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.