he stated that no research has found a gender bias in family court proceedings and based a lot of his assumptions upon the Wingspread family violence conference, a conference highly recommended by mens groups. Her findings are consistent to anyone who takes the time out to read more than ten judgement of family court cases involving family violence. The following common statements are used towards mothers who raise abuse or family violence in Family Court proceedings:

The next are common statements about violent fathers effect on children after contact is forced upon the child:

Children who resist contact are also pathologised:

This is also consistent to global findings in other Family Courts that are often used as a platform for male hegemony and continuing the prevalence of violence against women and children. As demonstrated on the selective statistics provided on the family court page, where the mother does not consent she is less likely than the father to have contact with the children.

The Chisholm report did reveal that most consent cases were made under coercion and the family courts did overlook these cases. A recent news report recently demonstrated that mothers who raise child abuse were being unfairly labelled as mentally ill by the family court.

Where there is evidence of post traumatic stress disorder, the court is more likely to focus on the effectiveness of care that the victim could provide rather than what created the illness:

In a sense survivors of family violence are people who have experienced human rights violations and actively seek to defend human rights. The court in turn reacts as the Chinese government by suppressing and instigating further violations until the victim has accepted the violence and in compliance to the political doctrine. Whilst there are different levels of violations in both comparisons where both have produced extreme experiences, one is well known to the world as a violation, but the other remains unseen with a potential for ongoing danger if not properly addressed.

The Secrecy Law Scandal

Often when challenged about why the secrecy law is in place, the explanation from Australian Family Courts is to protect children's privacy. Australian Law, based upon English law often mirrors UK in legal matters. Naturally, Australian law mimicking UK law, will also mimic the adverse legal avenue where the Council of Europe found UK law to err on the side of bias when they ordered secrecy. UK was found to maintain secrecy, not to protect the children's identity, but to protect the evidence where they violated human rights from the public. This led to media reporting on UK Family Court proceeding including the revelation that a mother was ordered by the court to return to UK where she was murdered by her ex husband whom had made previous threats to kill.

Australian journalists have even spoken out on how the Australian Family Court has stopped journalists from reporting on cases even where children are dead:

Today Tonight producer stated that he had received jail threats over reporting cases where all members where anonymized.

So why do we see media reports on the family court?

In the case of Darcey Freeman, the reporting was so viral that it was reported in the UK and in US, which stretched out of the Family Courts jurisdiction and made such a lawsuit very expensive and ambiguous. Since the release of the above video, other journalists have been able to make anonymized reports on family violence cases without needing to seek the courts permission.

Beforehand, only stories that supported mens groups ideology where provided and reports that involved family violence were required to obtain permission from the courts. In fact three media reporters from three Australian leading newspapers who provided reports from the mens groups ideology where in fact mens rights advocates. It is therefore no wonder why the community attitudes on violence against women and children provided poor results. The belief that women raise violence in the family court to obtain custody is widely held:

Half of all respondents (49 percent)

believed that ‘women going through

custody battles often make up or

exaggerate claims of domestic

violence in order to improve their

case’, and only 28 percent disagreed. - page 8, Changing Attitudes Changing Cultures A National Survey on Community Attitudes to Violence against Women

It is a mystery as to why such a document is able to identify the members and explicit details of a family court case:

Draft)

It is a mystery as to why the details of the mother were revealed on the fathers facebook profile page whom has 672 friends with access to all of the court files that compliment his version of events.

He also identifies the child by providing the photos and the case information underneath. 672 friends can clearly identify the mother and the child, know who judged the case and the details of the case he believes supports his reason for custody. Where he is not identified, he proceeds to identify himself in the case:

It is also important to note that John appeals for his case as an injustice because(according to his account) he had not viewed child pornography for nine years:

The question remains unanswered to the public as to the other remaining years and what police reports was he referring to that he claimed to be untrue?

Then there are the abduction cases where the family court has a high number of fathers looking for mothers whom have absconded with the children. Research has noted that a high number of abduction cases are due to escaping domestic violence and the negligence of protection related to that area. Most abduction cases therefore produce a mens group style promotion, neglecting to add the part where child abuse was raised and not dealt properly dealt with. An excellent example is the case of Melinda Stratton and Ken Thompson. In the court ordered publication it warned anyone who recognized Melinda Stratton, "not to approach her as she might prove a danger to herself or her son". Unlike other family court releases, it did not specify a criminal or diagnosed mental health history. An aspect that would clearly be important to add when compelling the public to turn a mother and child into the police. It was later revealed that Melinda had run because of her concerns for Andrew Thompson and the courts inability to investigate child abuse. The court of course restrained the Australian from publishing most of the mothers accounts including the allegations that were made.

Professor Challenges courts behavior on child abuse

Professor Freda Briggs, challenged the courts on their reactions to child abuse with recent decisions resulting in sending children to abusers.

Professor labels courts ignorant and naïve

Posted Apr 12 2010, 07:43 PM by Lawyers Weekly

Child protection expert, Professor Freda Briggs, has slammed Australian courts for their ignorance and naivety in child sexual abuse cases, calling for statutory training of all family court judges and magistrates.

As a member of the National Council for Children Post-Separation (NCCPS) expert advisory panel, Briggs said Australian courts are now becoming renowned worldwide as turning a blind eye to paedophiles and child sexual abuse within the family.

She adds that, according to police experts, Australia's reputation for handing out soft sentences has resulted in paedophiles purposely travelling to Australia from other countries where they would face a 25 year sentence for a similar offence.

Expressing concern about Australia's approach to the issue of child protection, Briggs said there is an alarming lack of understanding and knowledge among family court judges and magistrates regarding child sexual abuse and its ramifications.

Briggs is concerned about the number of children who are being ordered by family court judges into residency or contact with parents who are acknowledged to be child sex offenders, placing the children atrisk of abuse.

According to Briggs, judges and magistrates need to be made aware, on a continuous basis, of the most recent research findings regarding child sexual offenders, their modus operandi and the effects of abuse on children.

Providing examples of how this lack of knowledge amongst the family courts of Australia has led to a number of offenders being given less than appropriate orders, Briggs quoted Californian Judge Peggy Fulton Hora, who recently expressed amazement that Australia does not impose mandatory training for newly appointed judges.

"The need for mandatory education has never been more obvious than in recent weeks. First, a family court judge in Tasmania thought it was appropriate to make little children responsible for their own protection from a convicted child sex offender who was acknowledged to be a risk.

"Seemingly the judge thought that daylight protects children from sexual abuse...Clearly this man needs to be educated about the grooming methods used by child sex offenders," Briggs said in a statement.

Giving other examples highlighting the need for training and education, Briggs emphasised that judges need to "learn about domestic violence and its effects on children's brain development" and that "only around 1.8 per cent of reported child sex offenders are convicted in this country".

Endorsing and supporting Briggs' concerns and calls for training, the NCCPS has asked for the AttorneyGeneral to address this issue immediately.

---

Filed under: child abuse, family courts

---

Related Articles

• Churches lobby against child victim time limits

---

Share

Del.icio.us Facebook Digg LinkedIn Mixx Yahoo! Newsvine

Shared Parenting: Isn't it a little dumb?

A hilarious, but provocative article was written about Australian Family Law reform. As they say, "All truth is made in jest". Its called, "Law Reform By The Frozen Chook", a title that surrounds Barry Williams of the Lone Fathers Association who claims that his wife hit him with a frozen chook. It is important to note that in the same breadth Mr William supported homicides committed by men. It highlights how the family law reforms have been made to accommodate myths that have no research to support them. In fact there is no link between the family court and absent fathers unless he has tried to kill the mother or the kid and even in those circumstances, they might get no over-nights or supervised access. To this day, these groups still attribute family violence to not having "shared parenting".

There are no real laws to protect children and parents from family violence in the family law act, but there are punishments for not being able to substantiate the abuse to the judges requirements of course. Considering the "Pub Law" article, it is sobering to learn that the shared parenting bill was established on the foundation of beer absorbed brain cells. It is after all puzzling to contemplate that if the mother does not do everything the ex wants, she is not complying to shared responsibility and must be punished by relinquishment of the time she spends with the children regardless of the quality of the care she may provide.

Now this doesn't sound like sharing at all. It sounds like the ownership of women and children even after the relinquishment of divorce. If it was truly about shared parenting then, both genders would be held accountable for their "shared responsibility" and if a parent was violent, then they are clearly not being a responsible parent and thus such "rights" do need to be relinquished.

But somehow those beer absorbed brain cells decided that even if they don't get the 3 when they try and add 1+1, they believe that if they continue to add it, they will eventually get that answer and every time they get 2 on the calculator, its a "sign" that they are close to finding 3.

"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

Melbourne's Future Terrorist Group is Back in Black

Whilst the counter terrorism community was focusing on militant jihad cells, overlook was the extreme right wing group, "Black Shirts" is back in the media spotlight.

State leaders and scholars have often struggled with defining terrorism. Australia has legally defined terrorism as the following:

In Australia, what constitutes an act of terrorism is defined in Commonwealth legislation. The Criminal Code Act 1995 states that a terrorist act means an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. Further, the Act states that 'the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:

i. coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or

ii. intimidating the public or a section of the public;

and where the action

(a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

(b) causes serious damage to property; or

(c) causes a person's death; or

(d) endangers a person's life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or

(e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or

(f) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to: (i) an information system; or (ii) a telecommunications system; or (iii) a financial system; or (iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or (v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or (vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system.

In 2002, before the inquiry into family law and the introduction of shared parenting the black shirts were in the media spotlight:

"The Blackshirts say that their only intention is to promote the sanctity of marriage, and they believe that to achieve this aim adultery should be punishable by death. Furthermore, they warn that if the law does not change they may resort to dragging adulterers from their homes and lynching them....Blackshirts, who must renounce any partner taken since the breakdown of their marriage, have picketed Melbourne's family law courts for more than a decade, but only in the past year have they begun going for people in their homes....Despite having three separate exclusion orders imposed on them, they are expanding beyond their Melbourne base, according to Mr Abbott, and expect to begin activities in every state of Australia within the next 12 months. They claim to have as many as 300 members" - David Fickling, The Guardian, Monday 26 August 2002

"A Melbourne grandmother today told a court of her absolute terror when a militant men's group demonstrated outside her daughter's suburban home last year.

The County Court heard how the Black shirts, dressed from head to toe in paramilitary style garb, staged a series of demonstrations outside two homes in East Doncaster in September and November last year." - Nick Lenaghan The Age August 6 2002

"Abbott says. "I'm very angry, but I don't yell. I just make a list of men and women to die."

The words are shocking, but Abbott does not seem to notice. He is consumed by what he sees as betrayal.

For Abbott, those who leave a marriage - and they are now mainly women - are evil." The Age December 20 2002

"Smiling as he walked from the court, the most extreme figure in the men's movement vowed to continue his vigilante action, and to launch a new political party. Despite looming prison time if he breaks the law in the next 18 months, Abbott said: "I'm not deterred in the least. It only strengthens my resolve." -By Peter Ellingsen The Age October 3, 2004

"I’ve received emails and seen public statements over the years by extremist white supremacists, ‘fathers-rights’ activists, gay-haters and anti-Muslim bigots all of which could be seen as ‘expressing support for politically motivated violence’.

This report confirms that the planned anti-terrorism laws are targeted fairly and squarely at Muslims, even though there has yet to be any explanation as to why the existing laws are inadequate. Inciting or planing violence is already an offence under the existing Criminal Code." Andrew Bartlett Bartlett's blog NOV 2, 2005

So what does it have to do with shared parenting? Everything. Lindsay Jackel is the Victorian state director.of the Shared Parenting Council, the owner of the alias Manumit and also a recruiter of the blackshirts:

____________________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Manumit Exchange [mailto:manumit@...]
Sent: 26 July 2002 17:41
To: Manumit Exchange
Cc: jeffface@...; fried@...
Subject: (AUS) Blackshirts


Some of you may have already heard a little about this group. Below is a
composite of various articles about the Blackshirt group in Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia, fwd fyi by way of background.

Additionally, several associated articles follow, and are in turn followed
by various commentary.

The group is organised and in your face. They are Dads who have lost
everything, have received no justice or fairness at the hand of a feminist
(family and magistrates) court and legal (government) system (when they
were taught in school that they would if innocent), have nothing to lose
and are frustrated and angry. Their hopelessness has turned to despair and
to depression. The Blackshirts offers them community and hope.

John Abbott, their leader, is known to me. He is both angry and committed.
He will not be deterred and, if necessary, will no doubt be prepared to be
a "martyr" to the cause.

---

Victoria is a southern state of Australia.
Melbourne is the capital city of Victoria.

_________________________________________________________________

After they caused terror into the lives of women, children and the elderly, they seized the moment by establishing a non profit organization no different to the non profit organisations that funded militant Islam, now black listed.

Amongst the mountains of commentary on the behavior of terrorists, many concur that targets are usually unprotected and easy. It is well established within the history of war strategies, that by targeting non-combative civilians mostly women and children provides a greater impact in their goals to instill widespread fear and traumatic impact.

Under the Howard government, the black-shirt leaders and members were gratified and rewarded for their acts and overlooked as terrorist despite many commentators struggling to define the variance. After the 9/11 attacks, state leaders have learned some very hard lessons about diluting the term and using it for political gain. It was only because, the previous prime minister was aligned with similar beliefs and values that this group was able to run riot on women and children, disseminate nearly all of the few protections available for the abused and even sabotage the humane culture that Australian society has taken so long to grasp.

Pedophile Haven or Family Court?

News.com.au, have done Australians proud for revealing this to the media. The family Court laws prevent disclosure of the abuse against children, but this journalist was courageous enough to reveal the true status of children under these orders.

Outside of the Family Court, a child care center manager would be jailed for negligence if they provided anywhere similar to the dodgy family court operations that continue to promote abuse and suppress the outcries.

Girls ordered to spend weekends with sex offender father

• From:The Australian
• March 14, 2010 10:22pm
• 178 comments

• Increase Text Size
• Decrease Text Size
• Print
• Email
• Share

• Judge says girls need protection at night
• Eldest is afraid to stay overnight at father's
• Man was convicted of child porn offences

A COURT has ordered two young girls to spend weekends with their sex offender father provided he puts a door on their bedroom they can lock.

Judge Robert Benjamin, in the Family Court's Hobart branch, ruled that the girls "need some protection from (their father), particularly at night".

However, the risk of sexual abuse was "diminished when they are awake and alert".

Judge Benjamin said that the father, who was convicted of downloading child pornography, must have an "adult friend" stay with him when the girls stayed overnight.

He added that until the youngest turned 14, the girls must "share the same room so they can have the mutual support of one another".

A Family Court counsellor said that the girls, aged ten and eight, "are at an age and maturity when awake, dressed and together it would be unlikely the father would act inappropriately toward them".

Read full story