"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

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

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

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

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

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.

Peace For Women and Children

So much has been written about what women and children don't want. The purposes of this article is to write about what we do want. Peace sometimes can be confused with passiveness. That is not real peace. Real peace is without oppression, hate and violence. If peace were an ideal, the declaration of human rights would not have been realised. It would have gone down in history as a collective"pipe dream". Awards for the nobel peace prize would never have been given. It is a reality that everyday, there are people working towards bringing out true peace to all people.

When we ask the courts to protect our children and ourselves from violence, we are asking for peace. Restraining orders are there for that purpose. Unfortunately, Family Court orders have overridden these orders and disturbed our journey for peace. The type of peace that the Family Court has asked of us is false. It is oppressive, hateful and violent towards us and our children. Living under these circumstances is intolerable and wrong. Our human rights are in most cases severely violated. Despite the great harm, no women and child on this earth has engaged in violent protest to stop it. This is because we believe in true peace. Some of us have taken the peaceful way out and left countries to find peace. We have in turn been hunted down as though we are some wild animal that threatens society with our freedom. This is not the case. It is a clear delusion that mothers who run with their children for these purposes are somehow an adversary to societies peace. There are at present few legal remedies to this situation that are not further detrimental to our cause. There is no justification that could disassemble our cause of peace, it is therefore rightful that leaders take up the opportunity to properly understand and implement a remedy.

Let mothers and children find peace where ever they may travel.

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.

"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

Getting Away With It

A man who the Family Court believed usually after their own expert reports, was fit to be a custodial father terrorized the children's maternal grandmother when the children didn't want to leave. He ran his car against the grandmother which pinned her against the fence, despite her granddaughter yelling out, "Daddy is trying to kill my grandmother, somebody please help her!".

The Ipswich district court sympathized with his defense barrister whom told the court that his emotions, "were running high that day". He has received a $5000 fine(bribe?) with no conviction recorded. Read the report here.

Meanwhile, Phil Cleary who wrote about cases where husbands got away with murder including his sister, was fined $600,000 for defamation by a defense lawyer. The Court staged a jury of six women to appear as though they are not against his stance on stopping violence against women. It could be argued and established that the barrister in fact defamed Mr Clearly by portraying him as an angry man. Read more from Phil Clearys website here.

The case itself is an outrage along with the outrages that continue to perpetuate the Australian law society. Mr Hore-Lacy, is a Senior council which puts the case very much out of proportion and potentially a perversion on the course of justice. There are no boundaries between Australian lawyers and judges as they party, eat and socialize together.

Particularly in Victoria, the judiciary is a male dominated culture with 78% of the bar consisting of men. Whilst men are encouraged to respect equality in the workplace, especially where it is dominated by one gender, women are subservient to men in the legal realm appear 13% of the time. Read more about women in Australian law here.

It is therefore no wonder Mr Cleary's case was so easily seen as defamation and crimes against women and children are treated so lightly.

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.

Family Law and Family Violence: Band-aid For A Gaping Wound

According to the Herald-Sun, the chief Justice of Australian Family Court has proposed changing laws on mediation privacy. The current reasonable grounds for a practitioner to even suspect child abuse reflects the ongoing negligence towards victims of family violence. In fact the law is more tailored towards protecting perpetrators.

67ZA Where member of the Court personnel, family counsellor, family dispute resolution practitioner or arbitrator suspects child abuse etc.

(3) If the person has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a child:

(a) has been ill treated, or is at risk of being ill treated; or

(b) has been exposed or subjected, or is at risk of being exposed or subjected, to behaviour which psychologically harms the child;

"Ill treated" is not defined in the current family law act. This opens the floodgates for pseudo-abuse allegations where a protective parent is deemed abusive for discontinuing visits with the perpetrator.

"Psychological harm" refers often to parent alienation syndrome - A diagnosis that has never been scientifically recognized and largely rejected by the scientific community. The DSM committee has just recently rejected another call for its inclusion. It is no wonder when the creator of this syndrome promoted pedophilia and other abuses whilst deemed the protective parent as unstable.

So Australian Family courts are directed to pursue and punish the abused, than to protect them. The transfer of information is rather more of a compilation of pseudo evidence against the parent who wishes to protect the child. This is in reality about the avoidance of accountability so that the victim will be so traumatized and and entrenched in the pro-abuse culture, that there is little chance the victim will take legal action against the court. Protective parents also bring in far more revenue than the abuser as they are more likely to continue litigation providing court staff with a guaranteed financial future at the expense of a few deaths.

If you want help stop abuse in the family courts, click here.

Born Again Father

Photo by flickrolf

An ex - mens group member speaks out.

When "John" loss contact he was devastated. He tried every avenue that was available to him with no success. "Joining mens groups seemed like the only thing I could do and feel as though I was doing something worthy". "John" attended meetings and reached out to others that felt the same pain. Some were still in mourning, while others channeled their anger into retribution.

After joining, his friends noticed that he started to change. " I knew him for years and I never saw him speak down to women, but after joining this mens group - he became irritable and domineering to our female friends". One day after a meeting, John bumped into a close female friend who was going through family violence and divorce. Despite being covered in bruises, he told her that she should return. "This was so unlike John, I had to do something", recalled his best friend.

His best friend who also wishes to be unnamed, took him to meet a member of cult survivors. Whilst the mens group that John had joined was not religious, it resembled somepolitical cults that alienated their members from the rest of the world. Divided between two perceptions of how he was influenced by this group, he decided to question the leader about some of the information he was giving to the members. That was when the trouble started. He began to receive threatening phone calls and was accused of being a "feminazi". "I had to pack up and leave". Gathering his possessions, he moved far away from where the group was based and started yet again.

With the support of his friends and professional counselling, John was able to start again. John felt that he didn't have enough room in his life for another relationship, but still felt a sense of emptiness. "Have you ever thought about fostering? There are lots of kids out there that would love to have a caring guy like you around?" suggested his counselor in their closing session. After screening and foster care training, John began taking kids in for respite care. He joined a carer network to swap strategies and connect with others who understood. He would care for young people who had no safe place to go and began to see them heal. After two years of being a respite foster carer, he has never looked back. "Its challenging, I have had holes in the walls and things go missing - but nothing compared to celebrating their achievements that we never even dreamed of when they started, worth more than gold".

If you would like to find out more about fostering children in Australia, click here.

Tony Abbott: The Marriage Mafia

The polls have gone up in support of Tony Abbott, a sign of a troubled country. If the Australian Labour Party was not so diluted on the shared parenting laws, Labour would be taking the lead far away from Abbott. So what are Tony Abbotts plans?

Tony Abbott wants to:

1. Make Divorce hard
2. Choose who gets married
3. Chastise Women
4. Stop Abortions

In general, Tony Abbott is referred to as a conservative. In reality, what he intends on imposing is authoritarian. Australian human rights will be at an all time low.

Some of the other atrocities Mr Abbott plans are:

1. Death Penalty
2. Runaway Greenhouse effect
3. Create more Slush Funds

Steven Fielding

Stephen fielding doesn't believe that everyone has the right to be married as basic human rights are set out. He believes that only heterosexual couples should be married. He has even compared gay marriage to incest. In case there are complaints, he is also one of the key ministers that has actively supported internet censorship. Senator Fielding was also a supporter of the shared parenting bill which resulted in thousands of children being exposed to family violence which was ordered by the Australian Family courts giving victims little escape. As for children of todays families having a future at all, Stephen fielding is also a climate change denier.

One shared parenting recipient used it to throw his daughter off the west gate bridge. Attempts to censor this case was foiled as worldwide coverage exposed tot he public that children were being forced by the courts into violent and dangerous situations.