"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

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.

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.

The Mothers Movement and Misconceptions

From the mens movement and even the judicial perspective, the mothers movement are radical feminists. Quotes about hating men, lyrics on a menocide and destroying fatherhood is the menacing picture painted from some groups when referring to the mothers movement and other groups that oppose child abuse. Radical feminism is sometimes defined as,

“The feminist point is that sex is central to women’s oppression. It is through heterosexual desire that women are fitted, and fit themselves, into their subordinate roles in relation to men… It is women’s lot to serve men, to see no alternative to their subordinate roles in relation to men, to gain access to ‘human’ status only through men, and to embrace that as their own identity.” - Denise Thompson, Radical Feminism Today

Many mothers in our circumstances are heterosexual and as much as we respect the work of feminists in general, its not something that a lot of us can relate to. Some of us have new partners, or on the dating scene. We are confronted with both positive and negative experiences. There has not been a women I have met in this movement that has not been able to recall a time in their life where they had a positive, respectful relationship with a man.

Where the mothers movement and feminism meet is upon the understanding that there is a lot of violence against women more than against men and in all too many cases, her only escape is the local morgue. Sadly, the efforts to stop violence against women rarely mention mothers who make up a majority of the statistics. Even the image of violence against women is abstract. It often depicts a single women, but rarely a mother having to endure this with children. In turn, the rest of the community are ignorant as to what actually happens to mothers with children in domestic violence, and sadly they endure the most. If she is able to leave and makes it to a refuge, the family court may view that as "instable" for the children. If she is suffering from trauma, she may be deemed unfit to care for them. If she was permanently disabled, she will be deemed unfit to care for them. What a lot of people don't know or even expect is that the children in most cases will be allocated to the man who destabilized, traumatized and disabled their mother. Most credible research on family violence proves that children are mentally impaired from witnessing it and in most cases they are likely to be subjected to it themselves.

As family violence began behind closed doors, it ends behind closed doors of the Australian

Family Court. Most cases expose children to ongoing violence and trauma without respect or consideration of children or mothers lives. Addressing these issues is the heart of the mothers movement. Its not about representing just mothers, but acknowledging all victims of family violence as a unit that needs to be protected. Their relationship that needs to be respected. When a mother becomes persistent at requesting protection, the courts interpret these actions as a challenge to their power and in turn deal harsh decisions where the mother is restricted to supervised visits whilst the perpetrator retains full custody of the child. These are the problems that the mothers movement seeks to address and something we have done mostly alone without the support of feminist groups and organisations. Alot of us have at least one male family member, sometimes a son that we deeply care about that assists us in reality checking as to whether we truly have stepped on other peoples rights in our course of actions.

Another myth is that because we champion mothers causes, is that we will help abusive mothers. This is where the mens movement continually fails. The whole reason why we do what we do is because we are deeply opposed to violence and child abuse, learning a mother has abused her child is just as abhorrent as any case and there are no excuses. Many of us who have struggled so much to protect our children cannot relate to women that have abused them. We are women who love our children very much and want nothing more than for them to live a life free from family violence.

So if you expected the mothers movement to be something else, I know you will be disappointed.

What About Melinda Stratton's side of the Story?

The news articles are flying in supporting a potential sexual abuser and claiming that Melinda Stratton is mentally ill. Mental illness is the only pathetic explanation as to why a business women would run away from everything that is familiar to her and Andrew. If there was a criminal background, it would be featured, but no Melinda Stratton has nothing but the opinion of a court ordered psych.

Ken Thompson has certainly been around pushing his views to all that challenge until most people just give in and say, "Oh...Um...yes, shes crazy and your not an abuser".

Note the word most. The exclusion is the community of REAL mothers and children who have been through this and know what Melinda has gone through. Lets face it, experts get paid for their opinion at the end of the day and I am sure some are willing to alter some to get a nice big payout at the end of the day. I place my bets on experience.

In Australia, we now have grown up children who have been forced by court order to stay with an abusive parent. No law is going to stop them from speaking out in the end as Australian jurisdiction only reaches so far.

How to break the silence...

We now have wikileaks, where you can submit your evidence anonymously and there is nothing that the family court can do. They would have to prove you submitted it, to warrant any court cases. Julian Assange might have been through his own battles as a father, but it doesn't make him a misogynist. he was on the run himself as a child from a psychopathic dad which neutralizes his view to warranting the need for protecting children.

Lets face it, the press is restricted to speaking for the court, not the children and sooner or later - its all going to come out. If you are considering submitting your evidence of abuse or murder in relation to the Family Court, read the instructions on how to submit anonymously and watch this video:

The Politics of Child Abuse

Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. 
-Albert Einstein 

If one were to summarise all abuse case outcomes, it would be factual to establish that child abuse is only recognised as criminal when it has not been perpetrated by the state or its actors.  

In both the child protection and the family court system, cases where the government is responsible for the abuse go unchallenged by the public and independent organisations.  This is because both laws surrounding children restrict publication.  The argument for restriction is that it "protects" the names of the children involved.  In ABCs Law Report titled "Restrictions on media coverage of child protection and family court matters", journalists raised cases where the child abuse was not being addressed.  The story with the cases and a variety of commentary provided an evidential backdrop on the reasons why suppressing deaths and abuse of children is not being protective.  It highlighted how the government had misused children's rights as a means to a political end.  

The inquiry into family law was purely based on politics as most of the submissions were from men's groups.  All of these groups requested laws aligned entirely with their own interests. When groups against child abuse began to appear regularly in the Australian media spotlight, men's groups responded with political blackmail:

I know that separated groups, fathers' groups in particular, shared parenting groups can conjure up over a million votes and that's something that I think the Government will take into account. - Michael Green

No doubt, that men's groups have influenced the general population to believe that men are far more disadvantaged than children and women, that their rights must be taken into consideration above all others.   This is reflected in the survey findings on community attitudes on violence against women.  Some members of society even believe that it is ok to rape.  It should not be a reason for politicians to see it as an opportunity to lower the rape law bar so that they can appease the growing population of rapists.  There needs to be a point where popularity is not the drive for our leaders.  

 

Posted via web from australiansharedparentingdebate's posterous

~ The Fine Art of Institutional Grooming ~

Institutional Grooming Defined and Explained

A lot of people will have heard of the term "grooming", but most will think of the term only as it is used in the context of child sexual abuse. What many people do not consider, is that grooming is an art that is practiced by most perpetrators of any kind of abuse, and, I believe, particularly by perpetrators of family violence.

It is not only a perpetrator's victims that are groomed (which would be considered emotional abuse), but the victims' family and friends, the perpetrator's own family and friends, and even public servants and medical professionals (in which case it is purposeful manipulation). The grooming of doctors, nurses, mental health carers, family support workers and other public servants is called "Institutional Grooming" and the perpetrator does it for the purpose of self-preservation.

The targets of Institutional Groomers may include their victim's General Practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, child health nurse, pediatrician, carers at a Family Day Care Facility, school teachers, counselors or therapists. The public servants targeted may be social workers, case workers, investigative officers or police officers employed by government departments such as the Department For Child Protection, the Police's Family Protection Unit and the Department for Community Development. When done with enough finesse to be successful, institutional grooming ensures that any complaints alleged about the perpetrator are either disregarded outright, doubted and therefore not investigated thoroughly, or if acted upon, subsequently dismissed in a court of law.

Why would a perpetrator go to such lengths to manipulate people other than their victims? Because when their victims, the victims' family and friends, and the public service networks intended to support their victims are groomed successfully, the investment of all that hard work does not go to waste - the victims are then still available to continue to abuse.

Some Thought Provoking Insights into a Victim's Reality

The scary thing about successful institutional grooming is that it substantially increases the harm done to the victims, not only because the abuse they face continues for longer, but because they lose their trust and faith in the world around them, in their family and friends, in the professional people who are meant to protect them, and most tragically, in themselves.

The things that are said and done to hurt and manipulate a victim only occur behind closed doors, and it can be very hard to remember exactly what was said or done, where, in which order and at what time, when your world feels like it is caving in. An abuser will jump on this uncertainty to highlight a victim's supposed insanity or make them seem dishonest, and to shift the focus away from his/her own appalling behavior.

Once a victim's memories of the abuse, the words said, things done and feelings felt during that abuse, have been twisted and distorted to deny, justify or excuse that abuse, one can understand why the victim begins to feel unsure about what really happened. Combine this with the common symptoms of complete and partial memory blocking and/or memory substitution in victims suffering from even mild cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and one can see how it can all combine to compound a victim’s confusion and distress, and deter them from objecting or trying to report it the next time it happens. One can also see how these factors can pervert the course of Justice.

Grooming by Perpetrators of Family Violence and Child Abuse

In the context of family violence, institutional grooming is done to discredit the non- perpetrating parent (who is often also a victim), and the effects of successful institutional grooming in these circumstances are almost always tragic. In best case scenarios, it can ensure debilitating emotional trauma and devastating long term consequences as the perpetrator is free to continue their abuse of both the child(ren) and the abused parent. In worst case scenarios, the results can be overwhelming, and may include horrific physical abuse, soul destroying sexual abuse or even premature death of the victim(s). The death of such victim(s) may be due to suicide, manslaughter, murder-suicide or violent murder. The most prevalent and obvious consequence however, is once again perversion of the course of Justice, and the undeniable failure of the Legal System's purpose.

Damned If You Do & Damned If You Don't

For clarification, consider this generalized example: If a mother seeks help with protecting her children in a situation where emotional and physical abuse of both herself and her children has already occurred, and/or where there has been inappropriate sexual talk and behavior in front of her children (that may or may not be sexual grooming), and the children have displayed signs that indicate possible sexual abuse (that may or may not have happened, and may or may not happen in the future), but where the perpetrator is skilled at the art of institutional grooming, that mother will often then be subjected to accusations of parental alienation and of perpetuating feelings of fear in her children. Instead of being taken seriously, she finds herself having to defend her actions and her parenting skills, and sometimes may even find herself being the one accused of abusing her children.

If she seeks legal advice, she is advised not to make an application to the Family Court because it is likely that any application will result in 50/50 shared care of the kids. Further more, she is informed that under current Family Law, if she makes any allegations of abuse that cannot be proven, she risks being found guilty of parental alienation and quite possibly faces losing her children to the perpetrator in the likely event that interim orders would award him full residency, and allow her only a couple of hours of supervised contact per fortnight, while her children are sent to live with their alleged abuser. She may also be required to pay the legal costs for both parties.

On the other hand, if she does not do anything about seeking help from the authorities, either because she has circumstantial evidence but no substantiated proof, and no other witnesses to testify on her behalf (her own testimony would be considered hearsay, and therefore discounted), or perhaps because she has been doubted and/or counter-accused before, then at some point in the future she may find herself being found guilty of neglecting her duty of care to her children, and face the prospect of losing her kids to foster care.

What Justice?

While I have no doubt that there are indeed parents out there who do not put the best interests of their children first, and who are in fact guilty of alienating their children against the other parent and perhaps even of fabricating false allegations of abuse, whether for revenge or some other reason, surely they must be the minority? Wouldn't the majority of parents want to put their kids first?

Further more, I ask this question: What about the mother who, in spite of her own abuse, subjugation and degradation, somehow finds the strength to trust her own intuition, and manages to intervene before her children become the victims of more serious physical abuse or devastating sexual abuse. Instead of being supported and respected for the strength she has shown in the face of her adversity, she is instead victimized, subdued and humiliated to an even greater extent. Where is the justice for mothers such as she? Instead she becomes a victim of the system, and so do her children. What happened to breaking the Cycle of Abuse?

A Society-Sized Cycle?

Has anybody even stopped to think that perhaps the term "cycle of abuse" now describes a far greater cycle of perpetual dysfunction than simply the personal relationships between perpetrators and their victims, a cycle that in fact occurs and continues on a much larger scale - one that encompasses modern society as a whole? I mean, who is more likely to be a liar? A victim or their perpetrator?

Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but in most cases, what would a victim get out of being a liar? Any parent who has suffered as a victim of family violence, then chosen to speak out against their family's abuser, and then been consistent in their commitment to the ongoing and endless process of attending appointments with social workers, lawyers, medical professionals, psychologists, counselors, art therapy and group therapy sessions (for both themselves and their children), would agree that the financial costs, physical energy requirements, mental strain and emotional drain of post traumatic abuse times could simply not be worth it.

Proactive parents who choose to engage in such an involved process, due to their genuine desire to heal their family's wounds, to protect their children from further harm, and to ensure a positive, healthy change in their life circumstances, will have often maintained such efforts for months before the matter is brought before the court, and they will have to maintain their efforts for many months or even years after the court makes final orders, even if orders are reasonably suitable.

In stark contrast, perpetrators who engage in such therapy will almost always only do so after being questioned about allegations of abuse, or in the weeks and days leading up to a court hearing. They only do so to preserve their false reputations, and their energetic last minute efforts will seldom last more than a few weeks past the need to be seen as the "poor victim" of a "vengeful" or "jealous" partner, rather than be exposed as the selfish, unrepentant perpetrators of abuse that they are.

Morality and Proactive Logic versus Passive Ignorance

I think that the Family Law Courts and some government departments are missing the whole point of what is in the best interests of the child. I am not saying that a perpetrator should be guilty until proven innocent, or punished without sufficient proof, but what is wrong with protecting our kids BEFORE they become victims? Why should the only evidence taken seriously enough to warrant supervised contact be substantiated proof of past abuse? Surely prevention is better than a cure?

They cannot say that the cost of supervised contact would be too great if they compare it to the long term costs of abuse to our society, considering how many victims of child abuse go on to have life long psychological problems, alcohol and other substance abuse issues, often grow up to become abusers themselves, or in some cases resort to suicide.

Considerations of a Responsible Government

The purpose of Family Law should be the protection of our children, who are not yet capable of making their own choices, rather than any irrationally perceived justice for those adults who have chosen not to take responsibility for the destructive effects of their abusive behavior, or the unjust persecution of those adults who are trying to shoulder responsibility for both their own and the abusive parents actions, by trying to fight a losing battle that must be fought if they are to honor the duty of care they have to their children.

It is essential that any reforms implemented as a result of the review of the 2006 Family Law Amendments (and any future changes) ensure there are no violations of the first and foremost Rights of our Children - their right to be protected from harm, and to live with out fear, in the warm, safe embrace of unconditional love.

Surely the Government can see the necessity of making well informed decisions regarding the specifics of any changes. Hopefully those responsible for making these decisions will question the effectiveness of a Justice System that only takes into account substantiated proof (scientific fact?) when making judgments that are guided by Laws which have been based on inductively reasoned generalizations drawn from the observation of limited numbers of specific instances (philosophical opinion?). Even the existence of the many heated debates over Australian Shared Parenting Laws highlights the fact that those generalizations were a misrepresentation of the prevailing truth.

The Laws that govern the Family Court System need to be decided by using deductive reasoning to draw valid, logical conclusions from the overwhelmingly substantial amount of relevant empirical evidence available, and most people would agree that those facts can be easily found in the historically prevalent and devastating long term effects observed in children who have witnessed and/or experienced any kind of abuse.

The proven reliability of empirical knowledge obtained by making specific, logical and valid deductions based on vast numbers of instances that demonstrate very clear and consistent long term trends is surely what is required to ensure that the changes made to Family Laws are effective. It is essential that once amended, Family Laws consistently achieve their purpose of effectively guiding judgments in those cases where in there is a need to protect children from a risk of probable future abuse but where most often there is no proof other than circumstantial evidence, victim testimony and professional opinion based on hearsay. It is the only viable path to follow if we are to build a Family Law System in which Justice will actually serve in the best interests of the child.

Once all that is achieved, time will confirm the truth and future generations will prosper from the positive, healthy, and wide spread evolution of our society. Their enlightenment will ensure that the wondrous gift of human morality will finally manifest in every aspect of society, propelling mankind into the peaceful bliss of a Golden Age filled with warmth, love and Light!

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

Child Abuse: Does Australia Really Take it Seriously?

The submissions for the shared parenting bill had many from mens groups that even doubled up in some cases, but also from child advocacy groups, womens groups that were rightfully concerned about the proposed changes.

The rates for child abuse in the past five years has tripled coinciding with the year Shared Parenting was introduced in Australia.

Five years on and children are in crisis. Over 15,000 Australian children are ordered contact where there is exposure to violence. With the recent hearing where a child was ordered contact with a registered sex offender, it is an outrage that the attorney general has decided not to change the laws. Just today, Australia's worst sex offender was reported to be on the run for the second time. The carelessness of security however was a tip of the iceberg. Raymond Warford was sentenced 2.5 years in 1994 for both child abduction and abuse. He was then released and abused again. The next sentence was for 18 months. It was then revealed that he had attacked a three year old boy twice of which he was sentenced for 5 years.

Is it speculative to conclude that Australian key stakeholders such as the judiciary, lawmakers and politicians don't care at all about children?