My letter to The Age:
Polygraphs to fast-track
So child abuse claims (Oct 19) are being fast-tracked by the (dinosaur) Family Court system ? I don't call a six-month wait "fast". We are talking about child abuse here. And in many cases we are also talking about parental alienation.
A judge anonymously admits cutting contact between the child and accused parent damages their relationship. Why didn't this judge speak up earlier, and why don't they have the courage to identify themselves ?
In my experience, that only 1-2% of claims are deliberately false is hard to believe. Maybe there is a large percentage of "mistakenly false" ?
Why not offer polygraph testing for those accused so the matter can be potentially dealt with in a matter of days, not months !
Geoff Holland
Cairns
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/child-abuse-claims-get-fairer-look/2007/10/18/1192300954597.html
The Age (Melbourne)
19 October 2007
Child abuse claims get fairer look
By Karen Kissane
The Family Court's new system for dealing with claims of physical or sexual abuse of children is faster and fairer than the previous one but still needs improvement, according to research released today by the court and the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Previously, such cases often took more than 12 months, and it was up to the parent making the allegations to try to prove the case. Often the court's decisions were made in a "factual vacuum" because no independent investigation was made into the claims and judges simply had to decide which parent to believe, the research reported.
But a new system introduced in most parts of Australia from 2003 has led to most cases being decided in just over six months.
Decisions are also better-informed because child-protection agencies now investigate and assess the claims, according to the report Co-operation and Co-ordination: An evaluation of the Family Court of Australia's Magellan case-management model.
The report's author, AIFS researcher Dr Daryl Higgins, said yesterday that protective services now reported to the court on their investigation within six weeks of the allegations being filed. This gave both parents an early sense of the strength of the evidence.
He said the Magellan system was a world-first in terms of the way the court and protective services worked together. This was needed because "it's the court's job to decide parenting matters, not conduct investigations".
Disputes involving child abuse claims are estimated to make up only 2 to 6 per cent of Family Court cases overall but about 23 per cent of hotly contested cases. Earlier research found that allegations considered to be deliberately false were not common (1 to 2 per cent).
This study compared 80 families who went through the new system with 80 families under the old system. The largest group of alleged perpetrators in both was fathers (65 per cent of the new group and 59 per cent of the old), followed by mothers (19 per cent of the new and 26 per cent of the old).
A judge quoted anonymously in the report said that under the old system, cases had always taken a long time to get to hearing and judges had had to err on the side of caution in the meantime, restricting the accused parent's relationship with the child. "The interruption to the relationship … would go on for many, many months or years … In many cases it was found that those allegations were without basis, and the families were left trying to restore a relationship … that had probably been damaged."
The report said earlier research had found that many professionals believed that child-abuse allegations made during family breakdown were not to be taken seriously because they were just another weapon manufactured for use in the marital dispute. Dr Higgins said his study found no such attitude among those working with the Magellan system. His report recommended more training on the system for court staff, lawyers, protective services workers and police, and that the system's approach be applied more consistently.
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/
http://www.aifs.gov.au/http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/magellan/index.html
Cooperation and coordination: An evaluation of the Family Court ofAustralia's Magellan case-management modelBy Daryl Higgins (author)Full Report (1.5MB PDF)http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/magellan/magellan.pdf
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Case #001
Case #001 2004-?
Psychologist Simon Kennedy; Registrar Fitzgibbon; Justice Dessau; Justice Peter Young
Separated Sept 2004.
Intervention order sought by my ex-partner and granted. Naturally, no evidence of any wrongdoing, criminal behaviour or threats was supplied. It was a custody strategy.
After a no contact period of five months, psychologist Simon Kennedy "grants" me nine hours a week with children for 12 months (following ridiculous "supervised access" for 6-8 weeks).
Kennedy's report is littered with errors, wild assumptions, sequence of events back to front etc to prop up his assumptions etc. It looked as though he'd whipped it up in 20 minutes.
At no stage during his three reports, has he acknowledged any of the six eye-witness affidavits I supplied. Every other affidavit is detailed as having been read, but not six on my behalf ! Coincidentally, they all vehemently contradict most of his assumptions and premises.
At a second meeting with him six months later, I vented my righteous indignation at his role in removing my children. I also refused to go back for a third appointment.
He predictably marked me down as unstable and "narcissistic" and recommended cutting children's access to their father from 9 hours a week to 9 hours a month.
After reading this rubbish, my ex-partner suddenly stopped handing the children over for their nine hours a week.
At what was meant to be a Final Hearing in Feb 2006, a barrister then said we must combat this report and get another one done. He organized more "family therapy" for 14 days time in my presence in the Family Court.
He presented me with a piece of paper to sign, which stipulated
1. More "therapy" (with psychologist named Papaleo)
2. Anger Management course
3. No contact in the meantime.
I was horrified with what was presented to me but was told it was what the Child Lawyer was insisting upon. The Child Lawyer later denied it and reasoned I could put up with it for another fortnight. Little did I know.
Papaleo then refused to do the therapy and passed us on to someone else who also refused to do it. I think they realized that there was no money to be had from the hapless parents.
Three months later we went back to court to report on progress. There had been none and Child Lawyer said therapy was proving difficult to organize but he'd organized a couple of possibilities.
I had a coffee with him afterwards and he said:
1. He was in favour of access and
2. He was surprised I'd signed the "no contact" clause!
I was shocked to say the least.
He also said he wasn't too fussed who did the therapy. I requested a David Bruce or George Storey but he didn't do anything to contact them. Rather he told me Bruce had retired and wouldn't do it. This was on the same day as Bruce spoke to me personally and assured me he'd do it.
I wasn't too bothered at this stage if we were transferred to the public system as I couldn't afford to pay some expensive private psychologist for a second time after Kennedy had charged exhorbitant fees the first time round.
After six months and still no "therapy" had been organized. I sought new orders. Registrar Fitzgibbon knocked me back, despite the Child Lawyer supporting my application.
Got told to go off and do my Anger Management etc etc. This I did.
I was eventually directed to see a counsellor who'd never done Family Court work before. My ex-partner saw him once and refused to continue. The Child Lawyer later interpreted the breakdown of therapy as due to my non-cooperation!
I sought new orders and this time the Child Lawyer changed his tune and opposed my application.
Once again, Registrar Fitzgibbon knocked me back, this time awarding costs of $2800 to my ex-partner. We went back to court sometime in 2006 only to be told we needed another report!
I refused to see Kennedy again so the Judge (Dessau) shunted us off to a Family Court social worker.
At all these interviews, I was being told my children were terrified of me. Needless to say, they never used to be and I attempted to show them vox pop videos the children had made in my company during their 9 hour regime in 2005. It showed them acting the goat, and taking the piss out of me - a normal everyday occurrence. Strangely enough, no one wanted to look at them.The next Final Hearing was set down for Feb 07.
The social worker's "report" came out and recommended absolutely no contact and insisted I have intensive therapy.
In October 2006 acting on legal advice, I sought out another psychologist familiar with PAS. A legal aid hack read Kennedy's reports and said it would come down to a battle of the "experts" and to enlist mine, which I did.I started seeing Wendy Northey, who informed me I was the third person she'd enlisted as a client as a result of no contact recommendations by Kennedy.
Anyway, she persuaded me to take an MMPI-2 test (industry acknowledged apparently) and amazingly, it showed no grounds for concern.
She did an affidavit, and lodged the results to the court in about December 2006.Come the Final Hearing in February 07, the social worker's wife died and he couldn't appear, so it was adjourned until May 07. I requested it be heard immediately but Justice Peter Young insisted the social worker would need to be cross examined, so he adjourned it until May 07. A request for contact to be resumed in the meantime was refused.
In the meantime, he ordered the three "experts" to get together and see what they could come up with. They could reach no agreement, with the two of them wanting "more therapy" and Wendy Northey saying it was ridiculous. She later told me she found their meeting rather disturbing and that in her opinion it was apparent they were both on some kind of power trip.
The Child Lawyer then wrote his recommendations, saying in his opinion the Final Hearing was a waste of time as the experts "were unanimous" that more therapy was required. Not true but that didn't seem to worry him. In actual fact, the "expert" who tested me, insisted that a hearing was the only solution.
The judge allowed myself and my ex-partner to give evidence-in-chief (gentle questions from own side) and then called in the "experts" for much of the same.
My solicitor was expressly forbidden from cross-examining the psychologist or social worker and yet when my "expert" gave evidence, my ex-partner's barrister tore strips off her.
The Child Barrister at one stage leant over to my solicitor and whispered: "There are your grounds for appeal" over the no-cross examination bit.
The result was that no witnesses were called and there was no Final Hearing. The two court-appointed "experts'" advice was accepted, with the Judge making great play of the fact that in their opinion, there was not a "scintilla" of evidence supporting the existence of PAS.
The judge refused to view the videos made by the children.
He made the quite remarkable comment that: "No one is denying there were some good times, but it is the bad times the mother is worried about."
I was instructed to get more therapy and report back in September 07. I did go and see a therapist once but he refused to bulk bill so I didn't bother pursuing it. In August we were told to go back and see the social worker. I told the social worker what I thought of him.
Needless to say, his next report had the children "wanting to move on", "get closure" and not wanting to see their father. He magnanimously thought I may communicate via letter but the police threaten to prosecute me again for breach of Intervention Orders if I do. In September 07, my ex-partner and Child Lawyer opposed my application for contact - all this without any cross examination of experts or calling of witnesses.
I told the judge that I couldn't afford more "therapy" as they wouldn't bulk bill.He told me to go off and find someone who would bulk bill and get another report done, adjourning the next hearing until March 07.
I pointed out to him that a report had already been done nine months previously.
He made a few remarks about "time moving on, out of date, children's best interests" etc etc and get another one.
I said the only reason time was moving on, was he kept refusing to have a hearing !
I've since been told that no psychologist will bulk bill a Family Report. Between the May and September hearing, I spent four days in jail after being grabbed by the police for watching my son play football.
I received a suspended sentence of one month last week for watching my son play football and later talking to him.
One of the conditions of my "bail" was to be clinically assessed by a particular forensic psychologist. In his assessment, apart from criticising me for being sarcastic and angry, he did mention I didn't need "therapy".
As far as I'm concerned, his letter will suffice for the ordered report for the next Family Court hearing in March 08, by which time my three children won't have seen their father for 26 months.
In a nutshell, three children have lost a father because of my failure to pay obeisance to a psychologist and a social worker.
People, these are the hallmarks of Totalitarianism.
Ideological warriors, with the help of feminists jurisprudence, take it upon themselves to remove blameless fathers from their children's lives.
There is no due process whatsoever.
As Baskerville says, these secret courts are an affront to democratic constitutions and an insult to our countrymen who died defending our freedoms.
It is a judicial reign of terror imposed on law-abiding citizens for ideological reasons.
There can be no justice done by secret courts.
They were used by the French Revolutionaries and also the Communists in Russia in 1917. In fact every totalitarian regime that there ever was, has recourse to secret courts.
It is ridiculous that we should have to lobby politicians to let us see our children.
What right has the state to interfere into the realms of the family? None at all.
The family is the only bulwark against the ravages of the state. Remove the father and the state controls that family.
It all gets back to unwarranted power being assumed by people who shouldn't have this power in a democracy.
Psychologist Simon Kennedy; Registrar Fitzgibbon; Justice Dessau; Justice Peter Young
Separated Sept 2004.
Intervention order sought by my ex-partner and granted. Naturally, no evidence of any wrongdoing, criminal behaviour or threats was supplied. It was a custody strategy.
After a no contact period of five months, psychologist Simon Kennedy "grants" me nine hours a week with children for 12 months (following ridiculous "supervised access" for 6-8 weeks).
Kennedy's report is littered with errors, wild assumptions, sequence of events back to front etc to prop up his assumptions etc. It looked as though he'd whipped it up in 20 minutes.
At no stage during his three reports, has he acknowledged any of the six eye-witness affidavits I supplied. Every other affidavit is detailed as having been read, but not six on my behalf ! Coincidentally, they all vehemently contradict most of his assumptions and premises.
At a second meeting with him six months later, I vented my righteous indignation at his role in removing my children. I also refused to go back for a third appointment.
He predictably marked me down as unstable and "narcissistic" and recommended cutting children's access to their father from 9 hours a week to 9 hours a month.
After reading this rubbish, my ex-partner suddenly stopped handing the children over for their nine hours a week.
At what was meant to be a Final Hearing in Feb 2006, a barrister then said we must combat this report and get another one done. He organized more "family therapy" for 14 days time in my presence in the Family Court.
He presented me with a piece of paper to sign, which stipulated
1. More "therapy" (with psychologist named Papaleo)
2. Anger Management course
3. No contact in the meantime.
I was horrified with what was presented to me but was told it was what the Child Lawyer was insisting upon. The Child Lawyer later denied it and reasoned I could put up with it for another fortnight. Little did I know.
Papaleo then refused to do the therapy and passed us on to someone else who also refused to do it. I think they realized that there was no money to be had from the hapless parents.
Three months later we went back to court to report on progress. There had been none and Child Lawyer said therapy was proving difficult to organize but he'd organized a couple of possibilities.
I had a coffee with him afterwards and he said:
1. He was in favour of access and
2. He was surprised I'd signed the "no contact" clause!
I was shocked to say the least.
He also said he wasn't too fussed who did the therapy. I requested a David Bruce or George Storey but he didn't do anything to contact them. Rather he told me Bruce had retired and wouldn't do it. This was on the same day as Bruce spoke to me personally and assured me he'd do it.
I wasn't too bothered at this stage if we were transferred to the public system as I couldn't afford to pay some expensive private psychologist for a second time after Kennedy had charged exhorbitant fees the first time round.
After six months and still no "therapy" had been organized. I sought new orders. Registrar Fitzgibbon knocked me back, despite the Child Lawyer supporting my application.
Got told to go off and do my Anger Management etc etc. This I did.
I was eventually directed to see a counsellor who'd never done Family Court work before. My ex-partner saw him once and refused to continue. The Child Lawyer later interpreted the breakdown of therapy as due to my non-cooperation!
I sought new orders and this time the Child Lawyer changed his tune and opposed my application.
Once again, Registrar Fitzgibbon knocked me back, this time awarding costs of $2800 to my ex-partner. We went back to court sometime in 2006 only to be told we needed another report!
I refused to see Kennedy again so the Judge (Dessau) shunted us off to a Family Court social worker.
At all these interviews, I was being told my children were terrified of me. Needless to say, they never used to be and I attempted to show them vox pop videos the children had made in my company during their 9 hour regime in 2005. It showed them acting the goat, and taking the piss out of me - a normal everyday occurrence. Strangely enough, no one wanted to look at them.The next Final Hearing was set down for Feb 07.
The social worker's "report" came out and recommended absolutely no contact and insisted I have intensive therapy.
In October 2006 acting on legal advice, I sought out another psychologist familiar with PAS. A legal aid hack read Kennedy's reports and said it would come down to a battle of the "experts" and to enlist mine, which I did.I started seeing Wendy Northey, who informed me I was the third person she'd enlisted as a client as a result of no contact recommendations by Kennedy.
Anyway, she persuaded me to take an MMPI-2 test (industry acknowledged apparently) and amazingly, it showed no grounds for concern.
She did an affidavit, and lodged the results to the court in about December 2006.Come the Final Hearing in February 07, the social worker's wife died and he couldn't appear, so it was adjourned until May 07. I requested it be heard immediately but Justice Peter Young insisted the social worker would need to be cross examined, so he adjourned it until May 07. A request for contact to be resumed in the meantime was refused.
In the meantime, he ordered the three "experts" to get together and see what they could come up with. They could reach no agreement, with the two of them wanting "more therapy" and Wendy Northey saying it was ridiculous. She later told me she found their meeting rather disturbing and that in her opinion it was apparent they were both on some kind of power trip.
The Child Lawyer then wrote his recommendations, saying in his opinion the Final Hearing was a waste of time as the experts "were unanimous" that more therapy was required. Not true but that didn't seem to worry him. In actual fact, the "expert" who tested me, insisted that a hearing was the only solution.
The judge allowed myself and my ex-partner to give evidence-in-chief (gentle questions from own side) and then called in the "experts" for much of the same.
My solicitor was expressly forbidden from cross-examining the psychologist or social worker and yet when my "expert" gave evidence, my ex-partner's barrister tore strips off her.
The Child Barrister at one stage leant over to my solicitor and whispered: "There are your grounds for appeal" over the no-cross examination bit.
The result was that no witnesses were called and there was no Final Hearing. The two court-appointed "experts'" advice was accepted, with the Judge making great play of the fact that in their opinion, there was not a "scintilla" of evidence supporting the existence of PAS.
The judge refused to view the videos made by the children.
He made the quite remarkable comment that: "No one is denying there were some good times, but it is the bad times the mother is worried about."
I was instructed to get more therapy and report back in September 07. I did go and see a therapist once but he refused to bulk bill so I didn't bother pursuing it. In August we were told to go back and see the social worker. I told the social worker what I thought of him.
Needless to say, his next report had the children "wanting to move on", "get closure" and not wanting to see their father. He magnanimously thought I may communicate via letter but the police threaten to prosecute me again for breach of Intervention Orders if I do. In September 07, my ex-partner and Child Lawyer opposed my application for contact - all this without any cross examination of experts or calling of witnesses.
I told the judge that I couldn't afford more "therapy" as they wouldn't bulk bill.He told me to go off and find someone who would bulk bill and get another report done, adjourning the next hearing until March 07.
I pointed out to him that a report had already been done nine months previously.
He made a few remarks about "time moving on, out of date, children's best interests" etc etc and get another one.
I said the only reason time was moving on, was he kept refusing to have a hearing !
I've since been told that no psychologist will bulk bill a Family Report. Between the May and September hearing, I spent four days in jail after being grabbed by the police for watching my son play football.
I received a suspended sentence of one month last week for watching my son play football and later talking to him.
One of the conditions of my "bail" was to be clinically assessed by a particular forensic psychologist. In his assessment, apart from criticising me for being sarcastic and angry, he did mention I didn't need "therapy".
As far as I'm concerned, his letter will suffice for the ordered report for the next Family Court hearing in March 08, by which time my three children won't have seen their father for 26 months.
In a nutshell, three children have lost a father because of my failure to pay obeisance to a psychologist and a social worker.
People, these are the hallmarks of Totalitarianism.
Ideological warriors, with the help of feminists jurisprudence, take it upon themselves to remove blameless fathers from their children's lives.
There is no due process whatsoever.
As Baskerville says, these secret courts are an affront to democratic constitutions and an insult to our countrymen who died defending our freedoms.
It is a judicial reign of terror imposed on law-abiding citizens for ideological reasons.
There can be no justice done by secret courts.
They were used by the French Revolutionaries and also the Communists in Russia in 1917. In fact every totalitarian regime that there ever was, has recourse to secret courts.
It is ridiculous that we should have to lobby politicians to let us see our children.
What right has the state to interfere into the realms of the family? None at all.
The family is the only bulwark against the ravages of the state. Remove the father and the state controls that family.
It all gets back to unwarranted power being assumed by people who shouldn't have this power in a democracy.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
"Killer dads"
Hi All.
My letter to The Age in response to their article "Killer dads - why they do it" Oct 07 http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/10/06/1191091425494.html
I have included the full article below.
I feel sure my letter will not get published.
I feel sure The Age is controlled by feminist editors and that this article is one small jigsaw piece in a conscious, covert and orchestrated feminist campaign to promote the negatve male stereotype in a fear campaign to stymie the movement for equal parenting time.The sexism and denial in this article are apparent. The sexism of the DV campaigns are also obvious.Am I paranoid ?
It is important to note that many many women who identify themselves as feminists support equal parenting time (I know because I have spent months collecting signatures for the F4E Petition, and talking to many women in the process).
But the radical feminists who control feminist/women's organisations and many senior positions in government and the media generally do not.
Cheers, Geoff
------------------------
The Age
Letters to the Editor
letters@theage.com.au
Preventing such murders
It is a shame that while your article emphasised the pathology of "killer dads" (Oct 7) - six per year, you could have also explored the pathology of "killer mums" - 13 a year by your own data.
And when you consider that 15 more children are killed by step-fathers, then it is apparent that children are 467% safer with their natural fathers. Why does the Family Court system then award residency to the mother in 80% of cases ?
More importantly your article didn't even raise the most likely reason for the Farquharson tragedy. Typically a father's chronic anger and frustration is due mainly to his restricted access to his own children, to losing most of his assets, and then being forced to pay Child Support to a mother who is often better off financially than the father (as in this case).
The Family Court system sets the stage for such tragedies.
A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would dramatically reduce the incidence of suicide and murder associated with family separation, not to mention resolve the need for "custody battles".
Why does the government and media insist on avoiding discussion of this obvious option ?
Geoff Holland
Cairns, Qld
prism@optusnet.com.au
_________________________________
Killer dads – why they do it
Fathers who murder their children exact the ultimate revenge on an estranged partner, writes Karen Kissane.
He is a bottler. He holds in his anger and other emotions. He might seem to be an easy-going, appeasing sort of man but he is what psychologists call "over-controlled", a person whose silent fuming might one day explode into violence.
Add to this a marriage break-up in which he is the spurned partner — and a new partner for his wife before he has adjusted to his changed circumstances — and the rage can fester into vengeful obsession.
"Obsession deprives people of a sense of proportion to such an extent that, in the end, they can countenance their own death and the death of others they love in pursuit of that obsession," says Professor Paul Mullen, psychiatrist and clinical director of Forensicare, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health.
A man who has become obsessed with revenge against his partner and who is pathologically jealous of her can allow his children to become caught up in his delusions. His feelings about her fidelity can morph into doubts about the paternity of the children.
"Men may become convinced that the children are not theirs, and part of the killing of the children is the acting out of this rage at the (supposed) infidelity, and at being saddled with children who are 'not yours' when in fact they are yours," Mullen says.
The killing is also about destroying the whole relationship and the products of that relationship, he says. And it is payback against the woman who has rejected him, the children's mother.
"Apart from anything else, he's telling her essentially that she's responsible. This is one of the ways they get back: 'Look at what you've made me do."'This might be part of the answer to the question now being asked about Robert Farquharson: How could he do it?
A Supreme Court jury on Friday found that Farquharson deliberately drove his three boys, aged from two to 10, into a dam near Winchelsea on Father's Day 2005. His wife had left him 10 months earlier and had begun a relationship with another man.
Cindy Gambino told the court that her ex-husband had been a good father and was a "softie" who always agreed to do what she wanted over matters such as whether to have another baby.
The court was also told that Farquharson was angry about the break-up, child-support payments and the fact that his former wife had the better car and a new partner. One of his oldest friends said that a couple of months before the killings, Farquharson had spoken of an accident involving the children in which they would die, so that his former wife would suffer for the rest of her life. It would happen on a special day — such as Father's Day — so that she would be tormented every year on the anniversary, he allegedly said.
Farquharson pleaded not guilty. He claimed that he blacked out in a coughing fit and the car veered out of control and into the dam. He is yet to be sentenced, and his lawyer has said he will appeal against the verdict.
Dr Lynne Eccleston, director of the forensic psychology program at Melbourne University, says killing children "is the ultimate harm (angry men) can inflict on the woman that they think has wronged them, for whatever reason. It's a higher order of revenge, because the woman is left alive to deal with the grief — that is his intention.
"She says such men often have a detailed plan that they perfect over a long period, "working up to the time when they will finally take action".
The killings are often related to relationship breakdown. A man who has pre-existing emotional problems and poor coping skills can also become angry because he feels his rights as a father have been taken away.
Forensic psychologist Professor Bob Montgomery, of the University of the Sunshine Coast, says most men who try to kill their children have distorted thinking as a result of severe depression.
They believe they are failures and that they have failed their children. They see no way out other than suicide and taking the children with them so that they are not left to suffer further."In most cases, the guy tries to kill himself as well," he says.
Cases such as Farquharson's are much rarer. "If (a father is) just killing the children and making no attempt on himself, he has a different motivation, like, 'You took my kids away from me — well, I'm going to take my kids away from you,"' Montgomery says.
"That's a very much smaller group. They are sad reflections of the view that children are your possessions, your property, rather than people who have their own rights and interests."
A psychologist who had been treating Farquharson told the court that his depression had seemed to improve.
Montgomery says it is common for deeply depressed people who have decided upon suicide or murder to experience a lift in mood because, in their disordered minds, they believe they have a way out of their problems: "Now I know what to do, I don't feel so bad."
Cases such as Farquharson's arouse intense interest because they seem so rare and so unnatural as to be bizarre. In fact, says Mullen, they are not such an unusual form of homicide: "The commonest form of multiple killing is not serial killing, as you would think from watching the telly. It's family slaying — the man who kills his partner and his children."
It is also not uncommon for such a killer to have previously been viewed as a good parent.
"When you look at the mothers who do this, you often find they were noted by their friends and neighbours to be particularly caring, assiduous parents who spent more time with their children than other parents did."
Ten per cent of all Australian homicides involve children as victims. If the child is under six, the killer is most likely to be in the child's care network, says Ken Polk, professor of criminology at Melbourne University and co-author with Christine Alder of the book Child Victims of Homicide.
The most typical male killer of children is the batterer who attacks a step-child because he finds the child difficult, partly because he does not have reasonable expectations of the child's behaviour for his or her age.
Biological fathers are much less likely to kill their children, but this does happen in an emotional game in which "the child is a pawn — you sacrifice the pawn to get to the main piece, and that's the woman", Polk says.
For every man who goes on to kill, there are many more who carry an angry sense of grievance that makes them want to lash out.
"We get lots of calls from men who are very recently separated and hate the world and are furious at the perceived conspiracy against them," says Danny Blay, manager of No to Violence, the Male Family Violence Prevention Association.
"And we know that women and children are most at risk of violence from their former partner or father during the early stages of an acrimonious separation."
There are lots of men … who, for one reason or another, are in a place where they don't see a way out and are wanting to punish the people who they see as putting them in a predicament, rather than taking at least some responsibility for their predicament themselves and asking why it is that their partner wants to leave, or why they have been denied access to their children."At the same time, Blay says, most men who are violent within their family are mostly good people, aside from this aspect of their behaviour.
"They are not psychopaths. They form intimate relationships and have friends, they are engaged at work, members of the footy club."
In Farquharson's case, he confided his thoughts of murder to an old friend who did not believe he was serious and who is now tormented by what happened. What would Blay's advice be to anyone who finds themselves listening to a friend talking this way?
If a man is seething and looking for support, says Blay, accept his distress and express empathy for it. Ask him about his plans.
"Get them to name what's in their heads and what they are going to do." Has he thought about what he will do with the kids this weekend? What are his feelings for his children and what does he want for their futures — next week, next month, when they are 30?
"Convey to him that you are really concerned about him, his partner and his children. Let him know that you'd like to help him find a better way out of his situation — that there are always better alternatives to violence."
In talking it through, there is an opportunity for the man to realise that his plans are not just a short-term fix to make him feel better, but they will potentially have long-term consequences on the people he loves, and him.
Blay says that if, in talking to the man, you discover that he has developed a detailed plan to hurt anybody, "I would be ringing the police immediately and trying to contact the people who have been threatened. We must always prioritise the safety of people over any personal allegiance or loyalty we have to our friend, relative or client and, at the same time, we would be doing them an enormous favour (to report them)."
For telephone counselling, contact
Men's Referral Service, 9428 2899 or 1800 065 973 (free call).
Women's Domestic Violence Crisis Service,1800 015 188.
Lifeline, 13 11 14.
CHILD HOMICIDES 2005-06
35 children under 15 killed — 11 under 12 months.
92 per cent killed by a family member.
The killer is a parent in 32 out of 34 recorded family relationships.
13 homicides involve the mother killing her child and 21 are committed by male family members.
Only six of these men are custodial parents. Four are non-custodial parents and nine are step-parents of the child victim(s).
Source: Homicide in Australia: 2005-06 National Homicide Monitoring Program Annual Report, by Megan Davies and Jenny Mouzos, Australian Institute of Criminology
My letter to The Age in response to their article "Killer dads - why they do it" Oct 07 http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/10/06/1191091425494.html
I have included the full article below.
I feel sure my letter will not get published.
I feel sure The Age is controlled by feminist editors and that this article is one small jigsaw piece in a conscious, covert and orchestrated feminist campaign to promote the negatve male stereotype in a fear campaign to stymie the movement for equal parenting time.The sexism and denial in this article are apparent. The sexism of the DV campaigns are also obvious.Am I paranoid ?
It is important to note that many many women who identify themselves as feminists support equal parenting time (I know because I have spent months collecting signatures for the F4E Petition, and talking to many women in the process).
But the radical feminists who control feminist/women's organisations and many senior positions in government and the media generally do not.
Cheers, Geoff
------------------------
The Age
Letters to the Editor
letters@theage.com.au
Preventing such murders
It is a shame that while your article emphasised the pathology of "killer dads" (Oct 7) - six per year, you could have also explored the pathology of "killer mums" - 13 a year by your own data.
And when you consider that 15 more children are killed by step-fathers, then it is apparent that children are 467% safer with their natural fathers. Why does the Family Court system then award residency to the mother in 80% of cases ?
More importantly your article didn't even raise the most likely reason for the Farquharson tragedy. Typically a father's chronic anger and frustration is due mainly to his restricted access to his own children, to losing most of his assets, and then being forced to pay Child Support to a mother who is often better off financially than the father (as in this case).
The Family Court system sets the stage for such tragedies.
A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would dramatically reduce the incidence of suicide and murder associated with family separation, not to mention resolve the need for "custody battles".
Why does the government and media insist on avoiding discussion of this obvious option ?
Geoff Holland
Cairns, Qld
prism@optusnet.com.au
_________________________________
Killer dads – why they do it
Fathers who murder their children exact the ultimate revenge on an estranged partner, writes Karen Kissane.
He is a bottler. He holds in his anger and other emotions. He might seem to be an easy-going, appeasing sort of man but he is what psychologists call "over-controlled", a person whose silent fuming might one day explode into violence.
Add to this a marriage break-up in which he is the spurned partner — and a new partner for his wife before he has adjusted to his changed circumstances — and the rage can fester into vengeful obsession.
"Obsession deprives people of a sense of proportion to such an extent that, in the end, they can countenance their own death and the death of others they love in pursuit of that obsession," says Professor Paul Mullen, psychiatrist and clinical director of Forensicare, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health.
A man who has become obsessed with revenge against his partner and who is pathologically jealous of her can allow his children to become caught up in his delusions. His feelings about her fidelity can morph into doubts about the paternity of the children.
"Men may become convinced that the children are not theirs, and part of the killing of the children is the acting out of this rage at the (supposed) infidelity, and at being saddled with children who are 'not yours' when in fact they are yours," Mullen says.
The killing is also about destroying the whole relationship and the products of that relationship, he says. And it is payback against the woman who has rejected him, the children's mother.
"Apart from anything else, he's telling her essentially that she's responsible. This is one of the ways they get back: 'Look at what you've made me do."'This might be part of the answer to the question now being asked about Robert Farquharson: How could he do it?
A Supreme Court jury on Friday found that Farquharson deliberately drove his three boys, aged from two to 10, into a dam near Winchelsea on Father's Day 2005. His wife had left him 10 months earlier and had begun a relationship with another man.
Cindy Gambino told the court that her ex-husband had been a good father and was a "softie" who always agreed to do what she wanted over matters such as whether to have another baby.
The court was also told that Farquharson was angry about the break-up, child-support payments and the fact that his former wife had the better car and a new partner. One of his oldest friends said that a couple of months before the killings, Farquharson had spoken of an accident involving the children in which they would die, so that his former wife would suffer for the rest of her life. It would happen on a special day — such as Father's Day — so that she would be tormented every year on the anniversary, he allegedly said.
Farquharson pleaded not guilty. He claimed that he blacked out in a coughing fit and the car veered out of control and into the dam. He is yet to be sentenced, and his lawyer has said he will appeal against the verdict.
Dr Lynne Eccleston, director of the forensic psychology program at Melbourne University, says killing children "is the ultimate harm (angry men) can inflict on the woman that they think has wronged them, for whatever reason. It's a higher order of revenge, because the woman is left alive to deal with the grief — that is his intention.
"She says such men often have a detailed plan that they perfect over a long period, "working up to the time when they will finally take action".
The killings are often related to relationship breakdown. A man who has pre-existing emotional problems and poor coping skills can also become angry because he feels his rights as a father have been taken away.
Forensic psychologist Professor Bob Montgomery, of the University of the Sunshine Coast, says most men who try to kill their children have distorted thinking as a result of severe depression.
They believe they are failures and that they have failed their children. They see no way out other than suicide and taking the children with them so that they are not left to suffer further."In most cases, the guy tries to kill himself as well," he says.
Cases such as Farquharson's are much rarer. "If (a father is) just killing the children and making no attempt on himself, he has a different motivation, like, 'You took my kids away from me — well, I'm going to take my kids away from you,"' Montgomery says.
"That's a very much smaller group. They are sad reflections of the view that children are your possessions, your property, rather than people who have their own rights and interests."
A psychologist who had been treating Farquharson told the court that his depression had seemed to improve.
Montgomery says it is common for deeply depressed people who have decided upon suicide or murder to experience a lift in mood because, in their disordered minds, they believe they have a way out of their problems: "Now I know what to do, I don't feel so bad."
Cases such as Farquharson's arouse intense interest because they seem so rare and so unnatural as to be bizarre. In fact, says Mullen, they are not such an unusual form of homicide: "The commonest form of multiple killing is not serial killing, as you would think from watching the telly. It's family slaying — the man who kills his partner and his children."
It is also not uncommon for such a killer to have previously been viewed as a good parent.
"When you look at the mothers who do this, you often find they were noted by their friends and neighbours to be particularly caring, assiduous parents who spent more time with their children than other parents did."
Ten per cent of all Australian homicides involve children as victims. If the child is under six, the killer is most likely to be in the child's care network, says Ken Polk, professor of criminology at Melbourne University and co-author with Christine Alder of the book Child Victims of Homicide.
The most typical male killer of children is the batterer who attacks a step-child because he finds the child difficult, partly because he does not have reasonable expectations of the child's behaviour for his or her age.
Biological fathers are much less likely to kill their children, but this does happen in an emotional game in which "the child is a pawn — you sacrifice the pawn to get to the main piece, and that's the woman", Polk says.
For every man who goes on to kill, there are many more who carry an angry sense of grievance that makes them want to lash out.
"We get lots of calls from men who are very recently separated and hate the world and are furious at the perceived conspiracy against them," says Danny Blay, manager of No to Violence, the Male Family Violence Prevention Association.
"And we know that women and children are most at risk of violence from their former partner or father during the early stages of an acrimonious separation."
There are lots of men … who, for one reason or another, are in a place where they don't see a way out and are wanting to punish the people who they see as putting them in a predicament, rather than taking at least some responsibility for their predicament themselves and asking why it is that their partner wants to leave, or why they have been denied access to their children."At the same time, Blay says, most men who are violent within their family are mostly good people, aside from this aspect of their behaviour.
"They are not psychopaths. They form intimate relationships and have friends, they are engaged at work, members of the footy club."
In Farquharson's case, he confided his thoughts of murder to an old friend who did not believe he was serious and who is now tormented by what happened. What would Blay's advice be to anyone who finds themselves listening to a friend talking this way?
If a man is seething and looking for support, says Blay, accept his distress and express empathy for it. Ask him about his plans.
"Get them to name what's in their heads and what they are going to do." Has he thought about what he will do with the kids this weekend? What are his feelings for his children and what does he want for their futures — next week, next month, when they are 30?
"Convey to him that you are really concerned about him, his partner and his children. Let him know that you'd like to help him find a better way out of his situation — that there are always better alternatives to violence."
In talking it through, there is an opportunity for the man to realise that his plans are not just a short-term fix to make him feel better, but they will potentially have long-term consequences on the people he loves, and him.
Blay says that if, in talking to the man, you discover that he has developed a detailed plan to hurt anybody, "I would be ringing the police immediately and trying to contact the people who have been threatened. We must always prioritise the safety of people over any personal allegiance or loyalty we have to our friend, relative or client and, at the same time, we would be doing them an enormous favour (to report them)."
For telephone counselling, contact
Men's Referral Service, 9428 2899 or 1800 065 973 (free call).
Women's Domestic Violence Crisis Service,1800 015 188.
Lifeline, 13 11 14.
CHILD HOMICIDES 2005-06
35 children under 15 killed — 11 under 12 months.
92 per cent killed by a family member.
The killer is a parent in 32 out of 34 recorded family relationships.
13 homicides involve the mother killing her child and 21 are committed by male family members.
Only six of these men are custodial parents. Four are non-custodial parents and nine are step-parents of the child victim(s).
Source: Homicide in Australia: 2005-06 National Homicide Monitoring Program Annual Report, by Megan Davies and Jenny Mouzos, Australian Institute of Criminology
Information Kit
PRESUMPTION of EQUAL PARENTING TIME
INFORMATION KIT
This Information Kit has been prepared by Geoff Holland and others of the Equal Parenting Network.
INFORMATION KIT
This Information Kit has been prepared by Geoff Holland and others of the Equal Parenting Network.
EqualParenting@optusnet.com.au
Feedback, including constructive critical arguments are appreciated.
Version 07 Oct 2007
Contents
1. What is a “Presumption of Equal Parenting Time” ?
2. 10 Reasons to implement a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time
3. How the current Family Court system is failing children
4. How a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will benefit children (more reasons)
5. Other benefits of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time
6. When equal parenting time is not appropriate
1. What is a “Presumption of Equal Parenting Time” ?
A “Presumption of Equal Parenting Time” is a proposed amendment to the Family Law Act 1975 which means that following family separation, parenting time will be equal unless one parent prefers to have less parenting time (and therefore must pay Child Support).
It is a “presumption” which means that if there are strong grounds to demonstrate that equal parenting is not in the best interests of the child, then, following mediation in a Family Relationship Centre, the matter can go to court (the Family Court system) to test those grounds.
2. 10 Reasons to implement a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time
1. Children need both parents.
2. Children have a right to the meaningful involvement of both parents in their lives.
3. Children who do not have meaningful involvement of both parents tend to have lower academic achievement, higher teenage pregnancy rates, higher delinquency rates, substance abuse, eating disorders and incidence of depression.
4. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time is necessary for the Family Relationship Centres to be able to achieve successful outcomes with separating couples and drastically reduce the numbers who go on to the Family Court system. Without it, the Centres will function as a waiting room.
5. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will remove much of the uncertainty which obliges couples to go all the way to the Final Hearing to get a verdict, and which creates more conflict and lasting animosity.
6. The lasting animosity and amplified conflict between separated couples created by the Family Court system damages children for life. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time can prevent much of this amplified conflict.
7. Children understand fairness and equity from an early age, and research shows they desire that both parents be treated equally.
8. Active involvement of both parents in children’s lives provides more love, more security, more resources, greatest safeguard against abuse (abuse typically happens when one parent has little contact and knowledge of the day-to-day experience of their child), more parental guidance, more active role models, more wisdom and experience.
9. The Family Law Act now guarantees and imposes on parents the right to Equal Responsibility of their children. However, it is not possible to fulfil one’s obligations of Equal Responsibility without adequate time – and adequate time is best ensured with equal time.
10. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would significantly downsize the Family Court system which is currently wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars. These funds would be better spent on services (eg expanding Family Relationship Centres) helping parents resolve their differences, changing behaviours, developing the potential of parents, and facilitating better prospects of staying together in healthy, cooperative and loving relationships – which of course would be in the best interests of children.
3. How the current Family Court system is failing children
Children need both parents. The Family Court system has been alienating fathers and non-custodial parents (ie. sometimes mothers) for over three decades with tragic consequences for children.
The Family Court system is a blunt instrument which has caused immeasurable and needless human suffering beyond the pain that comes from family separation.
Successive Federal Governments need to accept responsibility for this tragedy in the same way they need to accept responsibility for the tragedy and shame of the Stolen Generation of Aboriginal children when they relocated them away from their rightful parents.
The arrogance of the government, judges and magistrates who believe they know better than the parents as to who should look after the children, persists in the Family Court system today.
We would not expect judges and magistrates to decide who is going to look after the children when couples are together. Why should they assert such a right just because couples have separated ?
The number of families with children that end up separating is rapidly approaching 50%. It is a very common phenomenon.
Amplification of conflict damages children
We must find an alternative to the current adversarial Family Court system because the current system sets parents against each other in a “custody battle” and this amplification of conflict is most harmful to children.
The Family Court system reiterates that it is only acting in the “best interests of the children” but the tragic irony is that in alienating parents and amplifying conflict they are damaging the wellbeing of children.
The Family Court system has little accountability and is prejudiced against both fathers, and non-custodial parents (ie. sometimes mothers). This prejudice and injustice, under the guise of “best interests of the child,” causes much grief and resentment.
Suicide and murder-suicide
The Equal Parenting Network estimates that as many as 100 people (mostly dads) suicide each year as a direct result, and another 200 people (mostly dads) suicide each year as an indirect result, of the injustice and prejudice against fathers, and against non-custodial parents due to the Family Court system and the Child Support Agency regime.
We also estimate that approximately 20 ex-partners and 20 children are murdered each year (mostly as murder-suicides by dads) as a result of the amplified conflict and unfair treatment of fathers and non-custodial parents in the Family Court system. Most of the suicides and murder-suicides we believe were/are preventable, and the Family Court system must bear responsibility for these preventable cases.
It is notable that the statistics for suicides and murder-suicides relating to Family Court cases and the Child Support Agency are either not officially available or have been covered up.
From the dads’ perspective (or sometimes the non-custodial mum), they lose meaningful involvement in their children’s lives, even though they are available and competent to look after them. They typically lose the family home and car, and are then forced to pay high levels of Child Support for the privilege of rarely, or sometimes never, seeing their children.
These factors together with the lies and distortions of truth generated in an adversarial system, not to mention the huge legal fees and the extended period of stress and uncertainty, constitute a powerful driver of suicide and murder-suicide.
The system reduces the chances of any form of reconciliation
The Family Court system is a formal adversarial system. It is a very expensive process, typically costing $20,000-$60,000 for each parent who uses a solicitor and barrister. This is money that should be going toward securing a home and material wellbeing for the children. The current Family Court system is deluded when it says it is acting in the best interests of children.
The Family Court system requires parents to prepare Affidavits. Family Law solicitors often encourage their clients to consider issues that were not previously issues.
Because Family law solicitors see their duty as an advocate to maximise the gains (in terms of residency and material gain) of their client irrespective of the needs of the child or fairness toward the other parent, they regularly broaden the theatre of conflict. They also need to do this to justify their exorbitant fees – typically $400 per hour, and $5,000 a day for a barrister.
In the tension of the formal, expensive, uncertain, and adversarial system which can have a wide range of outcomes depending on the broad discretionary powers (ie. largely unaccountable) of the judge or magistrate, the litigating parents begin to embellish, exaggerate and construct their Affidavits. This leads to outrage by the other parent and a round of Responses to the Affidavits follows. “Truth” becomes selective and loses balance. As they say – truth is the first casualty of war.
Because of the lies and distortions that typically eventuate from a Family Court process due to its adversarial nature, and because of the huge expense, the tension of the process that typically lasts two years before Final Orders are handed down, and because the Final Orders are typically prejudiced against and unnecessarily marginalise one of the parents, the relationship between the parents often becomes so embittered that the chances of some sort of reconciliation in the future has become highly unlikely.
The Family Court system minimises the chances of some sort of friendship reconciliation between the parents, and this is the most damaging aspect with regards to the psychological and emotional wellbeing of the children. The children are now likely to be damaged for life.
Family Court system provides incentive for conflict – does not address problems
The Family Court system currently says “if there is any evidence of conflict between the parents then equal parenting time is not an option.”
This gives incentive for the parent most likely to “win” custody (ie. usually the mum) to generate conflict.
The Family Court system has abrogated its responsibility to ensure parents behave responsibly and appropriately toward each other and toward their children (eg. to refrain from speaking badly about the other parent, known as “parental alienation”).
The response of the Family Court system is to minimise contact of the child to one of the parents (usually the dad). The authorities throw their hands in the air. In the words of one senior Family Court official “we can’t change human behaviour.”
On the contrary, case workers at the Family Relationship Centre must attempt to resolve issues of inappropriate behaviour and parental alienation, and if unsuccessful, they should be referred to the Family Court system where suitable penalties must be imposed such as Community Service, monetary fines, or even daytime jail for chronic offenders. We must address harmful behaviour and attitudes (parental alienation) by parents which are a form of emotional abuse of children.
However, reducing access of children to the offending parent should be a last resort as this penalises the children ! Better to treat the cause rather than apply a bandaid.
Penalising the parent who shows restraint
Another nonsensical policy of the Family Court system is to base residency on precedent. That is, when the case finally reaches the Final Hearing, the judge or magistrate looks at who has been the primary carer, and then awards residency to that parent.
This gives an incentive for couples to fight over residency in the two year lead-up to the Final Hearing (or at least until Interim Orders are granted which can also involve a considerable waiting time).
It means that parents who have been aggressive in maintaining majority residency prior to Orders are rewarded, and parents who have demonstrated restraint for the sake of peace and the sake of their children, are penalised.
We recommend that a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time apply from the moment of family separation, which can be backed up an immediate Recovery of Contact Order (RCO) by the police in the event that one parent is being obstructive.
It is often agued that a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will put some children at risk.
If children are at risk from one of their parents, reducing contact from 50% to 40%, 30% or even 20% will not remove the danger. By not awarding equal parenting, the Family Court system is not solving problems of children at risk.
If a child is at risk from one of the parents, that situation requires a definitive response from the Child Protection Agency.
The most recent statistics indicate that the Family Court awarded Joint Custody in 2.5% of cases (2000/01) 1.. Equal Custody would have been awarded in only a fraction of 2.5% of cases. Are we suggesting that children were at risk in over 97.5% of these cases ?
1. "Family Court of Australia, Residence and Contact orders - Any Application, For children by outcome 1994-95 to 2000-01"
www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/connect/www/home/about/business_administration/statistics/statistics_public_interest/
4. How a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will benefit children (more reasons)
A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time means that even before couples separate, they will know what the residency arrangements will be for the children (except in special circumstances where there is evidence of abuse). Couples will know this even before they have children. It will come as no surprise.
The Federal Government has set up a network of Family Relationship Centres around the country. This is an excellent initiative provided they are transparent and accountable. They are a recognition that the current Family Court system is seriously flawed. The Family Relationship Centres should have been introduced decades ago.
The idea of the Family Relationship Centres is to provide a free or low-cost service in an informal and friendly environment so professional mediators can assist separating couples in working out the details of their Parenting Plan.
If couples are unable to agree, the matter can then move on to the Family Court system. The mediator will write a report, and include details of whether one or both parents were inflexible or unwilling to negotiate.
We recommend that if a parent has been advised by a Family Relationship Centre mediator that the Family Court system will most likely award equal parenting time, yet they insist on refusing to negotiate, but instead take the matter to the Family Court system, and equal parenting time is then awarded, that parent would be responsible for the other parent’s legal fees as well as court costs.
So the Family Relationship Centres can succeed
The Family Relationship Centres are unlikely to be effective (and anecdotal evidence suggests that the success rate is so far quite low) until they are backed up by a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, because typically dads want half time with their children and many mums do not accept this (perhaps because they are resentful or for other reasons which do not justify reducing the children’s contact with the dad).
Children have a right to spend maximum time with both parents. The way to express this right is with a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
Studies demonstrate that a consistent concern of children going through the experience of family separation is that they want to see their parents being treated equally.
Children who do not have a meaningful role of both parents in their lives are handicapped. Research demonstrates that children in single parent families have higher incidences of teenage pregnancy, lower academic performance, higher drop-out and delinquency rates, as well as higher rates of depression, substance abuse and eating disorders.
With equal parenting, where one parent is deficient in one area, another parent is there to compensate.
Equal parenting time gives each parent a chance to recharge their batteries. They are likely to appreciate more spending quality time with their children during their contact days. Equal parenting time allows both parents a chance to find a balance between work and family life, and also to enjoy their social life.
Equal parenting time means that children can have contact with their grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles on both sides of their family.
The old argument that mums had custody because the dads are working no longer applies. The Family Court system regularly awards residency to mums who work full time. They have even been known to award residency to fulltime working mothers when the dads were not working or had flexible work arrangements !
Feedback, including constructive critical arguments are appreciated.
Version 07 Oct 2007
Contents
1. What is a “Presumption of Equal Parenting Time” ?
2. 10 Reasons to implement a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time
3. How the current Family Court system is failing children
4. How a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will benefit children (more reasons)
5. Other benefits of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time
6. When equal parenting time is not appropriate
1. What is a “Presumption of Equal Parenting Time” ?
A “Presumption of Equal Parenting Time” is a proposed amendment to the Family Law Act 1975 which means that following family separation, parenting time will be equal unless one parent prefers to have less parenting time (and therefore must pay Child Support).
It is a “presumption” which means that if there are strong grounds to demonstrate that equal parenting is not in the best interests of the child, then, following mediation in a Family Relationship Centre, the matter can go to court (the Family Court system) to test those grounds.
2. 10 Reasons to implement a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time
1. Children need both parents.
2. Children have a right to the meaningful involvement of both parents in their lives.
3. Children who do not have meaningful involvement of both parents tend to have lower academic achievement, higher teenage pregnancy rates, higher delinquency rates, substance abuse, eating disorders and incidence of depression.
4. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time is necessary for the Family Relationship Centres to be able to achieve successful outcomes with separating couples and drastically reduce the numbers who go on to the Family Court system. Without it, the Centres will function as a waiting room.
5. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will remove much of the uncertainty which obliges couples to go all the way to the Final Hearing to get a verdict, and which creates more conflict and lasting animosity.
6. The lasting animosity and amplified conflict between separated couples created by the Family Court system damages children for life. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time can prevent much of this amplified conflict.
7. Children understand fairness and equity from an early age, and research shows they desire that both parents be treated equally.
8. Active involvement of both parents in children’s lives provides more love, more security, more resources, greatest safeguard against abuse (abuse typically happens when one parent has little contact and knowledge of the day-to-day experience of their child), more parental guidance, more active role models, more wisdom and experience.
9. The Family Law Act now guarantees and imposes on parents the right to Equal Responsibility of their children. However, it is not possible to fulfil one’s obligations of Equal Responsibility without adequate time – and adequate time is best ensured with equal time.
10. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would significantly downsize the Family Court system which is currently wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars. These funds would be better spent on services (eg expanding Family Relationship Centres) helping parents resolve their differences, changing behaviours, developing the potential of parents, and facilitating better prospects of staying together in healthy, cooperative and loving relationships – which of course would be in the best interests of children.
3. How the current Family Court system is failing children
Children need both parents. The Family Court system has been alienating fathers and non-custodial parents (ie. sometimes mothers) for over three decades with tragic consequences for children.
The Family Court system is a blunt instrument which has caused immeasurable and needless human suffering beyond the pain that comes from family separation.
Successive Federal Governments need to accept responsibility for this tragedy in the same way they need to accept responsibility for the tragedy and shame of the Stolen Generation of Aboriginal children when they relocated them away from their rightful parents.
The arrogance of the government, judges and magistrates who believe they know better than the parents as to who should look after the children, persists in the Family Court system today.
We would not expect judges and magistrates to decide who is going to look after the children when couples are together. Why should they assert such a right just because couples have separated ?
The number of families with children that end up separating is rapidly approaching 50%. It is a very common phenomenon.
Amplification of conflict damages children
We must find an alternative to the current adversarial Family Court system because the current system sets parents against each other in a “custody battle” and this amplification of conflict is most harmful to children.
The Family Court system reiterates that it is only acting in the “best interests of the children” but the tragic irony is that in alienating parents and amplifying conflict they are damaging the wellbeing of children.
The Family Court system has little accountability and is prejudiced against both fathers, and non-custodial parents (ie. sometimes mothers). This prejudice and injustice, under the guise of “best interests of the child,” causes much grief and resentment.
Suicide and murder-suicide
The Equal Parenting Network estimates that as many as 100 people (mostly dads) suicide each year as a direct result, and another 200 people (mostly dads) suicide each year as an indirect result, of the injustice and prejudice against fathers, and against non-custodial parents due to the Family Court system and the Child Support Agency regime.
We also estimate that approximately 20 ex-partners and 20 children are murdered each year (mostly as murder-suicides by dads) as a result of the amplified conflict and unfair treatment of fathers and non-custodial parents in the Family Court system. Most of the suicides and murder-suicides we believe were/are preventable, and the Family Court system must bear responsibility for these preventable cases.
It is notable that the statistics for suicides and murder-suicides relating to Family Court cases and the Child Support Agency are either not officially available or have been covered up.
From the dads’ perspective (or sometimes the non-custodial mum), they lose meaningful involvement in their children’s lives, even though they are available and competent to look after them. They typically lose the family home and car, and are then forced to pay high levels of Child Support for the privilege of rarely, or sometimes never, seeing their children.
These factors together with the lies and distortions of truth generated in an adversarial system, not to mention the huge legal fees and the extended period of stress and uncertainty, constitute a powerful driver of suicide and murder-suicide.
The system reduces the chances of any form of reconciliation
The Family Court system is a formal adversarial system. It is a very expensive process, typically costing $20,000-$60,000 for each parent who uses a solicitor and barrister. This is money that should be going toward securing a home and material wellbeing for the children. The current Family Court system is deluded when it says it is acting in the best interests of children.
The Family Court system requires parents to prepare Affidavits. Family Law solicitors often encourage their clients to consider issues that were not previously issues.
Because Family law solicitors see their duty as an advocate to maximise the gains (in terms of residency and material gain) of their client irrespective of the needs of the child or fairness toward the other parent, they regularly broaden the theatre of conflict. They also need to do this to justify their exorbitant fees – typically $400 per hour, and $5,000 a day for a barrister.
In the tension of the formal, expensive, uncertain, and adversarial system which can have a wide range of outcomes depending on the broad discretionary powers (ie. largely unaccountable) of the judge or magistrate, the litigating parents begin to embellish, exaggerate and construct their Affidavits. This leads to outrage by the other parent and a round of Responses to the Affidavits follows. “Truth” becomes selective and loses balance. As they say – truth is the first casualty of war.
Because of the lies and distortions that typically eventuate from a Family Court process due to its adversarial nature, and because of the huge expense, the tension of the process that typically lasts two years before Final Orders are handed down, and because the Final Orders are typically prejudiced against and unnecessarily marginalise one of the parents, the relationship between the parents often becomes so embittered that the chances of some sort of reconciliation in the future has become highly unlikely.
The Family Court system minimises the chances of some sort of friendship reconciliation between the parents, and this is the most damaging aspect with regards to the psychological and emotional wellbeing of the children. The children are now likely to be damaged for life.
Family Court system provides incentive for conflict – does not address problems
The Family Court system currently says “if there is any evidence of conflict between the parents then equal parenting time is not an option.”
This gives incentive for the parent most likely to “win” custody (ie. usually the mum) to generate conflict.
The Family Court system has abrogated its responsibility to ensure parents behave responsibly and appropriately toward each other and toward their children (eg. to refrain from speaking badly about the other parent, known as “parental alienation”).
The response of the Family Court system is to minimise contact of the child to one of the parents (usually the dad). The authorities throw their hands in the air. In the words of one senior Family Court official “we can’t change human behaviour.”
On the contrary, case workers at the Family Relationship Centre must attempt to resolve issues of inappropriate behaviour and parental alienation, and if unsuccessful, they should be referred to the Family Court system where suitable penalties must be imposed such as Community Service, monetary fines, or even daytime jail for chronic offenders. We must address harmful behaviour and attitudes (parental alienation) by parents which are a form of emotional abuse of children.
However, reducing access of children to the offending parent should be a last resort as this penalises the children ! Better to treat the cause rather than apply a bandaid.
Penalising the parent who shows restraint
Another nonsensical policy of the Family Court system is to base residency on precedent. That is, when the case finally reaches the Final Hearing, the judge or magistrate looks at who has been the primary carer, and then awards residency to that parent.
This gives an incentive for couples to fight over residency in the two year lead-up to the Final Hearing (or at least until Interim Orders are granted which can also involve a considerable waiting time).
It means that parents who have been aggressive in maintaining majority residency prior to Orders are rewarded, and parents who have demonstrated restraint for the sake of peace and the sake of their children, are penalised.
We recommend that a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time apply from the moment of family separation, which can be backed up an immediate Recovery of Contact Order (RCO) by the police in the event that one parent is being obstructive.
It is often agued that a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will put some children at risk.
If children are at risk from one of their parents, reducing contact from 50% to 40%, 30% or even 20% will not remove the danger. By not awarding equal parenting, the Family Court system is not solving problems of children at risk.
If a child is at risk from one of the parents, that situation requires a definitive response from the Child Protection Agency.
The most recent statistics indicate that the Family Court awarded Joint Custody in 2.5% of cases (2000/01) 1.. Equal Custody would have been awarded in only a fraction of 2.5% of cases. Are we suggesting that children were at risk in over 97.5% of these cases ?
1. "Family Court of Australia, Residence and Contact orders - Any Application, For children by outcome 1994-95 to 2000-01"
www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/connect/www/home/about/business_administration/statistics/statistics_public_interest/
4. How a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will benefit children (more reasons)
A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time means that even before couples separate, they will know what the residency arrangements will be for the children (except in special circumstances where there is evidence of abuse). Couples will know this even before they have children. It will come as no surprise.
The Federal Government has set up a network of Family Relationship Centres around the country. This is an excellent initiative provided they are transparent and accountable. They are a recognition that the current Family Court system is seriously flawed. The Family Relationship Centres should have been introduced decades ago.
The idea of the Family Relationship Centres is to provide a free or low-cost service in an informal and friendly environment so professional mediators can assist separating couples in working out the details of their Parenting Plan.
If couples are unable to agree, the matter can then move on to the Family Court system. The mediator will write a report, and include details of whether one or both parents were inflexible or unwilling to negotiate.
We recommend that if a parent has been advised by a Family Relationship Centre mediator that the Family Court system will most likely award equal parenting time, yet they insist on refusing to negotiate, but instead take the matter to the Family Court system, and equal parenting time is then awarded, that parent would be responsible for the other parent’s legal fees as well as court costs.
So the Family Relationship Centres can succeed
The Family Relationship Centres are unlikely to be effective (and anecdotal evidence suggests that the success rate is so far quite low) until they are backed up by a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, because typically dads want half time with their children and many mums do not accept this (perhaps because they are resentful or for other reasons which do not justify reducing the children’s contact with the dad).
Children have a right to spend maximum time with both parents. The way to express this right is with a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
Studies demonstrate that a consistent concern of children going through the experience of family separation is that they want to see their parents being treated equally.
Children who do not have a meaningful role of both parents in their lives are handicapped. Research demonstrates that children in single parent families have higher incidences of teenage pregnancy, lower academic performance, higher drop-out and delinquency rates, as well as higher rates of depression, substance abuse and eating disorders.
With equal parenting, where one parent is deficient in one area, another parent is there to compensate.
Equal parenting time gives each parent a chance to recharge their batteries. They are likely to appreciate more spending quality time with their children during their contact days. Equal parenting time allows both parents a chance to find a balance between work and family life, and also to enjoy their social life.
Equal parenting time means that children can have contact with their grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles on both sides of their family.
The old argument that mums had custody because the dads are working no longer applies. The Family Court system regularly awards residency to mums who work full time. They have even been known to award residency to fulltime working mothers when the dads were not working or had flexible work arrangements !
More block time
It is often argued that equal parenting time is not good for children because it will involve more handovers and greater instability. But equal parenting time does not have to involve more handovers, and in most cases will require less handovers (for example in the most common pattern of “week-about”). Since the Family Court system has begun allowing children to spend more time with their dads by throwing in an afternoon after school, they have created more instability. Any child psychologist will tell you that children prefer not fragmented time but block time.
Once again, in an effort to hold on to a flawed regime, as well as their own centrality in family separation outcomes, the Family Court system compromises to best interests of children.
“If the judiciary is viewed in part as a business, as Charles Dickens suggested, the family courts’ customers are divorcing mothers who hope to win custody and windfall settlements. The more satisfied customers an enterprise has, the more it prospers. So it is not surprising that family courts are interested in attracting and satisfying customers.”
“The Myth of Deadbeat Dads” Baskerville, Stephen PhD. Liberty p28 June 2002 pp27-32
www.stephenbaskerville.net/The%20Myth%20of%20Deadbeat%20Dads.pdf
5. Other benefits of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time
Once again, in an effort to hold on to a flawed regime, as well as their own centrality in family separation outcomes, the Family Court system compromises to best interests of children.
“If the judiciary is viewed in part as a business, as Charles Dickens suggested, the family courts’ customers are divorcing mothers who hope to win custody and windfall settlements. The more satisfied customers an enterprise has, the more it prospers. So it is not surprising that family courts are interested in attracting and satisfying customers.”
“The Myth of Deadbeat Dads” Baskerville, Stephen PhD. Liberty p28 June 2002 pp27-32
www.stephenbaskerville.net/The%20Myth%20of%20Deadbeat%20Dads.pdf
5. Other benefits of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time
Downsizing the Child Support Agency
The Child Support regime is also a cause for much bitterness and even suicide in some cases. With a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, the bitterness of Child Support will simply disappear in most cases.
Also we will save tens of millions of dollars from downsizing the Child Support Agency. It is estimated that it costs the Child Support Agency, ie taxpayers, about $2.00 for every $1.00 recovered by the Child Support Agency from marginalised parents who resist payment on principle.
Naturally, a fair Child Support regime must remain for parents who are not willing to care for their children half the time.
We argue that there be no Child Support obligations where there is equal parenting time, no matter what the respective income of either parent after separation. The reason for this is that it acts as a disincentive for both parents to look for ways to increase their own income, which is not beneficial for the children.
In cases where one parent argues they have limited capacity to generate income because they were looking after the children in the relationship while the other parent developed their career, compensation can be made in terms of division of assets at the time of separation, leaving no open-ended obligations.
Many alienated parents (typically dads) remain on low income or Unemployment Benefits in order to minimise their Child Support payments. This is not beneficial to the children or the national economy.
Many alienated parents (typically dads) skip the country often taking their assets with them as they know that they will lose most of their assets and gain little contact with their children if they stay. There is a huge ex-patriot population living overseas because of the unjust Family Law regime we currently have. Typically when they move overseas they lose all, or virtually all, contact with their children which is detrimental to the children.
This also means a considerable drain of assets out of the country which is a negative for the national economy.
Family Court system bursting at the seams
The Family Court system is bursting at the seams. There are now more Family Court judges and Federal Magistrates than ever before. The typical period of a case going to Final Hearing is two years – two years of posturing by the parents, of uncertainty, tension and stress. Judges and magistrates regularly make mistakes due to the pressure of work. They often make judgements on the run.
The Family Court system costs tens of millions of dollars a year to maintain.
The rate of family separation, when including de facto relationships, is steadily increasing. We need to find a way to assist separating couples resolve their differences quickly, before they have time to ferment and conflict escalates.
Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will downsize the Family Law industry
The Family Court system is to some extent “captured” by a very lucrative billion dollar Family Law industry from which most judges and magistrates originate. The Family Law industry has spent considerable sums of money preparing submissions arguing against sensible reform of Family Law, in order to preserve its prosperous existence.
Family Law solicitors have been known to undermine negotiations at pre-trial conferences.
Limited (and weak) reforms have been introduced in 2005 and 2006 which included the establishment of the Family Relationship Centres. Immediately the Family Law industry lobbied the government to guarantee themselves a slice of the new Family Law mediation industry.
But Family Law solicitors have been trained in adversarial methods and techniques, and not in conflict prevention, conflict resolution, mediation, family psychology and child psychology etc. We believe they should be excluded from such mediation services.
In fact, we believe that all couples must attend a designated Family Relationship Centre before they can enter into the Family Court system. At present couples merely have to assert they have attempted some sort of mediation somewhere.
It is important to restrict pre-Court mediation to the Family Relationship Centres in order to maintain an adequate and consistent level of quality control, and to be able to conduct comprehensive retrospective analyses of their effectiveness.
Allowing Family Law solicitors to conduct pre-Court mediation makes a mockery of the new mediation strategy. Solicitors say they will sign contracts which will bar them from representing either party following mediation, but while this may prevent individual conflict of interest, it does not prevent industry conflict of interest.
Family Law solicitors are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will allow Family Relationship Centres to achieve successful outcomes and make much of the Family Law industry redundant.
6. When equal parenting time is not appropriate
Reasons why equal parenting time may not apply include
6.1 child abuse
6.2 chronic neglect
6.3 parent has moved away
6.1 Child abuse
In the case of child abuse, sexual child abuse would indicate that the offending parent would have no unsupervised contact, at least until after a long period of monitored rehabilitation.
In the case of physical and emotional abuse, Child Protection officers in conjunction with a case worker from the Family Relationship Centre would determine the severity of the abuse, and make recommendations to the judge or magistrate as to the level of contact. Emphasis would be placed on rehabilitation of the offending parent with the aim of achieving equal parenting.
Child Protection Agencies must investigate allegations of child abuse immediately, whether parents are together or separated. Both parents must be investigated to determine the truth. There must be appropriate penalties in place for false allegations, and of course immediate action to protect children in cases of demonstrated abuse, as well as appropriate penalties for the offending parent. The process of investigation must be transparent and accountable.
We should make polygraph tests / lie-detectors available to parents.
Parents must have recourse to a dedicated Ombudsman for Family Issues.
6.2 Chronic neglect
Child Protection officers in conjunction with a case worker from the Family Relationship Centre would work with the parent in question to achieve a high level of quality care. If after a period of time this has not been achieved, then the presumption of equal parenting time can be withdrawn and contact reduced until such time the parent has demonstrated responsible and adequate parenting skills.
6.3 Parent has moved away
It is not fair on children to expect them to regularly travel long distances between parents’ homes, which increases the risk of car accident. Likewise excessive travel to school is not in the child’s best interests.
If a parent has moved more than half an hour’s drive from where family separation occurred, they must be given the opportunity to move back closer or risk losing the Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
(If both parents have moved away more than half an hour’s drive from the place where family separation occurred, parents can structure equal parenting on a three-year rotational basis, for example).
Either parent can move half an hour by car away from the point where family separation occurred without forfeiting the Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, so children may be up to one hour’s drive away from the other parent, but still only half an hour’s drive from their school.
______________________________________________________________
This Information Kit has been prepared by Geoff Holland and others of the Equal Parenting Network EqualParenting@optusnet.com.au.
Feedback, including constructive critical arguments are appreciated.
Also we will save tens of millions of dollars from downsizing the Child Support Agency. It is estimated that it costs the Child Support Agency, ie taxpayers, about $2.00 for every $1.00 recovered by the Child Support Agency from marginalised parents who resist payment on principle.
Naturally, a fair Child Support regime must remain for parents who are not willing to care for their children half the time.
We argue that there be no Child Support obligations where there is equal parenting time, no matter what the respective income of either parent after separation. The reason for this is that it acts as a disincentive for both parents to look for ways to increase their own income, which is not beneficial for the children.
In cases where one parent argues they have limited capacity to generate income because they were looking after the children in the relationship while the other parent developed their career, compensation can be made in terms of division of assets at the time of separation, leaving no open-ended obligations.
Many alienated parents (typically dads) remain on low income or Unemployment Benefits in order to minimise their Child Support payments. This is not beneficial to the children or the national economy.
Many alienated parents (typically dads) skip the country often taking their assets with them as they know that they will lose most of their assets and gain little contact with their children if they stay. There is a huge ex-patriot population living overseas because of the unjust Family Law regime we currently have. Typically when they move overseas they lose all, or virtually all, contact with their children which is detrimental to the children.
This also means a considerable drain of assets out of the country which is a negative for the national economy.
Family Court system bursting at the seams
The Family Court system is bursting at the seams. There are now more Family Court judges and Federal Magistrates than ever before. The typical period of a case going to Final Hearing is two years – two years of posturing by the parents, of uncertainty, tension and stress. Judges and magistrates regularly make mistakes due to the pressure of work. They often make judgements on the run.
The Family Court system costs tens of millions of dollars a year to maintain.
The rate of family separation, when including de facto relationships, is steadily increasing. We need to find a way to assist separating couples resolve their differences quickly, before they have time to ferment and conflict escalates.
Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will downsize the Family Law industry
The Family Court system is to some extent “captured” by a very lucrative billion dollar Family Law industry from which most judges and magistrates originate. The Family Law industry has spent considerable sums of money preparing submissions arguing against sensible reform of Family Law, in order to preserve its prosperous existence.
Family Law solicitors have been known to undermine negotiations at pre-trial conferences.
Limited (and weak) reforms have been introduced in 2005 and 2006 which included the establishment of the Family Relationship Centres. Immediately the Family Law industry lobbied the government to guarantee themselves a slice of the new Family Law mediation industry.
But Family Law solicitors have been trained in adversarial methods and techniques, and not in conflict prevention, conflict resolution, mediation, family psychology and child psychology etc. We believe they should be excluded from such mediation services.
In fact, we believe that all couples must attend a designated Family Relationship Centre before they can enter into the Family Court system. At present couples merely have to assert they have attempted some sort of mediation somewhere.
It is important to restrict pre-Court mediation to the Family Relationship Centres in order to maintain an adequate and consistent level of quality control, and to be able to conduct comprehensive retrospective analyses of their effectiveness.
Allowing Family Law solicitors to conduct pre-Court mediation makes a mockery of the new mediation strategy. Solicitors say they will sign contracts which will bar them from representing either party following mediation, but while this may prevent individual conflict of interest, it does not prevent industry conflict of interest.
Family Law solicitors are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will allow Family Relationship Centres to achieve successful outcomes and make much of the Family Law industry redundant.
6. When equal parenting time is not appropriate
Reasons why equal parenting time may not apply include
6.1 child abuse
6.2 chronic neglect
6.3 parent has moved away
6.1 Child abuse
In the case of child abuse, sexual child abuse would indicate that the offending parent would have no unsupervised contact, at least until after a long period of monitored rehabilitation.
In the case of physical and emotional abuse, Child Protection officers in conjunction with a case worker from the Family Relationship Centre would determine the severity of the abuse, and make recommendations to the judge or magistrate as to the level of contact. Emphasis would be placed on rehabilitation of the offending parent with the aim of achieving equal parenting.
Child Protection Agencies must investigate allegations of child abuse immediately, whether parents are together or separated. Both parents must be investigated to determine the truth. There must be appropriate penalties in place for false allegations, and of course immediate action to protect children in cases of demonstrated abuse, as well as appropriate penalties for the offending parent. The process of investigation must be transparent and accountable.
We should make polygraph tests / lie-detectors available to parents.
Parents must have recourse to a dedicated Ombudsman for Family Issues.
6.2 Chronic neglect
Child Protection officers in conjunction with a case worker from the Family Relationship Centre would work with the parent in question to achieve a high level of quality care. If after a period of time this has not been achieved, then the presumption of equal parenting time can be withdrawn and contact reduced until such time the parent has demonstrated responsible and adequate parenting skills.
6.3 Parent has moved away
It is not fair on children to expect them to regularly travel long distances between parents’ homes, which increases the risk of car accident. Likewise excessive travel to school is not in the child’s best interests.
If a parent has moved more than half an hour’s drive from where family separation occurred, they must be given the opportunity to move back closer or risk losing the Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
(If both parents have moved away more than half an hour’s drive from the place where family separation occurred, parents can structure equal parenting on a three-year rotational basis, for example).
Either parent can move half an hour by car away from the point where family separation occurred without forfeiting the Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, so children may be up to one hour’s drive away from the other parent, but still only half an hour’s drive from their school.
______________________________________________________________
This Information Kit has been prepared by Geoff Holland and others of the Equal Parenting Network EqualParenting@optusnet.com.au.
Feedback, including constructive critical arguments are appreciated.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
CSA 1950's propaganda
A recent mailout from the Child Support Agency includes the following article:
Me and my family
My name is Stuart and I would like to share my story with you about how my ex-wife and I have managed our relationship since we separated.
As far fetched as it sounds, and despite the circumstances, I have been able to maintain a strong relationship with my two daughters.
My ex-wife and I have a private arrangement for child support payments. After our marriage ended we managed to amicably sort out our financial matters and made a conscious effort to remain friends, for the benefit of our kids.
Four years down the track, we remain good friends and have found a balance, centred on our children. We openly discuss and mutually agree on any changes to our regular child care arrangements.
I know that my children love to come and stay with me and my new partner every second weekend.
As well as the regular child care arrangements, I look after the kids in the school holidays to minimise school holiday care.
[bold added]
The biggest positive of the arrangement is that our children are happy. They can openly talk to either parent and know they will get an equally open and unbiased answer or advice.
I strongly recommend that any parent put aside issues they have with their ex-partners and change the focus to what is better for the children.
If any other separated parents read this and it makes a difference to them and their children, I know sharing this story is well worth the effort.
Next edition: A mum's case study
____________________________________
This sounds as subtle and credible as a page out of a 1950's propaganda leaflet.
A friend of mine who was handed down exactly the same formula as the one recommended above (and they say the system has changed ?) - that is, every second weekend and half the school holidays - ie the same stew they've been dishing out since the 1975 Family Law Act, has been seeing a counsellor to help him deal with his frustrations.
The female counsellor said to him on his most recent visit:
"I don't know why you are still coming along [to counselling]. There is nothing I can do for you until you accept your situation [two days a fortnight]"
This female counsellor is using a mild form of blackmail (conditional counselling) to force her agenda. Another option would be to suggest how my friend could channel his frustration into constructive activism to change a system which extinguishes rights and generates, not averts, confict.
This friend has a son 5yrs old. The school has contacted him to get together with a guidance officer. The impact of conflict is beginning to show in the emotional and psychological wellbeing of his son.
The preventative cost of assigning case workers to situations such as these would be far less than the remedial cost of a boy who grows up a man permanently damaged by chronic passive conflict and parental alienation.
The government and Family Court system do not take preventative measures. On the contrary their policies are harmful to children. In this case the mother is behaving in a way (parental alientation) which is very harmful to the boy.
The father (my friend) could also probably learn something from a course in parental cooperation. A case worker could organise both parents to do such a course - and learn about the harm of passive and chronic conflict and parental alienation on the child, and the statistics of such children ending up in suicide or drug addiction or mental disorders such as depression etc. A case worker could also follow up to make sure the course or courses have had an impact on the behaviour of the parents.
Penalties need to be in place for parents who behave inappropriately.
A Family Court Registrar said to me "we can't change people's behaviour."
The Family Court system throws its hands up in the air unable to respond to inappropriate behaviour. The philosophy is - if there is any conflict, shared parenting is not an option. But can't they see that even if you marginalise the father, the problem is not going to go away? It is no solution. The solution is in respecting rights of both parents, and the rights of the child to both parents, and in EDUCATION as well as a raft of PENALTIES for ongoing inappropriate behaviour.
Me and my family
My name is Stuart and I would like to share my story with you about how my ex-wife and I have managed our relationship since we separated.
As far fetched as it sounds, and despite the circumstances, I have been able to maintain a strong relationship with my two daughters.
My ex-wife and I have a private arrangement for child support payments. After our marriage ended we managed to amicably sort out our financial matters and made a conscious effort to remain friends, for the benefit of our kids.
Four years down the track, we remain good friends and have found a balance, centred on our children. We openly discuss and mutually agree on any changes to our regular child care arrangements.
I know that my children love to come and stay with me and my new partner every second weekend.
As well as the regular child care arrangements, I look after the kids in the school holidays to minimise school holiday care.
[bold added]
The biggest positive of the arrangement is that our children are happy. They can openly talk to either parent and know they will get an equally open and unbiased answer or advice.
I strongly recommend that any parent put aside issues they have with their ex-partners and change the focus to what is better for the children.
If any other separated parents read this and it makes a difference to them and their children, I know sharing this story is well worth the effort.
Next edition: A mum's case study
____________________________________
This sounds as subtle and credible as a page out of a 1950's propaganda leaflet.
A friend of mine who was handed down exactly the same formula as the one recommended above (and they say the system has changed ?) - that is, every second weekend and half the school holidays - ie the same stew they've been dishing out since the 1975 Family Law Act, has been seeing a counsellor to help him deal with his frustrations.
The female counsellor said to him on his most recent visit:
"I don't know why you are still coming along [to counselling]. There is nothing I can do for you until you accept your situation [two days a fortnight]"
This female counsellor is using a mild form of blackmail (conditional counselling) to force her agenda. Another option would be to suggest how my friend could channel his frustration into constructive activism to change a system which extinguishes rights and generates, not averts, confict.
This friend has a son 5yrs old. The school has contacted him to get together with a guidance officer. The impact of conflict is beginning to show in the emotional and psychological wellbeing of his son.
The preventative cost of assigning case workers to situations such as these would be far less than the remedial cost of a boy who grows up a man permanently damaged by chronic passive conflict and parental alienation.
The government and Family Court system do not take preventative measures. On the contrary their policies are harmful to children. In this case the mother is behaving in a way (parental alientation) which is very harmful to the boy.
The father (my friend) could also probably learn something from a course in parental cooperation. A case worker could organise both parents to do such a course - and learn about the harm of passive and chronic conflict and parental alienation on the child, and the statistics of such children ending up in suicide or drug addiction or mental disorders such as depression etc. A case worker could also follow up to make sure the course or courses have had an impact on the behaviour of the parents.
Penalties need to be in place for parents who behave inappropriately.
A Family Court Registrar said to me "we can't change people's behaviour."
The Family Court system throws its hands up in the air unable to respond to inappropriate behaviour. The philosophy is - if there is any conflict, shared parenting is not an option. But can't they see that even if you marginalise the father, the problem is not going to go away? It is no solution. The solution is in respecting rights of both parents, and the rights of the child to both parents, and in EDUCATION as well as a raft of PENALTIES for ongoing inappropriate behaviour.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Another account of how the system fails Dads
Well everyone,
I had my day in court yesterday and what a complete waste of time it turned out to be.
This magistrate [Ms Hamilton of the Family Court system in Western Australia - just to give some sort of accountability here, where generally little exists - Editor] has been giving the ex anything she wants to date, because she had not heard any other story. So, yesterday she heard another story, my story, and dispite making the statement at the failed hearing 3 weeks ago that the matter WILL be finalised yesterday, this same magistrate couldn't make a decision yesterday. The damn coward has adjourned it till the 29th of October, because she wants it dealt with in the Family Court. The ex mentioned that her lawyer was possibly putting in an application in the Family Court for children's matters, so the cowardly magistrate decided she would pass the buck to the Family Court and let them make the decision.
This is real justice in action. She doesn't know which way to go now. She knows there is no reason for the existence for the restraining order, but she is not going to get rid of it for fear of upsetting the Sisterhood.
What a complete waste of time, energy and everything else I had to go through to be there. I have bronchitis, a chronic pain condition, the stress of suffering children on my mind and here I am in this court not having a clue as to what to say or do. I have had some wonderful advice from some very knowledgeable and kind people in this group, but on the day it was all worth nothing. Because when you are ill, and live in fear of the law you find you just cannot function in this environment.
I mean this magistrate did not help me much at all even when I told her I have never done this before and do not know what to do.
She wanted me to ask questions, so I did and then she told me I couldn't ask 'that' type of question etc, etc. It's all utter bullshit if you ask me.
She asked me what evidence is there that I can give to her to decide whether or not to continue the restraining order or not. I told her that I don't have anything at all, that there is no evidence in existence for the order to be in place in the first instance and that there is no evidence that it should be in place right now or in the future.
And that is the damn truth!
I mean, how do you prove nothing, with, or from nothing?
So, what does she do? She just blasts the two of us, stating that we use any and all forums to argue over children.
What a load of utter tripe! That is what the ex is doing not me!So then she decides to adjourn the hearing and states that this needs to be sorted out in the Family Court.
I can't get any Legal Aid help, I cant' get any community legal service lawyer to talk to me (because I am a male?) and I am on a disability pension and cannot afford to waste the few dollars I do own.
And I can't find a single human being who is knowledgeable enough to tell me how to go about doing this stuff. I am not lazy, I just do not understand a bloody word I am told and I don't understand what it is I have to do. If I did, it would have all been done a year ago, because I am not a time-waster.
There is absolutely not a person anywhere nearby who can give me an ounce of help.
I ask for some advice from some law advice people over the phone and they do like everyone does, they talk in legal speak. The kind of language I do not understand!
Peter
I had my day in court yesterday and what a complete waste of time it turned out to be.
This magistrate [Ms Hamilton of the Family Court system in Western Australia - just to give some sort of accountability here, where generally little exists - Editor] has been giving the ex anything she wants to date, because she had not heard any other story. So, yesterday she heard another story, my story, and dispite making the statement at the failed hearing 3 weeks ago that the matter WILL be finalised yesterday, this same magistrate couldn't make a decision yesterday. The damn coward has adjourned it till the 29th of October, because she wants it dealt with in the Family Court. The ex mentioned that her lawyer was possibly putting in an application in the Family Court for children's matters, so the cowardly magistrate decided she would pass the buck to the Family Court and let them make the decision.
This is real justice in action. She doesn't know which way to go now. She knows there is no reason for the existence for the restraining order, but she is not going to get rid of it for fear of upsetting the Sisterhood.
What a complete waste of time, energy and everything else I had to go through to be there. I have bronchitis, a chronic pain condition, the stress of suffering children on my mind and here I am in this court not having a clue as to what to say or do. I have had some wonderful advice from some very knowledgeable and kind people in this group, but on the day it was all worth nothing. Because when you are ill, and live in fear of the law you find you just cannot function in this environment.
I mean this magistrate did not help me much at all even when I told her I have never done this before and do not know what to do.
She wanted me to ask questions, so I did and then she told me I couldn't ask 'that' type of question etc, etc. It's all utter bullshit if you ask me.
She asked me what evidence is there that I can give to her to decide whether or not to continue the restraining order or not. I told her that I don't have anything at all, that there is no evidence in existence for the order to be in place in the first instance and that there is no evidence that it should be in place right now or in the future.
And that is the damn truth!
I mean, how do you prove nothing, with, or from nothing?
So, what does she do? She just blasts the two of us, stating that we use any and all forums to argue over children.
What a load of utter tripe! That is what the ex is doing not me!So then she decides to adjourn the hearing and states that this needs to be sorted out in the Family Court.
I can't get any Legal Aid help, I cant' get any community legal service lawyer to talk to me (because I am a male?) and I am on a disability pension and cannot afford to waste the few dollars I do own.
And I can't find a single human being who is knowledgeable enough to tell me how to go about doing this stuff. I am not lazy, I just do not understand a bloody word I am told and I don't understand what it is I have to do. If I did, it would have all been done a year ago, because I am not a time-waster.
There is absolutely not a person anywhere nearby who can give me an ounce of help.
I ask for some advice from some law advice people over the phone and they do like everyone does, they talk in legal speak. The kind of language I do not understand!
Peter
Thursday, August 16, 2007
"Leading cause of death and disability"
To: The Hon. Rob Hulls
Attorney-General
State of Victoria
From: Geoff Holland
Dear Mr Hulls,
You were quoted in The Age, 13 Aug 2007 "Vic govt plan to address family violence" as saying:
"Family violence affects one in five Victorian women and is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in women under 45"
According to Greg Andresen, whose letter was published in response to your article:
"The top five causes of death and disability for females aged 15 to 44 are in fact anxiety and depression, migraine, type 2 diabetes, asthma and schizophrenia. These are the latest (2003) figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, as published on their website."
So, is Greg Andresen incorrect ? What are the sources of your data ? Have you been misled ?
I hope this misunderstanding can be clarified.
I am part of the Dads' Movement - that is, part of a network of online forums throughout Australia. Your response may prevent tens of thousands of Dads from believing that you are untruthful.
The Dads' Movement takes the issue of Domestic Violence very seriously. It is a shame we are never invited to have an input into campaigns to reduce Domestic Violence. One would think this would be an obvious first step.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Geoff Holland
Equal Parenting Movement
prism@optusnet.com.au
The article refered to:
Vic govt plan to address family violence
August 13, 2007 - 8:54AM
New laws to stamp out domestic violence will allow authorities to remove offenders from the family home and make it easier for victims to stay, the Victorian government says.
Attorney-General Rob Hulls unveiled the proposed Family Violence Act, saying it would help address the "epidemic of family violence" in Victoria.
The new laws, which the state government wants to have in place within six months, would widen the definition of family violence to include psychological and economic abuse, Mr Hulls said.
"Family violence affects one in five Victorian women and is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in women under 45," Mr Hulls said.
"For too long the judicial system has not adequately supported women who have had the courage to report family violence.
"In the past, family violence has been seen as a domestic matter. It's not. It's a crime."
Under the act, the perpetrator of the violence would be required to leave the family home, allowing the victims to stay, Mr Hulls said.
"These changes will help ensure that victims of violence are not further distressed by being forced from their homes, often uprooting their children from their friends and schools," he said.
The new laws would also bar alleged offenders without a lawyer from cross-examining victims in court.
The act would also protect older Victorians from being abused by unpaid or informal carers, Mr Hulls said.
The proposal comes almost five years after the government asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission to review laws and procedures related to family violence, and 17 months after the commission's final report was tabled in state parliament.
The Family Violence Act was expected to be introduced into parliament before the end of the year.
_____________________________________________
Even the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Study 2005 show that about 30% of domestic violence is perpetrated by women. For those who think that women cannot hit hard, these instances include murder (as do instances of domestic violence of men against women).
The message in any domestic violence campaign is that only men are the perpretrators and women are always the victim. The above article reinforces this. When men have the courage to speak out about domestic violence against them, they are often ridiculed (much more so than women). For this reason many men do not come forward.
Why would you want to bar the accused from the right to cross-examine the alleged victim ? The victim can have adquate support and protection. This is a fundamental legal right that is being withdrawn.
It is my understanding that a partner can be removed from the home merely on allegations made by the other partner but where there is no physical evidence. I wonder if the police would remove a mother based on unproven allegations put forward by the father.
The government response is an expedient one. It offers punishment, and will inevitably include cases where the punished are innocent. It does not seek to treat the root of the problems.
Where there are cases of domestic violence between partners (as there are many other forms of domestic violence), these partners should be interviewed by trained (and impartial) psychologists / relationship counsellor. For example, one partner can be taken to a large comfortable Family Relationships van outside the house and interviewed at length, looking not only at the incident but also at the circumstances and behaviour that led to the incident. Then the other partner would be interviewed.
Plain-clothed police officers trained in forensics could examine the house for evidence to verify claims by both partners as to the details of the violent incident.
Where there are children in the home, a social worker should be available to help the parents supervise the children during the interview period (eg eating their dinner, doing their homework, getting ready for bed, etc).
In circumstances where the conflict has been de-escalated and both partners and the psychologist feel there is minimal danger of further violence in the short term, the couple should be allowed to remain together. Where one partner feels threatened, the alleged perpetrator could be removed if there is evidence to support the claim.
If there is no evidence, but at least one of the partners wishes not to remain with the other, one of the partners would be transfered to comfortable temporary accommodation while further interviews are conducted with both partners. The parent who is chosen to go to temporary accommodation is decided by a random selection generator. Sons would stay with the father, daughters would stay with the mother.
In cases that were not considered too serious, the court case could be held in an informal setting, with a plain-clothes judge, as well as the psychologist and the plain-clothes police officers who attended the original incident, but without the legal representation of solicitors and barristers. Partners who were found guilty of perpetrating violence would be assigned Community Service and also requested to attend course in Anger Management and Conflict Resolution etc. One would expect that in many cases, both partners would be found to have contributed to the violence, and so both would be expected to do Community Service (possibly for different periods of time depending on the severity of their actions) and attend courses. They may also have to pay fines.
For serious cases, the case would go to a formal court and those convicted of serious domestic violence would be required to go to jail. The law should be applied evenly to men and women.
The State is being expedient by introducing a system where it appears virtually no questions are asked. The male is taken away on the assumption that he is the perpetrator, and if not, well the couple is separated so it should prevent further violence (and who cares if the male is guilty or not anyway).
But this will only aggravate and amplify tensions, not resolve them or change behaviour. It will lead to more men being locked up in jail at great cost to the State. On the otherhand, Community Service and fines can contribute to the costs of assigning a psychologist / relationship counsellor and social worker to each case.
If Domestic Violence has a major impact on the economy (as the 2004 Access Economics report "The Cost of Domestic Violence" suggests, investing money in treating root causes would seem like the more prudent option - not merely implementing a harsh and scattergun penalty system which is unlikely to be a successful deterrent, and more likely to worsen the situation.
Attorney-General
State of Victoria
From: Geoff Holland
Dear Mr Hulls,
You were quoted in The Age, 13 Aug 2007 "Vic govt plan to address family violence" as saying:
"Family violence affects one in five Victorian women and is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in women under 45"
According to Greg Andresen, whose letter was published in response to your article:
"The top five causes of death and disability for females aged 15 to 44 are in fact anxiety and depression, migraine, type 2 diabetes, asthma and schizophrenia. These are the latest (2003) figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, as published on their website."
So, is Greg Andresen incorrect ? What are the sources of your data ? Have you been misled ?
I hope this misunderstanding can be clarified.
I am part of the Dads' Movement - that is, part of a network of online forums throughout Australia. Your response may prevent tens of thousands of Dads from believing that you are untruthful.
The Dads' Movement takes the issue of Domestic Violence very seriously. It is a shame we are never invited to have an input into campaigns to reduce Domestic Violence. One would think this would be an obvious first step.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Geoff Holland
Equal Parenting Movement
prism@optusnet.com.au
The article refered to:
Vic govt plan to address family violence
August 13, 2007 - 8:54AM
New laws to stamp out domestic violence will allow authorities to remove offenders from the family home and make it easier for victims to stay, the Victorian government says.
Attorney-General Rob Hulls unveiled the proposed Family Violence Act, saying it would help address the "epidemic of family violence" in Victoria.
The new laws, which the state government wants to have in place within six months, would widen the definition of family violence to include psychological and economic abuse, Mr Hulls said.
"Family violence affects one in five Victorian women and is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in women under 45," Mr Hulls said.
"For too long the judicial system has not adequately supported women who have had the courage to report family violence.
"In the past, family violence has been seen as a domestic matter. It's not. It's a crime."
Under the act, the perpetrator of the violence would be required to leave the family home, allowing the victims to stay, Mr Hulls said.
"These changes will help ensure that victims of violence are not further distressed by being forced from their homes, often uprooting their children from their friends and schools," he said.
The new laws would also bar alleged offenders without a lawyer from cross-examining victims in court.
The act would also protect older Victorians from being abused by unpaid or informal carers, Mr Hulls said.
The proposal comes almost five years after the government asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission to review laws and procedures related to family violence, and 17 months after the commission's final report was tabled in state parliament.
The Family Violence Act was expected to be introduced into parliament before the end of the year.
_____________________________________________
Even the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Study 2005 show that about 30% of domestic violence is perpetrated by women. For those who think that women cannot hit hard, these instances include murder (as do instances of domestic violence of men against women).
The message in any domestic violence campaign is that only men are the perpretrators and women are always the victim. The above article reinforces this. When men have the courage to speak out about domestic violence against them, they are often ridiculed (much more so than women). For this reason many men do not come forward.
Why would you want to bar the accused from the right to cross-examine the alleged victim ? The victim can have adquate support and protection. This is a fundamental legal right that is being withdrawn.
It is my understanding that a partner can be removed from the home merely on allegations made by the other partner but where there is no physical evidence. I wonder if the police would remove a mother based on unproven allegations put forward by the father.
The government response is an expedient one. It offers punishment, and will inevitably include cases where the punished are innocent. It does not seek to treat the root of the problems.
Where there are cases of domestic violence between partners (as there are many other forms of domestic violence), these partners should be interviewed by trained (and impartial) psychologists / relationship counsellor. For example, one partner can be taken to a large comfortable Family Relationships van outside the house and interviewed at length, looking not only at the incident but also at the circumstances and behaviour that led to the incident. Then the other partner would be interviewed.
Plain-clothed police officers trained in forensics could examine the house for evidence to verify claims by both partners as to the details of the violent incident.
Where there are children in the home, a social worker should be available to help the parents supervise the children during the interview period (eg eating their dinner, doing their homework, getting ready for bed, etc).
In circumstances where the conflict has been de-escalated and both partners and the psychologist feel there is minimal danger of further violence in the short term, the couple should be allowed to remain together. Where one partner feels threatened, the alleged perpetrator could be removed if there is evidence to support the claim.
If there is no evidence, but at least one of the partners wishes not to remain with the other, one of the partners would be transfered to comfortable temporary accommodation while further interviews are conducted with both partners. The parent who is chosen to go to temporary accommodation is decided by a random selection generator. Sons would stay with the father, daughters would stay with the mother.
In cases that were not considered too serious, the court case could be held in an informal setting, with a plain-clothes judge, as well as the psychologist and the plain-clothes police officers who attended the original incident, but without the legal representation of solicitors and barristers. Partners who were found guilty of perpetrating violence would be assigned Community Service and also requested to attend course in Anger Management and Conflict Resolution etc. One would expect that in many cases, both partners would be found to have contributed to the violence, and so both would be expected to do Community Service (possibly for different periods of time depending on the severity of their actions) and attend courses. They may also have to pay fines.
For serious cases, the case would go to a formal court and those convicted of serious domestic violence would be required to go to jail. The law should be applied evenly to men and women.
The State is being expedient by introducing a system where it appears virtually no questions are asked. The male is taken away on the assumption that he is the perpetrator, and if not, well the couple is separated so it should prevent further violence (and who cares if the male is guilty or not anyway).
But this will only aggravate and amplify tensions, not resolve them or change behaviour. It will lead to more men being locked up in jail at great cost to the State. On the otherhand, Community Service and fines can contribute to the costs of assigning a psychologist / relationship counsellor and social worker to each case.
If Domestic Violence has a major impact on the economy (as the 2004 Access Economics report "The Cost of Domestic Violence" suggests, investing money in treating root causes would seem like the more prudent option - not merely implementing a harsh and scattergun penalty system which is unlikely to be a successful deterrent, and more likely to worsen the situation.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Child's rights to both parents
http://www.bendweekly.com/Opinion/8387.html
Bend Weekly (USA)
20 July 2007
Children's rights should include life with both parents
By Phyllis Schlafly
Debates about same-sex marriage and gay adoptions always include the argument that a child has the right to both a father and a mother. If that is true, why is a child usually deprived of that right when heterosexual couples divorce?
It would seem that maintaining the father's love and authority would be crucial when a child's life is turned upside down by divorce. Yet, family courts routinely deprive children of one parent, usually the father, restricting his time with his child to about six days a month.
The courts pompously assert they are invoking "the best interest of the child," but how can it be in the best interest of children to make them forfeit one parent?
We hear many pious comments about the need for fathers to be involved in the upbringing of their children. This need should be even more important in times of emotional stress, such as divorce, than the need for fathers to play ball with their kids in an intact family.
Some states are considering legislation that establishes a presumption of shared parenting whereby divorced parents divide equally both time and authority over the children. This enables children to maintain strong ties to both parents.
When primary or sole custody is given to the mother, the father becomes merely a visitor in the child's life (that's why it's called "visitation"), whose only value is to mail a paycheck and be an occasional baby sitter. The father loses his parental authority and fades out of his own child's life.
An argument is sometimes made that shuttling back and forth between two homes might be upsetting or a nuisance, but there is no more shuttling with equal custody (where parents, for example, get alternating weeks) than with the typical mother-custody/father-visitation schedule (where the father gets two weekends a month plus some Wednesday evenings). Do the math; both plans have about the same number of shuttles between homes.
An argument is also made that giving custody primarily to the mother promotes stability, but the need for stability is really a reason for shared custody. The stability of parental relationships is a great deal more important than contact with material things.
Americans have always assumed that parents share decision-making authority because only parents can determine what is in the best interest of their own children. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville reaffirmed this principle and rejected the argument that a judge could supersede a fit parent's judgment about his child's "best interest."
Nevertheless, in what Stephen Baskerville calls a "silent revolution," millions of divorced parents have had their fundamental right to decide what is in the best interest of their own children taken away and given instead to a vast array of government officials and so-called "experts" such as judges, lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, child protective services, child support enforcement agents, mediators, counselors, parenting classes, and feminist groups.
This shift began in the 1970s after the spread of unilateral divorce was followed by the creation of a giant federal child support-enforcement bureaucracy. The notion that this mix of government officials and government-appointed advisers can dictate what is the best interest of the child rather than a child's own parents is how liberals and feminists are fulfilling their goal that "it takes a village (i.e., the government) to raise a child."
An example of the bias against fathers can be seen in the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2007 recently introduced by Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind. The bill mentions "child support" 65 times, but not once does it mention parenting time, custody, visitation, or access denial.
Baskerville's new book, "Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family" (Cumberland House, $24.95), provides a copiously documented description of society's injustices to children who have been deprived of their fathers and of fathers who have been deprived of their children. This book is a tremendous and much-needed report on how family courts and government policies are harming children.
It is a breakthrough for shared parenting that a noncustodial father, Robert Pedersen, was recently named runner-up in the nationwide Best Life Magazine's "Hero Dad" Contest. Pedersen is only allowed 6 to 8 days a month with his two children from a previous marriage.
Pedersen has devised a novel way to demonstrate the importance of fathers to children of divorced parents. He is leading an "Equal Parenting Bike Ride" starting in Lansing, Mich., on Aug. 11 and culminating with an Aug. 18 rally in Washington, D.C.
---Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded "Supremacists." She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org
Bend Weekly (USA)
20 July 2007
Children's rights should include life with both parents
By Phyllis Schlafly
Debates about same-sex marriage and gay adoptions always include the argument that a child has the right to both a father and a mother. If that is true, why is a child usually deprived of that right when heterosexual couples divorce?
It would seem that maintaining the father's love and authority would be crucial when a child's life is turned upside down by divorce. Yet, family courts routinely deprive children of one parent, usually the father, restricting his time with his child to about six days a month.
The courts pompously assert they are invoking "the best interest of the child," but how can it be in the best interest of children to make them forfeit one parent?
We hear many pious comments about the need for fathers to be involved in the upbringing of their children. This need should be even more important in times of emotional stress, such as divorce, than the need for fathers to play ball with their kids in an intact family.
Some states are considering legislation that establishes a presumption of shared parenting whereby divorced parents divide equally both time and authority over the children. This enables children to maintain strong ties to both parents.
When primary or sole custody is given to the mother, the father becomes merely a visitor in the child's life (that's why it's called "visitation"), whose only value is to mail a paycheck and be an occasional baby sitter. The father loses his parental authority and fades out of his own child's life.
An argument is sometimes made that shuttling back and forth between two homes might be upsetting or a nuisance, but there is no more shuttling with equal custody (where parents, for example, get alternating weeks) than with the typical mother-custody/father-visitation schedule (where the father gets two weekends a month plus some Wednesday evenings). Do the math; both plans have about the same number of shuttles between homes.
An argument is also made that giving custody primarily to the mother promotes stability, but the need for stability is really a reason for shared custody. The stability of parental relationships is a great deal more important than contact with material things.
Americans have always assumed that parents share decision-making authority because only parents can determine what is in the best interest of their own children. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville reaffirmed this principle and rejected the argument that a judge could supersede a fit parent's judgment about his child's "best interest."
Nevertheless, in what Stephen Baskerville calls a "silent revolution," millions of divorced parents have had their fundamental right to decide what is in the best interest of their own children taken away and given instead to a vast array of government officials and so-called "experts" such as judges, lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, child protective services, child support enforcement agents, mediators, counselors, parenting classes, and feminist groups.
This shift began in the 1970s after the spread of unilateral divorce was followed by the creation of a giant federal child support-enforcement bureaucracy. The notion that this mix of government officials and government-appointed advisers can dictate what is the best interest of the child rather than a child's own parents is how liberals and feminists are fulfilling their goal that "it takes a village (i.e., the government) to raise a child."
An example of the bias against fathers can be seen in the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2007 recently introduced by Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind. The bill mentions "child support" 65 times, but not once does it mention parenting time, custody, visitation, or access denial.
Baskerville's new book, "Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family" (Cumberland House, $24.95), provides a copiously documented description of society's injustices to children who have been deprived of their fathers and of fathers who have been deprived of their children. This book is a tremendous and much-needed report on how family courts and government policies are harming children.
It is a breakthrough for shared parenting that a noncustodial father, Robert Pedersen, was recently named runner-up in the nationwide Best Life Magazine's "Hero Dad" Contest. Pedersen is only allowed 6 to 8 days a month with his two children from a previous marriage.
Pedersen has devised a novel way to demonstrate the importance of fathers to children of divorced parents. He is leading an "Equal Parenting Bike Ride" starting in Lansing, Mich., on Aug. 11 and culminating with an Aug. 18 rally in Washington, D.C.
---Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded "Supremacists." She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The distortion of feminism
These are old references (1999) but they are a valuable critique of some of the excesses and dangers of radical feminism.
Quote: "The goal of these authors remained the redistribution of labour and wealth within the family, from men to women. Yet they conceded they had to do so without alienating the majority of people by attitudes that appeared to be hostile to men. The way they would do this would be to emphasise the interests of the children." - Melanie Phillips, "The Sex-Change Society", Melanie Phillips, 1999, Page123
http://www.melaniephillips.com/http://www.melaniephillips.com/books/
The Sex-Change Society- Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male
Melanie Phillips Paperback, 370 pages (1999)
Social Market Foundation. ISBN: 1-874097-64-X
The Sex-Change Society issues a devastating attack on androgynous public policy, arguing that feminism has distorted its own agenda of equality by replacing it with sameness. The results are startling. Men have been demonised through a distorted view that they are intrinsically violent and feckless while all women are essentially 'saint-like'. At the same time, women are being encouraged to work at all times, whether they want to or not. In this timely critique Melanie Phillips tells the disturbing story of the attempt to feminise the state, to reverse the roles of men and women and to run masculinity out of town altogether. The result has been an anti-family policy in which everyone has become a potential loser.-----------------------------------
-----------------------Unrelated article by Melanie Phillips re DV
http://www.travel-net.com/~retap/DV-1.htm
The Sunday Times (Britain)
24 October 1999
Women are at least as violent as men but the evidence is being dismissed or ignored
By Melanie Phillips
Mention feminism to most people and the reaction will probably be one of faintly amused indifference. Some men may be irritated by feminist rhetoric; some women might feel their agenda is a little extreme. But the extent to which feminism in its most extreme form has embedded itself within the institutions and thinking of Britain has simply not been grasped.
Feminism has become the unchallengeable orthodoxy in even the most apparently conservative institutions, and drives forward the whole programme of domestic social policy. Yet this orthodoxy is not based on concepts of fairness or justice or social solidarity. It is based on hostility towards men.
The idea that men oppress women, who therefore have every interest in avoiding the marriage trap and must achieve independence from men at all costs, may strike many as having little to do with everyday life. Yet it is now the galvanic principle behind social, economic and legal policy-making.
Buried within this doctrine, though, is an even deeper assumption. Male oppression of women is only made possible by the fact that men are intrinsically predatory and violent, threatening both women and children with rape or assault. Men are therefore the enemy - not just of women but of humanity, the proper objects of fear and scorn.
This assumption runs through feminist thinking as a given. "Most violence, most crime ... is not committed by human beings in general. It is committed by men," wrote Jill Tweedie.
According to Marilyn French, men used violence both to threaten and control, as well as actually harm: "As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women."
Moreover, it is marriage and family life that expose women most to male violence. According to Gloria Steinem, "patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself... The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home".
All this has been enough to turn the stomachs of some feminists, particularly those who love husbands or sons. Novelist Maggie Gee said she once thought the sex war was exciting, but had now concluded it went too far. "Women are giving up on their relationships too quickly. Living with a man I love very much, I keep thinking that all the generalisations about men just aren't true."
These generalisations, however, are now the stuff of public policy. Male violence against women, said the government in June 1999, was no longer going to be "swept under the carpet". Virtually nobody questioned the premise that men were invariably victimisers and women always their victims.
There is no doubt that some men are violent towards women; the evidence of women's injuries is real enough. However, this is one side of the story only. There is another side: the extent of women's violence against men and children. That, though, is a story that almost every official body in Britain and America has successfully suppressed.
There are now dozens of studies which show that women are as violent towards their partners, if not more so, than men. Unlike most feminist research, these studies ask men as well as women whether they have ever been on the receiving end of violence from their partners. They are therefore not only more balanced than studies which only ask about violence against women, but are more reliable indicators than official statistics which can be distorted by factors affecting the reporting rate - women using claims of violence as a weapon in custody cases, for example, or men who are too ashamed or embarrassed to reveal they have been abused.
Many people are likely to be astonished and sceptical about the conclusion drawn by these reports. The idea that women are as violent as men is counter-intuitive and simply disbelieved. So it is important to provide a flavour of the scope and significance of their findings.
A 1994 British study by Michelle Carrado and others, for example, interviewed 1,800 men and women with heterosexual partners. Some 11% of the men but only 5% of the women said their current partner had committed acts of violence towards them, ranging from pushing, through hitting, to stabbing. Five per cent of married or cohabiting men reported two or more acts of violence against them in a current relationship, compared with only 1% of women. A further 10% of men but 11% of women said they had committed one of these violent acts.
Study after study shows women are not merely violent in self-defence but strike the first blow in about half of all disputes. The American social scientists Murray Straus and Richard Gelles reported from two large national surveys that husbands and wives had assaulted each other at approximately equal rates, with women engaging in minor acts of violence more frequently. Elsewhere, they found more wives than husbands were severely violent towards their spouses.
Moreover, there is now considerable evidence that women initiate severe violence more frequently than men. A survey of 1,037 young adults born between 1972 and 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, found that 18.6% of young women said they had perpetrated severe physical violence against their partners, compared with 5.7% of young men. Three times more women than men said they had kicked or bitten their partners, or hit them with their fists or with an object.
In any event, the idea that women are never the instigators of violence is demolished by the evidence about lesbians.
According to Claire Renzetti, violence in lesbian relationships occurs with about the same frequency as in heterosexual relationships. Lesbian batterers "display a terrifying ingenuity in their selection of abusive tactics, frequently tailoring the abuse to the specific vulnerabilities of their partners". Such abuse can be extremely violent, with women bitten, kicked, punched, thrown down stairs, and assaulted with weapons including guns, knives, whips and broken bottles.
It is true that most women who are the victims of violence suffer domestic assaults. Yet the 1996 British Crime Survey reported that nearly one third of the victims of domestic violence were men, and that nearly half of these male victims were attacked by women. Moreover, if a woman starts a physical fight with a man, even a mild slap might provoke him into retaliating, with far worse consequences. Women who murder violent husbands may be treated leniently because they were provoked; yet men who are violent against women are never granted the same understanding. Provocation, it appears, is a feminist issue.
Moreover, given the greater strength of men, it is particularly noteworthy that so many women initiate violence against them. The fact is that men hold back. The psychologist John Archer has noted that, among female college students, 29% admitted initiating an assault on a male partner. Of those women, half said they had no fear of retaliation or, since men could easily defend themselves, they did not see their own physical aggression as a problem. In other words, far from assuming that men are violent, women take men's non-aggression for granted.
Archer went on to remark on the apparent restraint shown by many men in western cultures. "We might speculate that to some extent a strong norm of men not hitting women enables women to engage in physical aggression which might otherwise not have occurred," he wrote. Male aggression, he suggested, was a kind of default value associated with patriarchal structures.
When these are overridden, as they have been by modern secular liberal values and by the emancipation of women, female aggression increases. "These values will have greatest impact in a relationship that can be ended by the woman at little cost, and where the rate of male aggression is low. "We can speculate that these represent specific instances of a more general set of circumstances entailing a relative change in the balance of power between men and women."
In other words, as women have become independent of men, they have also become more violent towards them - because men have become dispensable. This unpalatable conclusion, however, has been completely overlooked in a culture that believes infamy is the prerogative of the male.
Much to everyone's astonishment, the Home Office recently produced its own evidence that domestic violence was not a male disease. In January 1999, it reported that 4.2% of women and 4.2% of men aged 16 to 59 said they had been physically assaulted by a current or former partner in the past year. Women separated from their partners were most likely to be victims, with 22% assaulted at least once in 1995.
The public reaction to the Home Office research was almost complete silence. The government, too, appeared impervious to its implications. Shortly after it was published, the Home Secretary opened a domestic violence court in Leeds that was founded on the explicit assumption that only men were violent.
In June this year, the Cabinet Office women's unit launched a campaign to "change the culture" that presented domestic violence as almost exclusively a problem of male crime. It managed to omit another under-reported fact: that most violence against children is committed by their mothers, not their fathers. A study by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children revealed a few years ago that natural mothers, not fathers, are most frequently the perpetrators of physical injury, emotional abuse and neglect. This is not particularly surprising, since mothers generally have much more daily contact than fathers with their children. There was yet another notable omission: the women's unit material did not differentiate between couples who were married and people who were living together or had irregular lovers.
It therefore omitted a key fact: that the risk of violence increases significantly for unmarried couples. The Home Office study itself observed that marital separation was a "key risk factor". Only 12.6 in every 1,000 married women are victims of violence, compared with 43.9 in every 1,000 never-married women and 66.5 in every 1,000 divorced or separated women. As husbands are replaced by partners and lovers, therefore, violence against women increases. Marriage is a strong safety factor for women.
Yet this is not said. Instead, the opposite idea is fostered, that violence against women typically takes place within marriage. In November 1998, the women's unit announced a new initiative. Children were urged to report violence against mothers and sisters. There was no mention of abuse against fathers. Instead, a television advertisement showed a husband berating his wife when she told him dinner would be late. That was the violence. It was followed by a helpline number for children to call if a woman in their house had been abused.
This fictional scenario illuminated some remarkable thinking by civil servants and ministers. It had become acceptable, it thus appeared, for children to inform on their fathers to teachers or "helplines" simply for shouting at their mothers. Shouting was now to be classified as domestic violence. If that is the case, then violence happens with enormous frequency in families. Don't women sometimes shout at men?
There was another telling aspect of this advertisement. It featured an "Oxo" middle-class nuclear family. The thinking behind this, according to the then Scottish Office minister Helen Liddell, was that "domestic abuse knows no boundaries of social class or social group". However, not only was this scenario not violence, but the nuclear family is the least likely setting for abuse of women or children. It was no accident, however, that it was chosen. The married nuclear family has to be demonised because it is said to be the vehicle for the oppression of women.
The outcome of all this is that it is now generally accepted that violence is intrinsically male. This is a gravely distorted picture. It is true that most recorded crime is committed by men. It does not follow, however, that most men commit crime. Yet this is the false conclusion that has been drawn, as the result of the suppression or distortion of the facts about violence as well as the message that is constantly promulgated that violence is a problem of masculinity. The evidence suggests that a quite different conclusion should be drawn. This is surely that both women and men are capable of aggression and violence, but that violent men, like violent women, are not typical of their sex.
---Extracted from The Sex Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male, by Melanie Phillips.
Quote: "The goal of these authors remained the redistribution of labour and wealth within the family, from men to women. Yet they conceded they had to do so without alienating the majority of people by attitudes that appeared to be hostile to men. The way they would do this would be to emphasise the interests of the children." - Melanie Phillips, "The Sex-Change Society", Melanie Phillips, 1999, Page123
http://www.melaniephillips.com/http://www.melaniephillips.com/books/
The Sex-Change Society- Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male
Melanie Phillips Paperback, 370 pages (1999)
Social Market Foundation. ISBN: 1-874097-64-X
The Sex-Change Society issues a devastating attack on androgynous public policy, arguing that feminism has distorted its own agenda of equality by replacing it with sameness. The results are startling. Men have been demonised through a distorted view that they are intrinsically violent and feckless while all women are essentially 'saint-like'. At the same time, women are being encouraged to work at all times, whether they want to or not. In this timely critique Melanie Phillips tells the disturbing story of the attempt to feminise the state, to reverse the roles of men and women and to run masculinity out of town altogether. The result has been an anti-family policy in which everyone has become a potential loser.-----------------------------------
-----------------------Unrelated article by Melanie Phillips re DV
http://www.travel-net.com/~retap/DV-1.htm
The Sunday Times (Britain)
24 October 1999
Women are at least as violent as men but the evidence is being dismissed or ignored
By Melanie Phillips
Mention feminism to most people and the reaction will probably be one of faintly amused indifference. Some men may be irritated by feminist rhetoric; some women might feel their agenda is a little extreme. But the extent to which feminism in its most extreme form has embedded itself within the institutions and thinking of Britain has simply not been grasped.
Feminism has become the unchallengeable orthodoxy in even the most apparently conservative institutions, and drives forward the whole programme of domestic social policy. Yet this orthodoxy is not based on concepts of fairness or justice or social solidarity. It is based on hostility towards men.
The idea that men oppress women, who therefore have every interest in avoiding the marriage trap and must achieve independence from men at all costs, may strike many as having little to do with everyday life. Yet it is now the galvanic principle behind social, economic and legal policy-making.
Buried within this doctrine, though, is an even deeper assumption. Male oppression of women is only made possible by the fact that men are intrinsically predatory and violent, threatening both women and children with rape or assault. Men are therefore the enemy - not just of women but of humanity, the proper objects of fear and scorn.
This assumption runs through feminist thinking as a given. "Most violence, most crime ... is not committed by human beings in general. It is committed by men," wrote Jill Tweedie.
According to Marilyn French, men used violence both to threaten and control, as well as actually harm: "As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women."
Moreover, it is marriage and family life that expose women most to male violence. According to Gloria Steinem, "patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself... The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home".
All this has been enough to turn the stomachs of some feminists, particularly those who love husbands or sons. Novelist Maggie Gee said she once thought the sex war was exciting, but had now concluded it went too far. "Women are giving up on their relationships too quickly. Living with a man I love very much, I keep thinking that all the generalisations about men just aren't true."
These generalisations, however, are now the stuff of public policy. Male violence against women, said the government in June 1999, was no longer going to be "swept under the carpet". Virtually nobody questioned the premise that men were invariably victimisers and women always their victims.
There is no doubt that some men are violent towards women; the evidence of women's injuries is real enough. However, this is one side of the story only. There is another side: the extent of women's violence against men and children. That, though, is a story that almost every official body in Britain and America has successfully suppressed.
There are now dozens of studies which show that women are as violent towards their partners, if not more so, than men. Unlike most feminist research, these studies ask men as well as women whether they have ever been on the receiving end of violence from their partners. They are therefore not only more balanced than studies which only ask about violence against women, but are more reliable indicators than official statistics which can be distorted by factors affecting the reporting rate - women using claims of violence as a weapon in custody cases, for example, or men who are too ashamed or embarrassed to reveal they have been abused.
Many people are likely to be astonished and sceptical about the conclusion drawn by these reports. The idea that women are as violent as men is counter-intuitive and simply disbelieved. So it is important to provide a flavour of the scope and significance of their findings.
A 1994 British study by Michelle Carrado and others, for example, interviewed 1,800 men and women with heterosexual partners. Some 11% of the men but only 5% of the women said their current partner had committed acts of violence towards them, ranging from pushing, through hitting, to stabbing. Five per cent of married or cohabiting men reported two or more acts of violence against them in a current relationship, compared with only 1% of women. A further 10% of men but 11% of women said they had committed one of these violent acts.
Study after study shows women are not merely violent in self-defence but strike the first blow in about half of all disputes. The American social scientists Murray Straus and Richard Gelles reported from two large national surveys that husbands and wives had assaulted each other at approximately equal rates, with women engaging in minor acts of violence more frequently. Elsewhere, they found more wives than husbands were severely violent towards their spouses.
Moreover, there is now considerable evidence that women initiate severe violence more frequently than men. A survey of 1,037 young adults born between 1972 and 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, found that 18.6% of young women said they had perpetrated severe physical violence against their partners, compared with 5.7% of young men. Three times more women than men said they had kicked or bitten their partners, or hit them with their fists or with an object.
In any event, the idea that women are never the instigators of violence is demolished by the evidence about lesbians.
According to Claire Renzetti, violence in lesbian relationships occurs with about the same frequency as in heterosexual relationships. Lesbian batterers "display a terrifying ingenuity in their selection of abusive tactics, frequently tailoring the abuse to the specific vulnerabilities of their partners". Such abuse can be extremely violent, with women bitten, kicked, punched, thrown down stairs, and assaulted with weapons including guns, knives, whips and broken bottles.
It is true that most women who are the victims of violence suffer domestic assaults. Yet the 1996 British Crime Survey reported that nearly one third of the victims of domestic violence were men, and that nearly half of these male victims were attacked by women. Moreover, if a woman starts a physical fight with a man, even a mild slap might provoke him into retaliating, with far worse consequences. Women who murder violent husbands may be treated leniently because they were provoked; yet men who are violent against women are never granted the same understanding. Provocation, it appears, is a feminist issue.
Moreover, given the greater strength of men, it is particularly noteworthy that so many women initiate violence against them. The fact is that men hold back. The psychologist John Archer has noted that, among female college students, 29% admitted initiating an assault on a male partner. Of those women, half said they had no fear of retaliation or, since men could easily defend themselves, they did not see their own physical aggression as a problem. In other words, far from assuming that men are violent, women take men's non-aggression for granted.
Archer went on to remark on the apparent restraint shown by many men in western cultures. "We might speculate that to some extent a strong norm of men not hitting women enables women to engage in physical aggression which might otherwise not have occurred," he wrote. Male aggression, he suggested, was a kind of default value associated with patriarchal structures.
When these are overridden, as they have been by modern secular liberal values and by the emancipation of women, female aggression increases. "These values will have greatest impact in a relationship that can be ended by the woman at little cost, and where the rate of male aggression is low. "We can speculate that these represent specific instances of a more general set of circumstances entailing a relative change in the balance of power between men and women."
In other words, as women have become independent of men, they have also become more violent towards them - because men have become dispensable. This unpalatable conclusion, however, has been completely overlooked in a culture that believes infamy is the prerogative of the male.
Much to everyone's astonishment, the Home Office recently produced its own evidence that domestic violence was not a male disease. In January 1999, it reported that 4.2% of women and 4.2% of men aged 16 to 59 said they had been physically assaulted by a current or former partner in the past year. Women separated from their partners were most likely to be victims, with 22% assaulted at least once in 1995.
The public reaction to the Home Office research was almost complete silence. The government, too, appeared impervious to its implications. Shortly after it was published, the Home Secretary opened a domestic violence court in Leeds that was founded on the explicit assumption that only men were violent.
In June this year, the Cabinet Office women's unit launched a campaign to "change the culture" that presented domestic violence as almost exclusively a problem of male crime. It managed to omit another under-reported fact: that most violence against children is committed by their mothers, not their fathers. A study by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children revealed a few years ago that natural mothers, not fathers, are most frequently the perpetrators of physical injury, emotional abuse and neglect. This is not particularly surprising, since mothers generally have much more daily contact than fathers with their children. There was yet another notable omission: the women's unit material did not differentiate between couples who were married and people who were living together or had irregular lovers.
It therefore omitted a key fact: that the risk of violence increases significantly for unmarried couples. The Home Office study itself observed that marital separation was a "key risk factor". Only 12.6 in every 1,000 married women are victims of violence, compared with 43.9 in every 1,000 never-married women and 66.5 in every 1,000 divorced or separated women. As husbands are replaced by partners and lovers, therefore, violence against women increases. Marriage is a strong safety factor for women.
Yet this is not said. Instead, the opposite idea is fostered, that violence against women typically takes place within marriage. In November 1998, the women's unit announced a new initiative. Children were urged to report violence against mothers and sisters. There was no mention of abuse against fathers. Instead, a television advertisement showed a husband berating his wife when she told him dinner would be late. That was the violence. It was followed by a helpline number for children to call if a woman in their house had been abused.
This fictional scenario illuminated some remarkable thinking by civil servants and ministers. It had become acceptable, it thus appeared, for children to inform on their fathers to teachers or "helplines" simply for shouting at their mothers. Shouting was now to be classified as domestic violence. If that is the case, then violence happens with enormous frequency in families. Don't women sometimes shout at men?
There was another telling aspect of this advertisement. It featured an "Oxo" middle-class nuclear family. The thinking behind this, according to the then Scottish Office minister Helen Liddell, was that "domestic abuse knows no boundaries of social class or social group". However, not only was this scenario not violence, but the nuclear family is the least likely setting for abuse of women or children. It was no accident, however, that it was chosen. The married nuclear family has to be demonised because it is said to be the vehicle for the oppression of women.
The outcome of all this is that it is now generally accepted that violence is intrinsically male. This is a gravely distorted picture. It is true that most recorded crime is committed by men. It does not follow, however, that most men commit crime. Yet this is the false conclusion that has been drawn, as the result of the suppression or distortion of the facts about violence as well as the message that is constantly promulgated that violence is a problem of masculinity. The evidence suggests that a quite different conclusion should be drawn. This is surely that both women and men are capable of aggression and violence, but that violent men, like violent women, are not typical of their sex.
---Extracted from The Sex Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male, by Melanie Phillips.
Mediator says no contact, ever, because mum doesn't want it
An acquaintance separated from his partner before the baby was born.
He arrived at the hospital to see his new born child, accompanied by his sister. He was not aggressive. He is polite, soft-spoken and well-mannered.
The mum punched him in the face. The nurse was a witness. He has suffered mild whiplash since. He hasn't asked the nurse to be a witness, but feels it very unlikely she would testify anyway. The courts give mums plenty of lee-way regarding their behaviour around the time of birth.
This acquaintance went to a mediation session at the Family Court. His ex-partner was not present in the room (possibly not present at the mediation). The (female) mediator told him quite categorically that he could expect absolutely no contact with his new born daughter "because the mother doesn't want it."
This was not - say - over the next few weeks while the mother and baby bonded. This was EVER !
He found the mediator very patronising - let's say - 'matronising'.
This acquaintance was reasonably confident going in to the Family Court process and wasn't really looking for advice. He had confidence in a system which he believed was fair and based on common sense. He came out of that mediation session shell-shocked, and immediately began visiting solicitors and groups to get advice and help make sense of what appeared to him outrageous behaviour by the mediator.
It amazes me how many people say to me "but the Family Court has all changed hasn't it ? It is all fair and equal now, no ?"
The government has done a good job of sowing deceptive information in the media to make people think things have changed. As I have said previously, one senior Family Court official said to me that the changes were merely a "repackaged brief".
It because of the lack of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, and an unwillngness to enforce orders and impose appropriate penalties (but NOT by reducing access to the children except in extreme and chronic cases where they constitute child abuse) when the mother (or father) contravenes them, that people must continually return to the court system, with all the amplification of conflict and stress this entails.
The Family Court system in Australia is ethically and philosophically bankrupt. The government should be held accountable for the damage they have done and their failure to rectify the situation. But as we know, governments are rarely held accountable except in clear cases of breaking the law (even in cases of genocide, government officials can often get away with murder).
In a true democracy, a class action suit would be brought against the government, and fathers who had had their rights abused would be compensated, and the law would be changed to a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. But the Dads Movement is not sufficiently organised, and even if they were, the government would continue to control the agenda of the courts in such a way that it would not be able to even consider such a case.
Moreover, no one talks about the rights of parents. It is politically incorrect to do so. Such rhetoric is seen as neglecting the best interests of the child, as if they were somehow mutually exclusive.
Meanwhile, radical feminists like Elspeth McInnes continue to fearmonger. For example Elspeth was quoted in a newspaper article a few days ago as saying that 66% of cases before the Family Court system involve safety issues with the children. Does this include the plethora of cases involving false or grossly exaggerated claims of domestic violence for which a DVO has been handed down whether or not the matter has even been investigated ?
In the case mentioned above, I suggest it reflects a strategy by Family Court staff to fulfill their brief of minimising the number of cases that go to trial by intimidating one of the litigants - nearly always the father, with the objective that they become demoralised and compliant with the demands of the other party - ie the mother. The Dad is more likely to be a self-represented litigant and an easier target.
I suggest the mediator is taking advantage of the fact that the medition session is not recorded and that she cannot be quoted in court proceedings.
I suggest that all mediation sessions be recorded, and that the recordings can be quoted whenever any of the participants deem appropriate. The lack of transparency aids the ongoing injustice.
The mediator mentioned above should be taken to task. I suggest that if she display this type of behaviour again, she should be sacked. But it is almost certain that she continues to behave in this way.
He arrived at the hospital to see his new born child, accompanied by his sister. He was not aggressive. He is polite, soft-spoken and well-mannered.
The mum punched him in the face. The nurse was a witness. He has suffered mild whiplash since. He hasn't asked the nurse to be a witness, but feels it very unlikely she would testify anyway. The courts give mums plenty of lee-way regarding their behaviour around the time of birth.
This acquaintance went to a mediation session at the Family Court. His ex-partner was not present in the room (possibly not present at the mediation). The (female) mediator told him quite categorically that he could expect absolutely no contact with his new born daughter "because the mother doesn't want it."
This was not - say - over the next few weeks while the mother and baby bonded. This was EVER !
He found the mediator very patronising - let's say - 'matronising'.
This acquaintance was reasonably confident going in to the Family Court process and wasn't really looking for advice. He had confidence in a system which he believed was fair and based on common sense. He came out of that mediation session shell-shocked, and immediately began visiting solicitors and groups to get advice and help make sense of what appeared to him outrageous behaviour by the mediator.
It amazes me how many people say to me "but the Family Court has all changed hasn't it ? It is all fair and equal now, no ?"
The government has done a good job of sowing deceptive information in the media to make people think things have changed. As I have said previously, one senior Family Court official said to me that the changes were merely a "repackaged brief".
It because of the lack of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, and an unwillngness to enforce orders and impose appropriate penalties (but NOT by reducing access to the children except in extreme and chronic cases where they constitute child abuse) when the mother (or father) contravenes them, that people must continually return to the court system, with all the amplification of conflict and stress this entails.
The Family Court system in Australia is ethically and philosophically bankrupt. The government should be held accountable for the damage they have done and their failure to rectify the situation. But as we know, governments are rarely held accountable except in clear cases of breaking the law (even in cases of genocide, government officials can often get away with murder).
In a true democracy, a class action suit would be brought against the government, and fathers who had had their rights abused would be compensated, and the law would be changed to a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. But the Dads Movement is not sufficiently organised, and even if they were, the government would continue to control the agenda of the courts in such a way that it would not be able to even consider such a case.
Moreover, no one talks about the rights of parents. It is politically incorrect to do so. Such rhetoric is seen as neglecting the best interests of the child, as if they were somehow mutually exclusive.
Meanwhile, radical feminists like Elspeth McInnes continue to fearmonger. For example Elspeth was quoted in a newspaper article a few days ago as saying that 66% of cases before the Family Court system involve safety issues with the children. Does this include the plethora of cases involving false or grossly exaggerated claims of domestic violence for which a DVO has been handed down whether or not the matter has even been investigated ?
In the case mentioned above, I suggest it reflects a strategy by Family Court staff to fulfill their brief of minimising the number of cases that go to trial by intimidating one of the litigants - nearly always the father, with the objective that they become demoralised and compliant with the demands of the other party - ie the mother. The Dad is more likely to be a self-represented litigant and an easier target.
I suggest the mediator is taking advantage of the fact that the medition session is not recorded and that she cannot be quoted in court proceedings.
I suggest that all mediation sessions be recorded, and that the recordings can be quoted whenever any of the participants deem appropriate. The lack of transparency aids the ongoing injustice.
The mediator mentioned above should be taken to task. I suggest that if she display this type of behaviour again, she should be sacked. But it is almost certain that she continues to behave in this way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
