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.

Melanie Smith on Family Law Amendments

"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.

Zahra, the Libs and the family law changes: A Tale That Should Never Have Happened

Zahra, is unfortunately one of many children who died at the hands of decision that the family court made. From the late eighties when Ken Bryne introduced Gardner's concept of parent alienation deeming victims of violence and protective parents as "unfriendly parents" until now, so many women and children died at the hands of judges. Judges who were warned by experts in family violence of such grave consequences if they continued to ignore victims. Anyone with common sense would look no further than the collection of analysis on familicides to know that by ignoring victims of family violence is playing with lives.

In Australia, two generations of victims have grown up through the system where there are now parents facing the same system that abused them as a child, now plaguing their children. The system that had always had the power to protect, but failed to do so for the sake of a cheap and quick service. Thats right, the lives of Australian women and children have been hijacked in favor of a cheap and quick service that caters primarily for men. Bright futures that could have been the one who cured cancer, solved our environmental crisis or made some other wonderful contribution to our community was lost in favor of a "cheap and quick" service. We don't know what Zahra Baker, Darcey Freeman or those whom in death remain nameless could have done for Australia and the wider global community. Whether the parent is a mother or a father abusing, there are signs and symptoms that the family court have ignored, despite so many that have spelled it out.

A task that victims and survivors alike should never have had to do in Australia was to lobby for a protection that should never have been robbed from them. A basic human right:

Article 3.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Arguably, mens rights groups claimed that such acts were a "right", but not when they are disproportionate to children's and womens rights. These "rights" deprived both children and mothers of basic human rights. The situation was so appalling that it got a mention in a UN report against Australia.

The Family Law Amendment 2010 proposal is not only spot on, but it is vital not just in the value of life, but the value of Australia's future. The reason why Australia thrives is because so many of these women work hard to raise these children despite all odds and some of these children have made great contributions to the Australian community and the rest of the world.

Much anger, action and outrage has been raised about the deaths that occurred in 9/11, but if all of the deaths of women and children from family violence had occurred in one location - it would be the greatest act of terrorism in history. The question is why it is not as important, why action was not taken sooner and why women and children are continuing to endure abuse at the order of the family court or perhaps, "Her Majesties Pleasure".

The Australian Liberal Party, a rogue right wing cell that lost all meaning of "liberal"(except in global trade concepts), is beyond the phrase, "Out of touch" when they vow publicly to "fight" basic protection measures desperately needed for women and children. No matter how nicely put it, we all know now that its happening. It cannot be denied. there are too many that have been affected by these laws, too many that have been affected by child abuse and violence. Everyone knows and cares about at least someone that has gone through it and the campaigns simply spell it out.

As much as the liberals might have wet dreams about a totalitarian society like 1984, its just not going to happen. The mindset behind control was never an intelligent choice in the first place, it was nothing more than reviving the retro-thug from the dark ages. The art of surviving great challenges and pursuing noble endeavors is the only true intelligence and one that cannot be tested by academia, but of action and results within a collective sense of integrity.

If you wish to add your name to a historical change for the better, you can sign the petition here:

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/40638.html