The reason we can’t have a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time is because one size doesn’t fit all.
We are only concerned with the best interests of the child.
It is not good policy if we give dads 50% residency if they are working full time, and the mother is able to provide better care.
*
Well my son’s mother works full time, and sometimes works overtime and is sometimes on call. She sometimes picks our son up from school and takes him to her workplace until she finishes work.
I, on the other hand, have flexible work arrangements which I can tailor to my son’s needs (self-employed, work from home).
However, residency was given to the mother 68:32.
*
What is more, I would not like to reverse the situation 32:68 as I believe my son and his mum need adequate contact. 50:50 equal parenting is the obvious arrangement.
Had there been a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, I believe we wouldn't have spent well over $40,000, countless wasted hours preparing affidavits and other documents, during two years of stress and amplified conflict, as we travelled through an absurd Family Court system.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Their wise verdicts
Their wise verdicts
"Family Court judges would like to keep themselves employed in the business of deciding whether a father should have 37% residency of their child following family separation, or 48% residency, or 25% residency, or 42% residency, or 34.5% residency, or maybe even 50% residency, or 56.3% residency.
"They wish to continue dragging couples through their inflammatory and expensive judicial system for two years so that at the end they can hand down their wise verdicts.
"The only thing I can see is the foolishness of judges and Attorneys General, and the mercenary interests of the Family Law industry."
Geoff Holland, May 2007
"Family Court judges would like to keep themselves employed in the business of deciding whether a father should have 37% residency of their child following family separation, or 48% residency, or 25% residency, or 42% residency, or 34.5% residency, or maybe even 50% residency, or 56.3% residency.
"They wish to continue dragging couples through their inflammatory and expensive judicial system for two years so that at the end they can hand down their wise verdicts.
"The only thing I can see is the foolishness of judges and Attorneys General, and the mercenary interests of the Family Law industry."
Geoff Holland, May 2007
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Exposing the anti-male myth
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21788998-5000117,00.html#
Exposing the anti-male myth
By Bettina Arndt
Herald Sun25 May 2007 12:00am
When Erin Pizzey was a small girl she pleaded for help from a teacher, blood running down her legs from a whipping her mother had given her.
Her plea was dismissed. No one would believe such violence was possible in this rich, glamorous diplomat's family.
That was 60 years ago.
In 1971, Pizzey launched one of Britain's first women's refuges but became disenchanted when the refuge movement was hijacked by women promoting anti-male agendas.
Since then, she has been fighting a mighty battle to expose the truth about family violence: namely that girls and boys, who are exposed to violence in early childhood, can grow up to repeat what they have learnt.
She has written about her own experiences; her 193cm father was a bully but it was her beautiful, 144cm mother who terrorised and battered her family.
She's written books and articles exposing the anti-male myths being propagated about domestic violence, documenting research that shows domestic violence is often reciprocal, with men and women locked into destructive behaviour.
As she explained in her radio interview with Dads on the Air this week it made her unpopular with British feminists who had turned domestic violence into a million dollar industry. She received death threats and was heckled while speaking publicly in the UK and US.
Yet, she continues to speak out about the failure to recognise that women can be equally complicit in such violence.It's not in our interests she says, for women to be continually taught they are victims.
Pizzey takes a swipe at Australia's Violence Against Women campaigns, which show a never-ending parade of violent men. There is never a hint that men are sometimes victims."It's a terrible lie," says Pizzey, who has written extensively about women who behave as "emotional terrorists".
The whims and actions of such women determine the emotional climate of the household.Pizzey makes the telling point that marital dissolution can "call to the fore the terrorist's destructiveness", mentioning the women who make false allegations of violence or sexual abuse, or simply cut dad out of the lives of children.
This month, an important step towards a more balanced debate was made with the publication of Allegations of Family Violence and Child Abuse in Family Law Children's Proceedings.The report was produced by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. It examined 399 cases and found most involved allegations of violence, often from both sides.
In these circumstances, where unsubstantiated allegations fly in both directions, it's just too hard for judges to see the wood for the trees, suggest the AIFS researchers.They found it was rare for judgments to deny contact on the basis of such allegations.
The report is critical of Australian research on violence in Family Court matters.The report shows much of this research relies on small, carefully selected samples to draw misleading conclusions about male violence.
This blinkered research "rarely concedes the possibility that at least some of the violence may be situational, one-off, reciprocated, or even at times initiated by women," says the AIFS report.
How refreshing to see AIFS research acknowledge that there's a very real difference between the situational violence common in marital separation, with both parties doing things they later regret, and the more systemic controlling violence where the males are almost always the perpetrator.
In the latter case, court intervention is often necessary to protect children and mothers from these dangerous men. The challenge is a court system that can properly identify them.But what's needed with situational violence is for men and women to be helped to calm down and look carefully at the impact of their behaviour, particularly on their children.
Child-centred mediation in the Family Relationships Centres is helping people learn to stop the violence, unlike court processes, which often serve to escalate it.
bettinaarndt@hotmail.com
Exposing the anti-male myth
By Bettina Arndt
Herald Sun25 May 2007 12:00am
When Erin Pizzey was a small girl she pleaded for help from a teacher, blood running down her legs from a whipping her mother had given her.
Her plea was dismissed. No one would believe such violence was possible in this rich, glamorous diplomat's family.
That was 60 years ago.
In 1971, Pizzey launched one of Britain's first women's refuges but became disenchanted when the refuge movement was hijacked by women promoting anti-male agendas.
Since then, she has been fighting a mighty battle to expose the truth about family violence: namely that girls and boys, who are exposed to violence in early childhood, can grow up to repeat what they have learnt.
She has written about her own experiences; her 193cm father was a bully but it was her beautiful, 144cm mother who terrorised and battered her family.
She's written books and articles exposing the anti-male myths being propagated about domestic violence, documenting research that shows domestic violence is often reciprocal, with men and women locked into destructive behaviour.
As she explained in her radio interview with Dads on the Air this week it made her unpopular with British feminists who had turned domestic violence into a million dollar industry. She received death threats and was heckled while speaking publicly in the UK and US.
Yet, she continues to speak out about the failure to recognise that women can be equally complicit in such violence.It's not in our interests she says, for women to be continually taught they are victims.
Pizzey takes a swipe at Australia's Violence Against Women campaigns, which show a never-ending parade of violent men. There is never a hint that men are sometimes victims."It's a terrible lie," says Pizzey, who has written extensively about women who behave as "emotional terrorists".
The whims and actions of such women determine the emotional climate of the household.Pizzey makes the telling point that marital dissolution can "call to the fore the terrorist's destructiveness", mentioning the women who make false allegations of violence or sexual abuse, or simply cut dad out of the lives of children.
This month, an important step towards a more balanced debate was made with the publication of Allegations of Family Violence and Child Abuse in Family Law Children's Proceedings.The report was produced by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. It examined 399 cases and found most involved allegations of violence, often from both sides.
In these circumstances, where unsubstantiated allegations fly in both directions, it's just too hard for judges to see the wood for the trees, suggest the AIFS researchers.They found it was rare for judgments to deny contact on the basis of such allegations.
The report is critical of Australian research on violence in Family Court matters.The report shows much of this research relies on small, carefully selected samples to draw misleading conclusions about male violence.
This blinkered research "rarely concedes the possibility that at least some of the violence may be situational, one-off, reciprocated, or even at times initiated by women," says the AIFS report.
How refreshing to see AIFS research acknowledge that there's a very real difference between the situational violence common in marital separation, with both parties doing things they later regret, and the more systemic controlling violence where the males are almost always the perpetrator.
In the latter case, court intervention is often necessary to protect children and mothers from these dangerous men. The challenge is a court system that can properly identify them.But what's needed with situational violence is for men and women to be helped to calm down and look carefully at the impact of their behaviour, particularly on their children.
Child-centred mediation in the Family Relationships Centres is helping people learn to stop the violence, unlike court processes, which often serve to escalate it.
bettinaarndt@hotmail.com
Monday, May 21, 2007
Draft: Family Relationship Centres policy recommendations
Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) Policy Recommendations
Of course people will say it is too early to say if the Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) are going to work in the sense of reducing the number of cases that go to the Family Court system.
They will need to do a review in a year or two, and then hold conferences to discuss the results of the review (another year or two), and then discuss policy recommendations (another year or two). We shouldn't wait six years before action is taken to reform the FRCs. We should start lobbying NOW !
The success of the FRCs must be measured in terms of
- the percentage of cases they have prevented from going to the Family Court system, and
- the percentage of cases which result in Equal Parenting Time, because equal parenting is best for kids !
While the FRCs are a good idea in the main, one of the worrying aspects is that mediation will be private - unlike the Family Court system where members of the public can witness proceedings.
Below I have drafted 12 policy recommendations, which I would like people to comment on, and perhaps suggest others. Then after debate and review, we could submit them to government.
Cheers, Geoff
POLICY 1
PRESUMPTION OF EQUAL PARENTING TIME
FRCs are unlikely to be effective until there is a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time incorporated into the Family Law Act because there will be no incentive to mediate if the either parent (usually the mum) believes they can get majority residency in the Family Court system.
POLICY 2
Support person
No solicitor can be present at the mediation sessions. However, either parent can bring along a support person who is a close friend or relative (but not a professional).
POLICY 3
Public access to proceedings
Mediation sessions should be recorded and made publically available on podcasts, so that public scrutiny is not lost.
Sounds like a radical suggestion ? Well I am just trying to preserve the status quo in terms of public accountability. Remember that organisations who run the FRCs such as Relationships Australia and CentaCare, are staffed 70% or more by women. Also, both these organisations and others involved in running FRCs made submissions to the Inquiry into Child Custody 2004 AGAINST a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
POLICY 4
Exclusivity of FRCs
Every couple should be obliged to attend an FRC, and no other mediation service (especially those run by Family Law solicitors), because we need to do precise studies on the effectiveness of policies, and we cannot do these studies if mediation is being carried out by a huge variety of organisations. Limiting mandatory mediation to the FRCs gives far better prospects for QUALITY CONTROL
POLICY 5
Mandatory mediation
Neither parent can use the excuse that they wish to be exempt from mediation on the basis that the other partner is too violent or has been abusive to the children. The issue of child abuse needs to be taken up with Child Protection who need to ensure child safety - by restricting access if necessary. If required, mediation can take place via an online video-conference with parents in separate locations.
POLICY 6
Transparency in evaluation
The FRCs need to present statistics and evaluation of outcomes on a regular basis and these need to be made available to the public.
POLICY 7
Courses
FRCs need to be adequately funded to run courses in Conflict Resolution, Conflict Prevention, Advanced Parenting, The Harm of Parental Alienation, Anger Management. (Participants can pay part of the cost, say $15 per session).
POLICY 8
Case workers
FRCs need to be adequately funded to assign qualified case workers to couples where there are accusations of violence or sex abuse, to acertain the veracity, and to trigger remedial action where cases are verified, ranging from attending courses, for mild instances, to removal of the child in serious cases. Case workers should be able to interact regularly with children where there is suspicion of parental abuse, but case workers should scrutinise both parents even-handedly. Courses should be available for groups of children to teach them about signs of physical or sexual abuse, and how to alert the case-worker, or school counsellor, as well as teach them how abusive parents might ask them to keep a secret, and why it is important not to keep such a secret.
POLICY 9
Attending courses - authority
FRCs need to be given the authority to oblige parents to attend courses (Conflict Resolution, Conflict Prevention, Advanced Parenting, The Harm of Parental Alienation, Anger Management) and to make recommendations to a court to impose penalties (community service, fines, daytime jail, extended jail) for chronic antisocial behaviour including lack of cooperation, communication, and consultation regarding parenting, violent attitudes, physical or emotional/psychological violent behaviour, parental alienation, sexual abuse.
POLICY 10
Process Parental Agreements
FRCs need the authority to fully process Parental Agreements which would have the legal strength of court orders, and the authority to lodge them with the Family Court to help minimise parents’ contact with the court.
POLICY 11
Opportunity for review
Either parent should be able to review Parental Agreements by calling for a mediation session at an FRC. Mediators and case workers who see a parent acting vexaciously by calling for excessive mediation sessions can refer the case to the Family Court system.
POLICY 12
FRC Complaints Investigation Service (CIS)
That an independent FRC Complaints Investigation Service be established to investigate claims of bias, non-professionalism, or mistakes etc for clients of the FRCs. This CIS should also be transparent and accountable to prevent it from being captured by the FRC industry.
Of course people will say it is too early to say if the Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) are going to work in the sense of reducing the number of cases that go to the Family Court system.
They will need to do a review in a year or two, and then hold conferences to discuss the results of the review (another year or two), and then discuss policy recommendations (another year or two). We shouldn't wait six years before action is taken to reform the FRCs. We should start lobbying NOW !
The success of the FRCs must be measured in terms of
- the percentage of cases they have prevented from going to the Family Court system, and
- the percentage of cases which result in Equal Parenting Time, because equal parenting is best for kids !
While the FRCs are a good idea in the main, one of the worrying aspects is that mediation will be private - unlike the Family Court system where members of the public can witness proceedings.
Below I have drafted 12 policy recommendations, which I would like people to comment on, and perhaps suggest others. Then after debate and review, we could submit them to government.
Cheers, Geoff
POLICY 1
PRESUMPTION OF EQUAL PARENTING TIME
FRCs are unlikely to be effective until there is a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time incorporated into the Family Law Act because there will be no incentive to mediate if the either parent (usually the mum) believes they can get majority residency in the Family Court system.
POLICY 2
Support person
No solicitor can be present at the mediation sessions. However, either parent can bring along a support person who is a close friend or relative (but not a professional).
POLICY 3
Public access to proceedings
Mediation sessions should be recorded and made publically available on podcasts, so that public scrutiny is not lost.
Sounds like a radical suggestion ? Well I am just trying to preserve the status quo in terms of public accountability. Remember that organisations who run the FRCs such as Relationships Australia and CentaCare, are staffed 70% or more by women. Also, both these organisations and others involved in running FRCs made submissions to the Inquiry into Child Custody 2004 AGAINST a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
POLICY 4
Exclusivity of FRCs
Every couple should be obliged to attend an FRC, and no other mediation service (especially those run by Family Law solicitors), because we need to do precise studies on the effectiveness of policies, and we cannot do these studies if mediation is being carried out by a huge variety of organisations. Limiting mandatory mediation to the FRCs gives far better prospects for QUALITY CONTROL
POLICY 5
Mandatory mediation
Neither parent can use the excuse that they wish to be exempt from mediation on the basis that the other partner is too violent or has been abusive to the children. The issue of child abuse needs to be taken up with Child Protection who need to ensure child safety - by restricting access if necessary. If required, mediation can take place via an online video-conference with parents in separate locations.
POLICY 6
Transparency in evaluation
The FRCs need to present statistics and evaluation of outcomes on a regular basis and these need to be made available to the public.
POLICY 7
Courses
FRCs need to be adequately funded to run courses in Conflict Resolution, Conflict Prevention, Advanced Parenting, The Harm of Parental Alienation, Anger Management. (Participants can pay part of the cost, say $15 per session).
POLICY 8
Case workers
FRCs need to be adequately funded to assign qualified case workers to couples where there are accusations of violence or sex abuse, to acertain the veracity, and to trigger remedial action where cases are verified, ranging from attending courses, for mild instances, to removal of the child in serious cases. Case workers should be able to interact regularly with children where there is suspicion of parental abuse, but case workers should scrutinise both parents even-handedly. Courses should be available for groups of children to teach them about signs of physical or sexual abuse, and how to alert the case-worker, or school counsellor, as well as teach them how abusive parents might ask them to keep a secret, and why it is important not to keep such a secret.
POLICY 9
Attending courses - authority
FRCs need to be given the authority to oblige parents to attend courses (Conflict Resolution, Conflict Prevention, Advanced Parenting, The Harm of Parental Alienation, Anger Management) and to make recommendations to a court to impose penalties (community service, fines, daytime jail, extended jail) for chronic antisocial behaviour including lack of cooperation, communication, and consultation regarding parenting, violent attitudes, physical or emotional/psychological violent behaviour, parental alienation, sexual abuse.
POLICY 10
Process Parental Agreements
FRCs need the authority to fully process Parental Agreements which would have the legal strength of court orders, and the authority to lodge them with the Family Court to help minimise parents’ contact with the court.
POLICY 11
Opportunity for review
Either parent should be able to review Parental Agreements by calling for a mediation session at an FRC. Mediators and case workers who see a parent acting vexaciously by calling for excessive mediation sessions can refer the case to the Family Court system.
POLICY 12
FRC Complaints Investigation Service (CIS)
That an independent FRC Complaints Investigation Service be established to investigate claims of bias, non-professionalism, or mistakes etc for clients of the FRCs. This CIS should also be transparent and accountable to prevent it from being captured by the FRC industry.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Right versus privilege
Watching the discussion on Channel Nine Sunday program ("Divorce : a national epidemic') this morning (20 May 2007) on the reform of Family Law, one thing I picked up was:
Some of the women who spoke in the program appear to have the conviction that motherhood is a right while fatherhood is a privilege (best bestowed and regulated by the mother). They say that fathers should earn the right of contact.
This is a key point of difference which must be discussed and decided upon.
We must demonstrate that motherhood is both a right and a privilege, and that fatherhood is also both a right and a privilege, and that neither the mother nor the father, nor the Family Court for that matter, can bestow or regulate this natural right and privilege.
In cases of alleged child abuse the State must investigate both parents even-handedly.
In cases of proven child abuse the State must ensure contact between the offending parent and the child is safe for the child.
In cases of chronic conflict between the parents, the State must impose commensurate penalties as a deterrent as well as remedial counselling, mediation, therapy etc. There are ways of organising shared parenting which can minimise the risk of conflict such as changeovers at school, using a mediator for decision-making, assign parents different areas for decision-making, etc.
Go to:
http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_2202.asp
to see a transcript or video of the program.
Some of the women who spoke in the program appear to have the conviction that motherhood is a right while fatherhood is a privilege (best bestowed and regulated by the mother). They say that fathers should earn the right of contact.
This is a key point of difference which must be discussed and decided upon.
We must demonstrate that motherhood is both a right and a privilege, and that fatherhood is also both a right and a privilege, and that neither the mother nor the father, nor the Family Court for that matter, can bestow or regulate this natural right and privilege.
In cases of alleged child abuse the State must investigate both parents even-handedly.
In cases of proven child abuse the State must ensure contact between the offending parent and the child is safe for the child.
In cases of chronic conflict between the parents, the State must impose commensurate penalties as a deterrent as well as remedial counselling, mediation, therapy etc. There are ways of organising shared parenting which can minimise the risk of conflict such as changeovers at school, using a mediator for decision-making, assign parents different areas for decision-making, etc.
Go to:
http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_2202.asp
to see a transcript or video of the program.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Letter to the Chief Magistrate
Diana Bryant,
Chief Magistrate, Family Court of Australia
Dear Diana,
Regarding the ongoing saga of the Robertson children:
Once again the Family Court is reaping the impact of a misconceived and discriminatory policy.
Why did the Family Court permit the mother, Philippa Yelland, to relocate to another city ?
Why does the Family Court perpetrate parental alienation in this way ?
What is the Family Court going to do to resolve this situation it has created ?
I would appreciate a reply e-mail at least to acknowledge that you have personally received this message.
Many thanks,
Sincerely,
Geoff Holland
Chief Magistrate, Family Court of Australia
Dear Diana,
Regarding the ongoing saga of the Robertson children:
Once again the Family Court is reaping the impact of a misconceived and discriminatory policy.
Why did the Family Court permit the mother, Philippa Yelland, to relocate to another city ?
Why does the Family Court perpetrate parental alienation in this way ?
What is the Family Court going to do to resolve this situation it has created ?
I would appreciate a reply e-mail at least to acknowledge that you have personally received this message.
Many thanks,
Sincerely,
Geoff Holland
Unequal v. equal shared parenting
If you have unequal shared parenting then why not equal shared parenting ?
If there is chronic violence or child sex abuse, you shouldn't have shared parenting of any sort.
But if unequal shared parenting has been granted, then why not equal shared parent?
If there is chronic violence or child sex abuse, you shouldn't have shared parenting of any sort.
But if unequal shared parenting has been granted, then why not equal shared parent?
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
I am an uneducated black man
To my sister, a loyal feminist:
I am an uneducated black man. I don't have the right to vote. People say the brains of black people are smaller than the brains of white people, and we are not as intelligent. Also we are not educated. Therefore it would be irresponsible to allow us to vote because we wouldn't be able to vote responsibly. We might vote for a tyrant, for example !
My sister says that although I am black and uneducated (she is white, educated and has the right to vote), she thinks that in my case I should be able to vote because she thinks I am intelligent enough. But she agrees, black people shouldn't be given the right to vote.
I am an uneducated black man. I don't have the right to vote. People say the brains of black people are smaller than the brains of white people, and we are not as intelligent. Also we are not educated. Therefore it would be irresponsible to allow us to vote because we wouldn't be able to vote responsibly. We might vote for a tyrant, for example !
My sister says that although I am black and uneducated (she is white, educated and has the right to vote), she thinks that in my case I should be able to vote because she thinks I am intelligent enough. But she agrees, black people shouldn't be given the right to vote.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Letter to Sydney Morning Herald responding to Adele Horan
letters@smh.com.au
Letter to the Sydney Morning Herald in response to two articles by Adele Horan published in the SMH on 12 May 2007:
No excuse to marginalise dads
In both the articles "Bold new path on domestic violence" 12 May 2007 and "Odds still stacked against the children" 12 May 2007, which link domestic violence to Family Court policy, the assumption is that men alone are the perpetrators of domestic violence and child abuse.
In fact the Australian Bureau of Statistics' recent Personal Safety Study found that men are perpetrators in about 70% of cases and women are perpetrators in about 30% of cases. With physical child abuse, the figure is similarly about 70% perpetrated by fathers and step-fathers, compared to 30% perpetrated by mothers and step-mothers. For child sexual abuse, the figure is about 94% perpetrated by fathers and step-fathers compared to about 6% perpetrated by mothers and step-mothers (though the ABS stipulates that this statistic has a relative standard error of 25-50% and should be used with caution).
The ABS study suggests that about 0.9% of the population has experienced child sexual abuse by a parent or step-parent (0.85% by fathers, 0.05% by mothers) , and about 6% of the population has experienced physical child abuse (4% by fathers, 2% by mothers).
It cannot be certain if these are the current trends as they are based on studies of past experiences of adults.
What the ABS Personal Safety Study does not do is distinguish between fathers and step-fathers. It is known from other studies that step-fathers are by far the greater perpetrators of child sexual abuse compared to natural fathers, and also more responsible for physical abuse. So there is a strong argument here that children are safer with the natural father than with the natural mother. Similarly, separated natural mothers are known to be more physically abusive toward their children than separated natural fathers.
The Child Protection Queensland 2005-06 Performance Report shows that women were responsible for 55.5% of substantiated child abuse cases across Queensland in 2005-06.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report showed that for 2005-06, Tasmanian children living with single mothers featured in 40 per cent of child-abuse and neglect cases.
Why do domestic violence campaigns never acknowledge domestic violence by women toward both their partners and their children ?
Yes we do indeed need better ways to distinguish the vast majority of fathers who are a great asset to their children and deserve a fair go!
Geoff Holland
Cairns, Qld
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bold-new-path-on-domestic-violence/2007/05/11/1178390559609.html
The Sydney Morning Herald
12 May 2007
Bold new path on domestic violence
By Adele Horin
Not all men who have been violent towards their wives are dangerous, and
they should not necessarily be denied the chance to have a good
relationship with their children, according to a groundbreaking study
commissioned by the federal Attorney-General's Department.
It urges the Family Court to take a more "nuanced" view of family violence
in decisions about where children live and how much time they spend with
parents, usually fathers, accused of violence.
The study, by a team of researchers at the Australian Institute of Family
Studies, says that "while family violence is never acceptable, not all acts
of violence and abuse are the same".
It says researchers in the past have rarely conceded "the possibility that
at least some of the violence may be situational, one-off, reciprocated, or
even at times initiated by women".
The findings have outraged domestic violence researchers who have battled
for decades to establish that all forms of male violence are unacceptable
and are a major factor in marriage breakdown.
The issue of what constitutes violence is critical to the family law
system. In making decisions about children, the courts are required to put
safety first. But under the new family law, enacted last July, they are
also required to put new emphasis on shared care arrangements.
The new study is based on 300 cases filed in the Family Court or the
Federal Magistrates Court in 2003 involving disputes over post-separation
parenting.
It found over half the cases involved allegations of domestic violence or
child abuse. Most of the alleged behaviour was at the severe end of the
spectrum.
The study was not designed to test "whether women lie", said the
co-researcher, Professor Lawrie Moloney. But overseas research indicated
that allegations of violence were more likely to be true than false.
But he said it was imperative to move beyond the picture of domestic
violence painted by Australian researchers in the past. This view was based
on extreme cases of women and children in refuges who had been subject to
coercive control by men.
The report says "some researchers have been more concerned with getting the
stories out there than with careful sampling or careful definitions".
It posits two forms of domestic violence - situational and "intimate
terrorism" - with only the latter being a serious threat to women's and
children's well-being.
It says the family court system should respond in different ways to
different types of violence, ranging from total exclusion of the
perpetrator from a child's life to "a recognition that the violence or
abuse was a single instance that is most unlikely to happen again."
Thea Brown, professor of social work at Monash University, who has
conducted three studies based on Family Court files, dismissed the analysis
as simplistic.
"This approach undermines the dangers for women and children in any kind of
domestic violence," she said. "A man who slaps his wife is likely to be
someone who has done it before."
The study endorses overseas research that classifies violence into the two
kinds.
Controlling violence, also known as intimate terrorism, is dangerous to
women and children, and its perpetrators are almost always men. It springs
from a man's desire to control his partner through the exercise of
physical, sexual and emotional violence, economic power, isolation, and the
manipulation and threatening of children, the study says.
Situational violence involves "fewer incidents of less severity that do not
result in significant injury. It is not seen as part of a larger pattern of
control and usually does not escalate." Some studies say women initiate
this violence in almost half the cases, and women also reciprocate.
The researchers found a dearth of corroborative or detailed evidence in the
case files to back up allegations of violence. As a result the research
found allegations of violence had no effect on most outcomes about child
contact with fathers.
Virginia Geddes, co-ordinator of the Domestic Violence and Incest Resource
Centre, said: "Women are not being heard or taken seriously enough, and a
lot of energy is going into trying to discredit their allegations."
Danny Blay, manager of No To Family Violence, a body for men's behaviour
change programs, said: "It is vital that women and children are believed
when they say they are scared of someone, and that men are challenged to
consider the impact of their behaviour."
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/5050-but-the-odds-are-still-stacked-against-the-children/2007/05/11/1178390549474.html
The Sydney Morning Herald
12 May 2007
Odds still stacked against the children
By Adele Horin
It is more critical than ever for the Family Court and the Federal
Magistrates Court to work out a better way to sort out good dads from the
bad. Good dads - and the children who love them - got a raw deal under the
old regime of fortnightly weekend access visits. But bad dads, it turns
out, have been treated too generously.
Too often in the recent past the courts have given violent and controlling
men too much unsupervised time with their children. Now that the new family
law that came into effect last year puts greater emphasis on shared
parental time - or 50/50 residence - children may be forced to spend even
more time with bad dads.
I say this in light of a new study of 300 cases filed in the Family Court
and Federal Magistrates Court in 2003 in which parenting matters were in
dispute. The study, funded by the federal Attorney-General's Department and
undertaken by researchers at the Australian Institute of Family Studies,
reveals that partner violence and/or child abuse is alleged in more than
half the cases; and the abuse alleged is judged "severe" in most cases.
This points to a level of domestic violence and child abuse (mainly
physical) in faltering Australian marriages that is even worse than
previously estimated.
But of great surprise is the finding that allegations of domestic violence
and child abuse make no difference to the outcome of cases unless strong
corroborative evidence is provided. Where the father is the alleged
perpetrator of violence, as is most common, the children are still highly
likely to be sent to his place for overnight visits - just as if he were a
good father. "Orders for overnight stays predominated … regardless of the
apparent severity or probative weight of evidence underpinning them," the
report says. The bad dads in general get just as much time with their
children as the good dads.
Caught in the conundrum of severing or curtailing children's relationships
with their fathers, or protecting children from potentially dangerous men,
the court has tended to opt for maintaining the relationship. It rarely,
for example, denies a father contact with his children - at most the
contact may be supervised.
But wait, I hear you say, these are allegations of violence. Don't women in
these circumstances lie to exact revenge on their ex-partner? The study,
based on case files, did not have the scope to determine the veracity of
the allegations. That would require cross-referencing with police files and
child protection agencies. But the researchers point to overseas studies
that show "false denials are more common than false allegations".
As one of the authors, Professor Lawrie Moloney, said: "If you had to put a
bet on a random set of allegations, you'd put your money on them being true."
In other words, some women do lie, but most don't. Yet most children with
abusive fathers are being shipped off to them for overnight visits. Even if
the children themselves have not been beaten, the evidence is now
overwhelming that men who are violent to their partners or ex-partners are
bad news for children. The Government has never funded research to follow
up how these children, in unsupervised overnight contact with allegedly
violent men, are faring.
The study, far from exhibiting an anti-male bias, is likely to enrage some
feminists because it raises the question: what is a violent man? It argues
not all violent men are alike - and not all are bad influences on their
children. It argues there are two forms of male violence - situational and
controlling - and only the latter is a real danger to children's welfare.
Situational violence is reactive, occasional and less serious, and is
likely to be reciprocated by women, or even initiated by them. Controlling
violence is when men rule by force, fear and a sense of entitlement; it is
continuing and has been called "intimate terrorism".
The authors argue different forms of violence require different responses -
from prohibiting a violent father's contact with his children to accepting
that a violent outburst is unlikely to happen again.
The Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court, however, have
understandably found it hard to discriminate. Every day courts hear a lot
of "noise" about family violence. But there is often too little
corroborative or detailed evidence provided, and as a researcher said:
"Some judges tend to throw up their hands." As well, lawyers are under
pressure to settle cases before they get to a judge, even when violence is
alleged. The default position is that children spend time with bad dads -
and that might be doing them damage.
The successful push for 50/50 care will change societal as well as legal
norms. For good dads and the children who love them, having more time
together may be a blessing. But there is urgent need for court officers to
get more help in assessing allegations of violence, and for more research.
Otherwise some children will have no reason to count their blessings.
- Allegations of family violence and child abuse in family law children's
proceedings: Lawrie Moloney, Bruce Smyth, Ruth Weston, Nicholas Richardson,
Lixia Qu, Matthew Gray.
Letter to the Sydney Morning Herald in response to two articles by Adele Horan published in the SMH on 12 May 2007:
No excuse to marginalise dads
In both the articles "Bold new path on domestic violence" 12 May 2007 and "Odds still stacked against the children" 12 May 2007, which link domestic violence to Family Court policy, the assumption is that men alone are the perpetrators of domestic violence and child abuse.
In fact the Australian Bureau of Statistics' recent Personal Safety Study found that men are perpetrators in about 70% of cases and women are perpetrators in about 30% of cases. With physical child abuse, the figure is similarly about 70% perpetrated by fathers and step-fathers, compared to 30% perpetrated by mothers and step-mothers. For child sexual abuse, the figure is about 94% perpetrated by fathers and step-fathers compared to about 6% perpetrated by mothers and step-mothers (though the ABS stipulates that this statistic has a relative standard error of 25-50% and should be used with caution).
The ABS study suggests that about 0.9% of the population has experienced child sexual abuse by a parent or step-parent (0.85% by fathers, 0.05% by mothers) , and about 6% of the population has experienced physical child abuse (4% by fathers, 2% by mothers).
It cannot be certain if these are the current trends as they are based on studies of past experiences of adults.
What the ABS Personal Safety Study does not do is distinguish between fathers and step-fathers. It is known from other studies that step-fathers are by far the greater perpetrators of child sexual abuse compared to natural fathers, and also more responsible for physical abuse. So there is a strong argument here that children are safer with the natural father than with the natural mother. Similarly, separated natural mothers are known to be more physically abusive toward their children than separated natural fathers.
The Child Protection Queensland 2005-06 Performance Report shows that women were responsible for 55.5% of substantiated child abuse cases across Queensland in 2005-06.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report showed that for 2005-06, Tasmanian children living with single mothers featured in 40 per cent of child-abuse and neglect cases.
Why do domestic violence campaigns never acknowledge domestic violence by women toward both their partners and their children ?
Yes we do indeed need better ways to distinguish the vast majority of fathers who are a great asset to their children and deserve a fair go!
Geoff Holland
Cairns, Qld
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bold-new-path-on-domestic-violence/2007/05/11/1178390559609.html
The Sydney Morning Herald
12 May 2007
Bold new path on domestic violence
By Adele Horin
Not all men who have been violent towards their wives are dangerous, and
they should not necessarily be denied the chance to have a good
relationship with their children, according to a groundbreaking study
commissioned by the federal Attorney-General's Department.
It urges the Family Court to take a more "nuanced" view of family violence
in decisions about where children live and how much time they spend with
parents, usually fathers, accused of violence.
The study, by a team of researchers at the Australian Institute of Family
Studies, says that "while family violence is never acceptable, not all acts
of violence and abuse are the same".
It says researchers in the past have rarely conceded "the possibility that
at least some of the violence may be situational, one-off, reciprocated, or
even at times initiated by women".
The findings have outraged domestic violence researchers who have battled
for decades to establish that all forms of male violence are unacceptable
and are a major factor in marriage breakdown.
The issue of what constitutes violence is critical to the family law
system. In making decisions about children, the courts are required to put
safety first. But under the new family law, enacted last July, they are
also required to put new emphasis on shared care arrangements.
The new study is based on 300 cases filed in the Family Court or the
Federal Magistrates Court in 2003 involving disputes over post-separation
parenting.
It found over half the cases involved allegations of domestic violence or
child abuse. Most of the alleged behaviour was at the severe end of the
spectrum.
The study was not designed to test "whether women lie", said the
co-researcher, Professor Lawrie Moloney. But overseas research indicated
that allegations of violence were more likely to be true than false.
But he said it was imperative to move beyond the picture of domestic
violence painted by Australian researchers in the past. This view was based
on extreme cases of women and children in refuges who had been subject to
coercive control by men.
The report says "some researchers have been more concerned with getting the
stories out there than with careful sampling or careful definitions".
It posits two forms of domestic violence - situational and "intimate
terrorism" - with only the latter being a serious threat to women's and
children's well-being.
It says the family court system should respond in different ways to
different types of violence, ranging from total exclusion of the
perpetrator from a child's life to "a recognition that the violence or
abuse was a single instance that is most unlikely to happen again."
Thea Brown, professor of social work at Monash University, who has
conducted three studies based on Family Court files, dismissed the analysis
as simplistic.
"This approach undermines the dangers for women and children in any kind of
domestic violence," she said. "A man who slaps his wife is likely to be
someone who has done it before."
The study endorses overseas research that classifies violence into the two
kinds.
Controlling violence, also known as intimate terrorism, is dangerous to
women and children, and its perpetrators are almost always men. It springs
from a man's desire to control his partner through the exercise of
physical, sexual and emotional violence, economic power, isolation, and the
manipulation and threatening of children, the study says.
Situational violence involves "fewer incidents of less severity that do not
result in significant injury. It is not seen as part of a larger pattern of
control and usually does not escalate." Some studies say women initiate
this violence in almost half the cases, and women also reciprocate.
The researchers found a dearth of corroborative or detailed evidence in the
case files to back up allegations of violence. As a result the research
found allegations of violence had no effect on most outcomes about child
contact with fathers.
Virginia Geddes, co-ordinator of the Domestic Violence and Incest Resource
Centre, said: "Women are not being heard or taken seriously enough, and a
lot of energy is going into trying to discredit their allegations."
Danny Blay, manager of No To Family Violence, a body for men's behaviour
change programs, said: "It is vital that women and children are believed
when they say they are scared of someone, and that men are challenged to
consider the impact of their behaviour."
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/5050-but-the-odds-are-still-stacked-against-the-children/2007/05/11/1178390549474.html
The Sydney Morning Herald
12 May 2007
Odds still stacked against the children
By Adele Horin
It is more critical than ever for the Family Court and the Federal
Magistrates Court to work out a better way to sort out good dads from the
bad. Good dads - and the children who love them - got a raw deal under the
old regime of fortnightly weekend access visits. But bad dads, it turns
out, have been treated too generously.
Too often in the recent past the courts have given violent and controlling
men too much unsupervised time with their children. Now that the new family
law that came into effect last year puts greater emphasis on shared
parental time - or 50/50 residence - children may be forced to spend even
more time with bad dads.
I say this in light of a new study of 300 cases filed in the Family Court
and Federal Magistrates Court in 2003 in which parenting matters were in
dispute. The study, funded by the federal Attorney-General's Department and
undertaken by researchers at the Australian Institute of Family Studies,
reveals that partner violence and/or child abuse is alleged in more than
half the cases; and the abuse alleged is judged "severe" in most cases.
This points to a level of domestic violence and child abuse (mainly
physical) in faltering Australian marriages that is even worse than
previously estimated.
But of great surprise is the finding that allegations of domestic violence
and child abuse make no difference to the outcome of cases unless strong
corroborative evidence is provided. Where the father is the alleged
perpetrator of violence, as is most common, the children are still highly
likely to be sent to his place for overnight visits - just as if he were a
good father. "Orders for overnight stays predominated … regardless of the
apparent severity or probative weight of evidence underpinning them," the
report says. The bad dads in general get just as much time with their
children as the good dads.
Caught in the conundrum of severing or curtailing children's relationships
with their fathers, or protecting children from potentially dangerous men,
the court has tended to opt for maintaining the relationship. It rarely,
for example, denies a father contact with his children - at most the
contact may be supervised.
But wait, I hear you say, these are allegations of violence. Don't women in
these circumstances lie to exact revenge on their ex-partner? The study,
based on case files, did not have the scope to determine the veracity of
the allegations. That would require cross-referencing with police files and
child protection agencies. But the researchers point to overseas studies
that show "false denials are more common than false allegations".
As one of the authors, Professor Lawrie Moloney, said: "If you had to put a
bet on a random set of allegations, you'd put your money on them being true."
In other words, some women do lie, but most don't. Yet most children with
abusive fathers are being shipped off to them for overnight visits. Even if
the children themselves have not been beaten, the evidence is now
overwhelming that men who are violent to their partners or ex-partners are
bad news for children. The Government has never funded research to follow
up how these children, in unsupervised overnight contact with allegedly
violent men, are faring.
The study, far from exhibiting an anti-male bias, is likely to enrage some
feminists because it raises the question: what is a violent man? It argues
not all violent men are alike - and not all are bad influences on their
children. It argues there are two forms of male violence - situational and
controlling - and only the latter is a real danger to children's welfare.
Situational violence is reactive, occasional and less serious, and is
likely to be reciprocated by women, or even initiated by them. Controlling
violence is when men rule by force, fear and a sense of entitlement; it is
continuing and has been called "intimate terrorism".
The authors argue different forms of violence require different responses -
from prohibiting a violent father's contact with his children to accepting
that a violent outburst is unlikely to happen again.
The Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court, however, have
understandably found it hard to discriminate. Every day courts hear a lot
of "noise" about family violence. But there is often too little
corroborative or detailed evidence provided, and as a researcher said:
"Some judges tend to throw up their hands." As well, lawyers are under
pressure to settle cases before they get to a judge, even when violence is
alleged. The default position is that children spend time with bad dads -
and that might be doing them damage.
The successful push for 50/50 care will change societal as well as legal
norms. For good dads and the children who love them, having more time
together may be a blessing. But there is urgent need for court officers to
get more help in assessing allegations of violence, and for more research.
Otherwise some children will have no reason to count their blessings.
- Allegations of family violence and child abuse in family law children's
proceedings: Lawrie Moloney, Bruce Smyth, Ruth Weston, Nicholas Richardson,
Lixia Qu, Matthew Gray.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Better make it a four-year trial
Thought for the day:
Family Court judges need to decide how fit a father is to be a parent after marriage separation (where the parents cannot agree). The Family Court cannot allow a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time because we cannot trust men to be competent and worthy fathers.
Similarly, in a marriage where there has been no separation, but where the mother, for whatever reason, has died, the Family Court judges need to conduct a two-year trial to test whether the father is competent and worthy enough to look after the children.
But actually, since the father would be looking after the children full-time and not half-time, we'd better make it a four-year trial.
Most Family Court judges would agree that after a death of the mother, the best judgement would be for the father to care for the children every second weekend. Ok, let's throw in Wednesday afternoons also, and half of all school holidays.
Absurd ? Of course it is.
It is similarly absurd that Family Court judges intervene in marriage separations where there is no evidence of child abuse. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would happily make most of them largely irrelevant.
We do not need Family Court judges to decide how competent and worthy a father is following a death of the mother. Similarly we do not need Family Court judges to decide how competent and worthy a father is following marriage separation.
As always, in any situation, evidence of child abuse is grounds for state intervention.
Family Court judges need to decide how fit a father is to be a parent after marriage separation (where the parents cannot agree). The Family Court cannot allow a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time because we cannot trust men to be competent and worthy fathers.
Similarly, in a marriage where there has been no separation, but where the mother, for whatever reason, has died, the Family Court judges need to conduct a two-year trial to test whether the father is competent and worthy enough to look after the children.
But actually, since the father would be looking after the children full-time and not half-time, we'd better make it a four-year trial.
Most Family Court judges would agree that after a death of the mother, the best judgement would be for the father to care for the children every second weekend. Ok, let's throw in Wednesday afternoons also, and half of all school holidays.
Absurd ? Of course it is.
It is similarly absurd that Family Court judges intervene in marriage separations where there is no evidence of child abuse. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would happily make most of them largely irrelevant.
We do not need Family Court judges to decide how competent and worthy a father is following a death of the mother. Similarly we do not need Family Court judges to decide how competent and worthy a father is following marriage separation.
As always, in any situation, evidence of child abuse is grounds for state intervention.
Robertson children and parental alienation
Is it my imagination ? The children all appear much happier in photos together with the father, and rather glum when with the mother.
Noticed how the "Robertson children" have now become the "Yelland-Robertson children" ? Wait a little longer and they will become the "Yelland children."
My ex-partner changed our son's birth certificate without my permission. The Registry of BMD told me a single parent could do that. But when I said ok, as a single parent I would like to change it back they said "oh no, you can't do that" and they started back-peddling...
When I asked Justice Tim Carmody for our son to be refered to by the name on his birth certificate (before my ex-partner unilaterally changed it) to avoid confusion with school, medicare etc etc. he said "Well that is one matter you two can now solve by yourselves in the new spirit of cooperation".
Idiot.
Later on in the article we switch once again. They are now the "Robertson-Yelland children" ! What is the name on their birth certificates for Pete's sake ?!
In case you think I am sexist on this issue, I suggest an easy and obvious formula that would avoid a lot of conflict over this issue. Of course the Family Court system has got its head so far up its arse (please forgive my profanities) that it cannot see its way clear to simple obvious solutions.
(Of course it is continuing conflict, not solutions, that keeps business in the black for the Family Court Industry...)
Solution:
1. Forget about wives taking the surname of the husband.
2. Daughters take the surname of the mother; sons take the surname of the father.
I thought Dr Millikin, the "cult-buster" (and media-spin artist) actually introduced the family to the "Family" (Children of God) ???
"Though the children's father, Murray Robertson, said on Thursday that the sect The Family "are wonderful Christian people" and that he was "very close to them", Dr Millikan said The Family had no role in the custody dispute, in which Mr Robertson disappeared with the children for six weeks after failing to return them from an access visit".
Some obvious spin and twist here. It was Millikan who first raised the slur (Murray Robertson's involvement with a "cult") ! Now it is presented as though Murray Robertson initiated the discussion on the Family.
"As for future contact arrangements, Ms Yelland says she has not decided yet what might happen."
What can I say ? Evidence of the cause of the whole problem ? A behaviour pattern we are all fighting to have recognised, to have changed ?
There is a general case for forced negotiation and forced mediation because some people (including egocentric controlling mothers) just don't get it.
The Federal Government sets up the Family Relationship Centres, but
until the FRCs have some authority,
until attendance is mandatory,
until we have equal rights (oh, there goes that 'r' word again. Darn, I'm forgetting about the children...),
until there are penalties (Community Service) for unreasonable behaviour,
until the FRCs are made transparent and accountable,
- we don't have a solution.
In this article Murray Robertson is being framed by media-savvy David Millikin (Philippa Yelland's lover ?) as a 'deadbeat dad'.
I thought Murray Robertson was on sickness benefit ? No mention here of his (possible) sickness. See www.injurysupport.blogspot.com to understand what can happen to a dad if they get sick in this society.
'Earlier in the week a neighbour, Alex Pervushin, said Ms Yelland had cleaned the house out after the disappearance and that "most of the furniture and his things and the kids' things, it all went into an industrial skip bin". '
Philippa Yelland responds:
"Heavens above, maybe there was a kids' T-shirt which had been used as a rag [that was thrown out] but I don't know."
Kids things also went into the industrial skip ? Erasing history ? Maybe she can erase the children's memory also.
With all his research into cults, David might have a few tricks in this regard.
(Remember Bokkie's quote 'this is exactly the same in a way us running away as when mummy took us to Brisbane except no one is telling anyone any lies'. Courier Mail 04 May 2007)
In my case, in the period shortly after separation, we had our possessions stored in a container. I made the suggestion of having two padlocks on the container - one each. If we wanted access, both of us would attend. It worked well for a month or so. I don't know what happened that would have caused a change to this system, but one day I arrived to find my padlock sawn off, all shared possessions gone, and my possessions left out in the rain...
Regarding to the case of the Robertson child vis a vis their mother Philippa Yelland:
1. Philippa's relocation to Brisbane
2. the "lies" as perceived by Bokkie
3. throwing out children's possessions from father's home
4. 'deadbeat dad' spin to the media
- it points to a clear pattern of parental alienation in my view. Parental alienation is very damaging to children. The Family Court will most likely not address this. They do not in reality function in the 'best interests of the child.'
Philippa Yelland needs to relocate back to the Blue Mountains (or otherwise negotiated with Murray Robertson), and needs to attend a parenting course highlighting the damage created by parental alienation. If Philippa's behaviour pattern persists, she must be penalised (Community Service).
I do not recommend reducing Philippa's access to the children to less than 50%, which is what should now be implemented. However, if parental alienation becomes extreme, this of course would constitute child abuse, and would be grounds for having restricted access.
Cheers, Geoff
www.equalparentingtime.blogspot.com
R O L L I N G T H U N D E R R E V I E W !!!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:34 PM
Subject: 'Safely' back to normal
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/tug-of-love-the-children-in-the-middle/2007/05/04/1177788400621.html
Reunited … Ms Yelland and her children yesterday.
Photo: Jon Reid
Tug of love: the children in the middle
Lisa Pryor and Les Kennedy May 5, 2007
AFTER weeks in the wilds of Tasmania with their father, the three Yelland-Robertson children spent last night in Sydney with their mother, at the inner west home of David Millikan, the Uniting Church minister, cult expert, television producer and family friend who has shepherded Philippa Yelland through the ordeal of tracking down her family.
Bokkie, 10, Matilda, 9, and Barney, 7, were yesterday afternoon recovering from a flurry of airports, television cameras and reporters.
"They're sort of slowly collapsing," Dr Millikan said. "I think they're going to sleep for about 20 hours."
Ms Yelland expects her children will return to school in Brisbane next week. She is not pressing them about the details of their time in Tasmania. She is looking forward to returning to an ordinary suburban life.
"Let's have some boredom and normality."
A Today Tonight television crew visited the Balmain home yesterday to interview Ms Yelland. The current affairs show secured the story through Dr Millikan, who is an "occasional producer with Channel Seven". Ms Yelland was not paid for the story, he said.
Though Dr Millikan is best known as a cult expert, he was quick to point out he was helping the family as a friend and not as a "cultbuster".
Ms Yelland said she had been friends with Dr Millikan for years and he accompanied her because she needed "another pair of hands".
"I happen to know Philippa and Murray from some years back," Dr Millikan said.
Though the children's father, Murray Robertson, said on Thursday that the sect The Family "are wonderful Christian people" and that he was "very close to them", Dr Millikan said The Family had no role in the custody dispute, in which Mr Robertson disappeared with the children for six weeks after failing to return them from an access visit.
Some years ago the Robertson-Yelland family had some "passing contact" with the religious organisation but that was all.
"They never joined, they never gave money. I think they maybe even established the odd friendship but that was distant," Dr Millikan said.
"The Family called me up today really angry. They said 'we have not anything to do with [the situation]'."
The children arrived in Sydney at lunchtime yesterday. "I'm tired," Matilda said in a frail exhausted voice as her mother ushered her and her siblings through the Virgin Blue terminal.
As his children were spending the evening in Sydney, it was believed that Mr Robertson had sought refuge with Quakers in Launceston.
As for future contact arrangements, Ms Yelland says she has not decided yet what might happen.
Dr Millikan said: "He has maintained the kids wanted to be with him and so forth but it's a very difficult situation.
"During the course of their marriage, I think they were married for over 10 years, he was never able to sustain regular employment so she was the one who maintained the financial viability of the family."
She was the one who purchased the property in Hazelbrook where Mr Robertson lived before his disappearance.
Earlier in the week a neighbour, Alex Pervushin, said Ms Yelland had cleaned the house out after the disappearance and that "most of the furniture and his things and the kids' things, it all went into an industrial skip bin".
Ms Yelland said there were five adults working for five hours to clear the house and she does not remember exactly what was thrown out. "Heavens above, maybe there was a kids' T-shirt which had been used as a rag [that was thrown out] but I don't know."
She said the house would be sold.
Noticed how the "Robertson children" have now become the "Yelland-Robertson children" ? Wait a little longer and they will become the "Yelland children."
My ex-partner changed our son's birth certificate without my permission. The Registry of BMD told me a single parent could do that. But when I said ok, as a single parent I would like to change it back they said "oh no, you can't do that" and they started back-peddling...
When I asked Justice Tim Carmody for our son to be refered to by the name on his birth certificate (before my ex-partner unilaterally changed it) to avoid confusion with school, medicare etc etc. he said "Well that is one matter you two can now solve by yourselves in the new spirit of cooperation".
Idiot.
Later on in the article we switch once again. They are now the "Robertson-Yelland children" ! What is the name on their birth certificates for Pete's sake ?!
In case you think I am sexist on this issue, I suggest an easy and obvious formula that would avoid a lot of conflict over this issue. Of course the Family Court system has got its head so far up its arse (please forgive my profanities) that it cannot see its way clear to simple obvious solutions.
(Of course it is continuing conflict, not solutions, that keeps business in the black for the Family Court Industry...)
Solution:
1. Forget about wives taking the surname of the husband.
2. Daughters take the surname of the mother; sons take the surname of the father.
I thought Dr Millikin, the "cult-buster" (and media-spin artist) actually introduced the family to the "Family" (Children of God) ???
"Though the children's father, Murray Robertson, said on Thursday that the sect The Family "are wonderful Christian people" and that he was "very close to them", Dr Millikan said The Family had no role in the custody dispute, in which Mr Robertson disappeared with the children for six weeks after failing to return them from an access visit".
Some obvious spin and twist here. It was Millikan who first raised the slur (Murray Robertson's involvement with a "cult") ! Now it is presented as though Murray Robertson initiated the discussion on the Family.
"As for future contact arrangements, Ms Yelland says she has not decided yet what might happen."
What can I say ? Evidence of the cause of the whole problem ? A behaviour pattern we are all fighting to have recognised, to have changed ?
There is a general case for forced negotiation and forced mediation because some people (including egocentric controlling mothers) just don't get it.
The Federal Government sets up the Family Relationship Centres, but
until the FRCs have some authority,
until attendance is mandatory,
until we have equal rights (oh, there goes that 'r' word again. Darn, I'm forgetting about the children...),
until there are penalties (Community Service) for unreasonable behaviour,
until the FRCs are made transparent and accountable,
- we don't have a solution.
In this article Murray Robertson is being framed by media-savvy David Millikin (Philippa Yelland's lover ?) as a 'deadbeat dad'.
I thought Murray Robertson was on sickness benefit ? No mention here of his (possible) sickness. See www.injurysupport.blogspot.com to understand what can happen to a dad if they get sick in this society.
'Earlier in the week a neighbour, Alex Pervushin, said Ms Yelland had cleaned the house out after the disappearance and that "most of the furniture and his things and the kids' things, it all went into an industrial skip bin". '
Philippa Yelland responds:
"Heavens above, maybe there was a kids' T-shirt which had been used as a rag [that was thrown out] but I don't know."
Kids things also went into the industrial skip ? Erasing history ? Maybe she can erase the children's memory also.
With all his research into cults, David might have a few tricks in this regard.
(Remember Bokkie's quote 'this is exactly the same in a way us running away as when mummy took us to Brisbane except no one is telling anyone any lies'. Courier Mail 04 May 2007)
In my case, in the period shortly after separation, we had our possessions stored in a container. I made the suggestion of having two padlocks on the container - one each. If we wanted access, both of us would attend. It worked well for a month or so. I don't know what happened that would have caused a change to this system, but one day I arrived to find my padlock sawn off, all shared possessions gone, and my possessions left out in the rain...
Regarding to the case of the Robertson child vis a vis their mother Philippa Yelland:
1. Philippa's relocation to Brisbane
2. the "lies" as perceived by Bokkie
3. throwing out children's possessions from father's home
4. 'deadbeat dad' spin to the media
- it points to a clear pattern of parental alienation in my view. Parental alienation is very damaging to children. The Family Court will most likely not address this. They do not in reality function in the 'best interests of the child.'
Philippa Yelland needs to relocate back to the Blue Mountains (or otherwise negotiated with Murray Robertson), and needs to attend a parenting course highlighting the damage created by parental alienation. If Philippa's behaviour pattern persists, she must be penalised (Community Service).
I do not recommend reducing Philippa's access to the children to less than 50%, which is what should now be implemented. However, if parental alienation becomes extreme, this of course would constitute child abuse, and would be grounds for having restricted access.
Cheers, Geoff
www.equalparentingtime.blogspot.com
R O L L I N G T H U N D E R R E V I E W !!!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:34 PM
Subject: 'Safely' back to normal
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/tug-of-love-the-children-in-the-middle/2007/05/04/1177788400621.html
Reunited … Ms Yelland and her children yesterday.
Photo: Jon Reid
Tug of love: the children in the middle
Lisa Pryor and Les Kennedy May 5, 2007
AFTER weeks in the wilds of Tasmania with their father, the three Yelland-Robertson children spent last night in Sydney with their mother, at the inner west home of David Millikan, the Uniting Church minister, cult expert, television producer and family friend who has shepherded Philippa Yelland through the ordeal of tracking down her family.
Bokkie, 10, Matilda, 9, and Barney, 7, were yesterday afternoon recovering from a flurry of airports, television cameras and reporters.
"They're sort of slowly collapsing," Dr Millikan said. "I think they're going to sleep for about 20 hours."
Ms Yelland expects her children will return to school in Brisbane next week. She is not pressing them about the details of their time in Tasmania. She is looking forward to returning to an ordinary suburban life.
"Let's have some boredom and normality."
A Today Tonight television crew visited the Balmain home yesterday to interview Ms Yelland. The current affairs show secured the story through Dr Millikan, who is an "occasional producer with Channel Seven". Ms Yelland was not paid for the story, he said.
Though Dr Millikan is best known as a cult expert, he was quick to point out he was helping the family as a friend and not as a "cultbuster".
Ms Yelland said she had been friends with Dr Millikan for years and he accompanied her because she needed "another pair of hands".
"I happen to know Philippa and Murray from some years back," Dr Millikan said.
Though the children's father, Murray Robertson, said on Thursday that the sect The Family "are wonderful Christian people" and that he was "very close to them", Dr Millikan said The Family had no role in the custody dispute, in which Mr Robertson disappeared with the children for six weeks after failing to return them from an access visit.
Some years ago the Robertson-Yelland family had some "passing contact" with the religious organisation but that was all.
"They never joined, they never gave money. I think they maybe even established the odd friendship but that was distant," Dr Millikan said.
"The Family called me up today really angry. They said 'we have not anything to do with [the situation]'."
The children arrived in Sydney at lunchtime yesterday. "I'm tired," Matilda said in a frail exhausted voice as her mother ushered her and her siblings through the Virgin Blue terminal.
As his children were spending the evening in Sydney, it was believed that Mr Robertson had sought refuge with Quakers in Launceston.
As for future contact arrangements, Ms Yelland says she has not decided yet what might happen.
Dr Millikan said: "He has maintained the kids wanted to be with him and so forth but it's a very difficult situation.
"During the course of their marriage, I think they were married for over 10 years, he was never able to sustain regular employment so she was the one who maintained the financial viability of the family."
She was the one who purchased the property in Hazelbrook where Mr Robertson lived before his disappearance.
Earlier in the week a neighbour, Alex Pervushin, said Ms Yelland had cleaned the house out after the disappearance and that "most of the furniture and his things and the kids' things, it all went into an industrial skip bin".
Ms Yelland said there were five adults working for five hours to clear the house and she does not remember exactly what was thrown out. "Heavens above, maybe there was a kids' T-shirt which had been used as a rag [that was thrown out] but I don't know."
She said the house would be sold.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Debate with a male feminist sociologist on DV
Hi all,
I wrote to sociologist Dr Shane Hopkinson following what I thought was an unfair article by him on Domestic Violence.
He responded to me and I have since responded to him. The text follows. I didn't include the two attachments I sent him (The Trinity College Study on Domestic Violence and the Dads'Data document) but I can supply to anyone who wants a copy (previously posted on the forum).
Your comments and views can be added to what might be an ongoing debate, so send them in ! (I'm going to post it on my website www.equalparentingtime@blogspot.com at least).
Cheers,
Geoff
____________________________________________
Hi Shane,
Thanks for responding. Appreciate we need to fit in any sort of dialogue in amongst a busy work schedule for both of us.
Of course false allegations of sexual abuse are hard to disprove (and likewise hard to prove) but they are fairly rare (I'll see what stats I can find).
A study on the total number of allegations of abuse (physical and sexual) of men toward women, and women toward men, as well as allegations of abuse (physical and sexual) of fathers to their children and mothers to their children in the context of a case in the Family Court system would be very useful. Then we could look at what proportion were able to be confidently proven or disproven, and what proportion could not be either proven or disproven.
The trick is now to penalise people from making false or grossly exaggerated claims without deterring people from making genuine claims.
I suggest that if someone makes a claim that cannot be disproven, they would not be penalised. Only in cases where it can be reasonably disproven, then that claimant should be penalised - say in the form of Community Service. It is in the interests of everyone to penalise people who make false allegations because they devalue legitimate claims.
I am a bit puzzled by your claims of a 'feminist movement'. Outside a small academic circle where I work very few women I know called themselves 'feminists' these days.
I am equally puzzled. You suggest that women in your small academic circle might identify themselves as feminists. In the national academic circle there are, I suggest, a significant number of men and women who would identify themselves as feminists (I once applied to do a post-grad in Communications at UTS, and was told I could choose any area as long as I located my research and thesis within a feminist framework and argued from a feminist perspective. That was an entire faculty !)
Here are some organisations that could define the locus of the feminist movement. (Not that all members of these organisations would identify themselves as feminists, but I suggest the vast majority would).
Abortion Rights Network of Australia
Association of Women Educators
Australian Breastfeeding Association
Australian Capital Territory Office for Women, ACT Govt
Australian Council of Businesswomen
Australasian Council of Women and Policing
Australian Federation of Medical Women
Australian Federation of University Women
Australian Feminist Law Foundation
Australian Federation of Women's International Zionist Organisations
Australian Local Government Women's Association
Australian National Committee on Refugee Women
Australian Nursing Federation
Australian Office for the Status of Women
Australian Women's Coaltion
Australian Women's Health Network
Australian Women Lawyers
Australian Women's Party Australian Women's Studies Association
Breast Cancer Network of Australia
Business and Professional Women Australia
Catholic Women's League of Australia
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women
Coalition of Activist Lesbians- Australia
Coalition of Australian Participating Organisations of Women
Homebirth Australia Inc
International Women's Development Agency
Maternity Alliance
Mothers Opposing Pollution
Mothers' Union In Australia
National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence
National Association of Women in Construction
National Council of Jewish Women of Australia
National Council for the Single Mother and Her Child
National Council of Women of Australia
National Foundation for Australian Women
National Indigenous Women's Coalition
National Network of Indigenous Women's Legal Services
National Network of Women's Legal Services
National Union of Students Women's Department
National Women's Justice Coalition
National Women's Media Centre
Network of Women in Further Education
NSW Office for Women, NSW Govt
Northern Territory Office of Women's Policy, NT Govt.
Nursing Mothers Association of Australia
Office of Women's Affairs, Brisbane City Council
Pan-Pacific and South East Asian Women's Association of Australia Inc.
Public Health Association of Australia's Women's Health Special Interest Group
Queensland Office for Women. Qld Govt
Radical Women
Society of Women Writers of Australia
Sole Parent's Union
Soroptimists International of the South West Pacific
South Australia Office for Women, SA Govt
Tasmania Women, Tas Govt
UNIFEM Australia Inc.
Union of Australian Women
United Nations Association (Australia) Status of Women Network
Victoria Office of Women's Policy, Vic Govt
Western Australia Office for Women's Policy, WA Govt
Women's Action Alliance
Women and Aids National Working Party
Women in Engineering
Women in Film and Television (Australia)
Women in Management
Women in Science Inquiry Network
Women in Super
Women into Politics
Women on Boards
Women with Disabilities
Women's Economic Think Tank
Women's Electoral Lobby
Women's Services Network
Women's Financial Network
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Women's Network for Technical and Vocational Education and Training
Women's Rights Action Network Australia
Zonta International Australia
Are you able to produce a similar list of men's groups in Australia ?
Most women in the Australian Labor Party and in the Union Movement are likely to consider themselves feminists. And as you suggest, there are a considerable number of women in DV related services etc.
Many people, including the contemporary ("reconstructed") male, may not explicitly identify themselves as a feminist (as I once did) but have internalised feminist myths and ideology, and hence take a feminist-compatible position (of course, like anyone, they would say their position is independent and objective).
The point is that women who identify themselves as feminists are more likely to hold influential positions, eg in academia, politics and government, senior positions in the public service, in professional organisations, activist NGOs and community organisations etc.
I am merely responding to your comment that few women would call themselves feminists these days.
I speculate that many women may no longer identify themselves as a feminist due to what you may term a 'backlash' but what I may term an acknowledgement that the feminist movement is guilty of the same kinds of chauvanism, aggression and misandry that they blamed men for (misogyny).
From opinion polls I have seen, and my own experience in petitioning, most women support a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. I would also say that most women who regard themselves as feminists also support a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. But it is the more radical core of the feminist movement that opposes it. (This is how I define 'mainstream feminists' from 'radical feminists').
Some people, including myself, feel that the feminist movement is no longer about gender equity, but is simply a women's lobby, which now is becoming excessive - eg in terms of opposing a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, arguing against affirmative action eg scholarships to attract more male teachers to improve academic performance of boys, of portraying domestic violence as 100% perpetrated by men, and women as 100% of the victims (and only men exhibiting controlling behaviour etc), of arguing against male-only clubs but allowing female-only clubs etc, opposing the funding of Men's Centres etc etc.
The fact is, women would benefit by supporting the funding of Men's Centres. The best way to change male behaviour is to fund supportive services and organisations for men.
Women also need to look at their own behaviour ! Women are understandably becoming more assertive. But when does assertive behaviour become controlling and aggressive behaviour ?
I'm not sure how this small group promotes the fear of 'men'
By portraying men as violent. Most men are not violent. Myth-making by the feminist movement has been running for 40 years now. There has been no strong source of counter-myths until the last decade with the Feminazi myth-making by a part of the Men's Movement. But few people have heard the term "Feminazi" while nearly all have heard of "Male chauvanist pig". True, the latter term has lost currency (but the internalised myth will take much longer to dissipate). But the DV campaigns are more insidious as the myths are visual but non-textual. The myth is that men are 100% perpetrators of domestic violence and women and children are 100% victims of male violence. The truth is more like 70% male perpetrated to 30% female perpetrated.
The difference is extremely important. If it is 70% male perpetrated you have 70:30 ratio. If it is 99% male perpetrated you have 99:1 ratio. If it is 100% male perpetrated you have an infinity ratio, which is no ratio, which is a powerful myth. Men do it, women don't.
Mothers are more responsible for physical abuse toward children than fathers, but this form of domestic violence is not widely recognised. Why not include it in DV campaigns ? (I know why). It is argued that violence toward children breeds violence when they are adults. (I wonder how the data would shape up if you factored in time mothers spent with children as opposed fathers).
Of course mythologising women as eternal victims is hardly empowering for women either...
http://www.noviolence.com.au/public/newsletters/news18.pdf
Aside: the site won't let me copy. Can you send me a copy of your article so I can more readily quote from it ?
I used the ABS data because it was the most neutral data set.
Correct.
Why then does the Australian Office for the Status of Women and the Queensland Office for Women. Qld Govt use the Access Economics Report (Cost of DV)
http://www.accesseconomics.com.au/publicationsreports/showreport.php?id=23&searchfor=2004&searchby=year
which I believe is based on an obscure study commissioned by the Office of Women's Affairs, Brisbane City Council, that suggested at one point that 98% of domestic violence was perpetrated by men. The Advertising Standards Board has quoted this statistic from their client (Queensland Office for Women. Qld Govt), stating that 98% was close enough to 100% etc.
Access Economics was forced to publish a Corrigendum (see same URL), but the DV campaign feminists insist on using the erroneous data !
Do you agree that the ratio of domestic violence according to the ABS PSS data is about 70:30 men-perpetrated to women-perpetrated ?
As a sociologist trained in objectivity and neutrality, who is involved with research into Domestic Violence, and thus interested in the methodology and impact of Domestic Violence campaigns, would you please investigate the above, in what I would consider an important academic exercise ?
Can you also explain why it is important to show all perpetrators of domestic violence as men, and all victims as women and children (but not men) ?
A recent study (Trinity College, Dublin) of people attending doctor's surgeries (for any reason) reports that 43% of women reported one or more incidents of violence by their partner, and 54% of men reported one or more incidents by their partner. I attach a copy for your interest. I am not pushing the "equally violent" line. I just want more investigation in the light of blatant feminist bias in this area.
It shows that men are twice as likely to be victims of violence as women overall - and that overwhelmingly at the hands of other men....
I think it would be good if the 'men's right's' movement (or whatever you want to call it) stopped suggesting that men are the victims of women's violence (tho of course that happens) and look at the big picture. Men are the even bigger victims of male violence than women are but I rarely hear those men who are critical of 'feminism' point that out because it doesn't serve their agenda.
Sure, I acknowledge this. I have seen this figure in Men's Movement discourse. I don't think there is denial about this. What does it prove ? We focus on debunking the 100% male perpetration myth because we believe it is used to block a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
Women's groups have argued that a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will expose children to greater levels of violence (because men are violent). This is an indefensible argument in my view.
Some men argue that children in the care of single mothers with boyfriends and new male partners - ie when the Family Court awards majority residency to the mother - are at greater risk of abuse from the non-biological step-father. The data backs up this argument. I do not use this argument because it penalises the majority of men who are not abusive and we have to find better ways to prevent abuse other than restricting access (except of course in proven cases).
And the implication of this argument is to give majority residency to fathers, which in my view is as equally absurd (against the best interests of children) as the status quo.
We do not focus on men being the victim of women's violence as you suggest. On the contrary, it is the women's movement which is focussing on women being the victim of men's violence. We are merely responding to this to put it in perspective, and prevent the exaggerated myth-making and political manipulation of the myth to prevent a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
The DV campaigns not only pretend 100% of perpetrators are male, but they never give the data on how many families suffer from chronic domestic violence. This omission generates a myth that chronic domestic violence is prevalent in most homes. (Myths can be generated not just by information presented, but also information omitted).
I'm not sure what 'anti-masculinism' is but on many men's interpretation any attempt to equalise power between the sexes is a threat to male prerogatives and so is 'anti-masculine' in that sense. Perhaps you could spell out for me more clearly what you mean.
I use the neologistic term "anti-masculinism" to demonstrate bias of the feminist movement. Everyone knows what anti-feminism is. Anti-masculinism is simply the opposite - opposition to the Men's Movement.
Your interpretation is that:
"any attempt to equalise power between the sexes is a threat to male prerogatives"
My interpretation is that the Men's Movement is principally about gender equity. Surprised ?
And I regard your interpretation as "anti-masculinist" and a product of myths about the Men's Movement. (Prior to becoming involved myself, my view was that the Men's Movement comprised of angry psychopaths on the one hand, and firecamp co-counselling wooses on the other. I found neither). It suggests that you are not very familiar with the Men's Movement in Australia. Yes, there are people who occasionally espouse sexist rhetoric. But if you look at most of the discussion, as well as the policy and actions of the organisations, I don't believe you can conclude as you do.
The conservative end of the spectrum focuses on defending the family, opposes the recognition of same-sex marriage and their adoption of children. Some argue for a return to fault-based divorce. But none of this is sexist. And I would say this is not the concern for the majority of people in the Men's Movement.
Its hard to get into specifics - if we were to survey men - how many would ask to 'equal time' with their children...
Let's survey men and ask them if they would like the right to equal parenting. I am sure you would get an overwhelming response supporting this right. I believe the majority of fathers would take on the responsibility of equal parenting given the opportunity and support in the community.
But most men have to work and so are restricted in how much time they can have with the children.
Don't most women have to work ? If not, why not ? We have maternity leave in some areas of business and public service. Why aren't feminists also fighting for paternity leave ?
I regard this as a key issue for men. What would you regard as the "biggest issue" for men ?
If it was equal then that would be reflected in child support formula - even as it stands having them 2 nights a week (I think it is) gets you a reduction as 'significant care' when that involves you in very little care of the child.
Dads resent having to pay for the privilege of not having fair access to their children. The single parents' pension can only be paid to one parent. This is a dilemma for the Family Court system / CSA / Govt which they don't want to deal with. Yes, equal parenting should mean equal benefits. Yes we support the women's movement in their drive for more flexible work arrangements, more job-sharing, more affordable childcare facilities. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would no doubt have a major positive impact on men's culture and society in general.
I think male suicide is an issue
Yes it is. And Dads-in-Distress in particular has promoted the link between male suicide and the blatant discrimination and alienation fathers from their children in the Family Court system.
The Men's Movement remembers the anniversary of the suicide of ALP MP Greg Wilton following an unfair Family Court ruling. We know there are many hundreds of others like him, not to mention victims of murder-suicide (mums and children).
DiDs generally likes to refer to the total male suicide rate, about five per day, four times that of women. The total number directly attributable to the Family Court system could be as high as 10%. That is a lot of blood on the hands of the Family Court. Unfortunately only a few Coroners test for this link. Some do, and others could retrospectively. In any case, you could measure the difference after an implementation of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
Why not? Do you seriously think that men and women are equally violent? Does this tally with your everyday experience? And the main victims of this violence will be MEN - overall at twice the rate that women are.
I am not trying to promote the notion that men and women are equally violent, but rather to counter the notion that men are violent and women are not. Also, I would like emotional and psychological violence to be more fully researched - not to prove one gender is more violent in this area than the other, but to establish the link - the myth that a woman after many years of psychological abuse, stabbed her husband - but here I am not trying to discredit this myth. Men often explode after being presented by unfair or manipulative behaviour by women - yes, equally a myth. Let's explore them and test them. Violence by the male is not justified. But if we are going to resolve violence, we need to become aware of the broader patterns of behaviour, including the triggers. I think feminist research into DV is unwilling to look at manipulative behaviours by women.
When men are victims of DV then they should get the same sorts of responses as women do
Yes but they don't ! Can you show me a text from a Women's DV organisation that highlights this problem and recommends remedial action ?
of course theres still a large section of the community that thinks DV is not a issue and reject women's claims
of course there's still a large section of the community, especially the feminist community, that thinks that female DV against their male partner is not an issue and reject men's claims...
Violence is a gendered issue and unless men are prepared to address the fact that most of the violence in our society (not just at home) is committed by men then we don't have the right place to address the issue overall.
Why call it a "gendered issue" ? This term implies that men are to blame for violence. Does it really help solve the problem to call it "gendered" ?
Physical assaults in 12 months prior to the 2005 PSS ABS study.
By men By women Total (By both men and women)
Women victims 195,300 66,579 242,000 19,879
Men victims 425,429 79,500 485,400 19,529
By this data, there is violence happening in all directions. By calling it "gendered" are you going to reduce the number of women assaulting women, or women assaulting men ?
by male stranger by fem. stranger by partner or ex-p other
men 65% 4.4% (21,200)
women 15% 31% (73,800)
Indicates partner or ex-partner violence (a key form of domestic violence) is perpetrated 22.3% by women and 77.7% by men.
125,100 women experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator at home while 60,900 men experienced physical assault by a female perpetrator at home. This suggests partner or ex-partner violence at home (a key form of domestic violence) is perpetrated 33% by women and 67% by men.
Physical assaults in 12 months prior to the 2005 PSS ABS study.
By men By women Total (By both men and women)
Women victims 195,300 66,579 242,000 19,879
Men victims 425,429 79,500 485,400 19,529
The reason that the total number of victims is less than the number of victims by men plus the number by women is that some people have been a victim of both men and women.
The ratio of male assaulting female compared to female assaulting male (but not only in the home) appears to be 29:71
> Ok its getting late here and so I won't continue right now but let me sign off with asking you about the 4 "myths" the feminist movement has created that you cite at the end of your email - can you provide me with references to feminists who make these specific claims?
1. that men are intrinsically flawed
2. that men are not as worthy parents as women
3. that equal parenting is destabilising for children
4. that Equal Parenting Time will put children at a greater risk of abuse
It is unlikely that a feminist would say outright that men are instrinsically flawed (and women are not) - but there may even be examples. However, it is the implication of much feminist discourse.
If you
1. say violence is "gendered" (ie perpetrated by men)
2. portray 100% of domestic violence as perpetrated by men, and
3. say we cannot increase children's access to fathers following divorce as this would expose children to greater levels of violence and abuse
...you are suggesting that men are instrinsically flawed. Myths do not work on the conscious level, on the level of reason and intellectual debate. They work on the sub-conscious level. Sometimes myths can be sown unintentionally. If separated parents argue, the child often comes to believe they are to blame for the conflict and the separation of the parents.
The other three myths I can demonstrate more explicitly, eg by going through media archives and submissions to the 2004 Inquiry Into Child Custody http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/subs.htm
But that would take time. If you press me for evidence, I will follow it up.
Regards,
Geoff Holland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shane Hopkinson"
To: "Geoff Holland"
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:06 PM
Subject: RE: Your article 'Are Women as Violent as Men'
Dear Geoff
Work has been pretty busy so forgive me if this is a bit cursory but I wanted to respond and I hope that we might get some useful dialogue out of the exchange.
I was subject to a false allegations of violence and received a DVO. I don't expect you to necessarily believe me. You probably think there were justifying actions or circumstances. There were not. My ex-partner and her mother also made - not specific accusations of sexual abuse to my young son - but strong direct insinuations in their affidavits. I was among the lucky few who was able to prove these insinuations were ingenuous. Usually false allegations of sexual abuse are very difficult to disprove. I do not know the frequency, as you may do, but yes Shane, it happens.
I have no reason to disbelieve you there are certainly cases of women using DVO's in a punitive fashion. I, too, have been a victim of false allegations (not from my ex-wife tho) but I don't think that that means the vast majority of cases are like that. Of course false allegations of sexual abuse are hard to disprove (and likewise hard to prove) but they are fairly rare (I'll see what stats I can find).
Your link between the Domestic Violence arena and reforms of the Family Law Act is interesting, because I also make such a link but in a different way. I see the feminist movement as using the Domestic Violence campaigns, partly to reduce domestic violence (in a misconceived and misleading way I believe), but also to heighten fear of 'men' and thus scare people about reforms in the Family Law Act and the move to allow children greater access to their dads following separation.
I am a bit puzzled by your claims of a 'feminist movement'. Outside a small academic circle where I work very few women I know called themselves 'feminists' these days. I'm not sure how how this small group promotes the fear of 'men' except in the relation to the kinds of statistics that I quote in my article - as far as I can see you don't address this data at all. Women in DV services of course tend to see the worst of the violence that exists between men and women - and most of that is committed by men - so in that sense they have a bias since most often there work involves protecting women from male violence.
I would like to say that it is important to recognise that two people can be looking at the same set of facts or data and read them in very different ways - and both have valid arguments for their own interpretation.
I am sociologist by training and so adopting different perspectives and interpretations is pretty normal. I used the ABS data because it was the most neutral data set. It shows that men are twice as likely to be victims of violence as women overall - and that overwhelmingly at the hands of other men. For men tho most of that violence happens at the pub whereas women experience violence much more often at home. I think it would be good if the 'men's right's' movement (or whatever you want to call it) stopped suggesting that men are the victims of women's violence (tho of course that happens) and look at the big picture. Men are the even bigger victims of male violence than women are but I rarely hear those men who are critical of 'feminism' point that out because it doesn't serve their agenda.
Many men would argue that the Women's Rights movement receives millions of dollars in funding from the government, and that the Women's Rights movement promotes 'anti-masculinism'.
Of course this is their interpretation. I'm not sure which 'women's rights' groups recieve millions in funding. If you mean DV services or services for women's health then certainly the government sponsors specific services. These groups tho are government controlled and subject to rules and regulations. I'm not sure what 'anti-masculinism' is but on many men's interpretation any attempt to equalise power between the sexes is a threat to male prerogatives and so is 'anti-masculine' in that sense. Perhaps you could spell out for me more clearly what you mean.
I don't know which groups you refer to, but on my radar the principle groups are Lone Fathers, Men's Rights Agency, Dads-in-Distress, Shared Parenting Council of Australia (umbrella group), Fatherhood Foundation, and the less active Fathers-4-Equality and the Men's Confraternity. Only one of these, MRA, talks about 'rights'. The others do not. They give exclusive priority to the notion of the 'best interests of the child'. (This is a whole other area I won't go into here). So it is really a Men's Movement or a Dad's Movement rather than a Men's Rights movement. Although I see the issues as involving rights, most do not.
I was using Men's Rights' as shorthand - the groups you mention seek to increase the rights of men - in relation to the custody of their children after separation. So I would say that 'Father's rights' is fair shorthand. The issues you raise here are important ones but they weren't what I was addressing in my article. So its interesting that this is the direction the argument has taken.
As I see it, Equal Parenting is the single biggest issue for men. Following this is Child Support formulae.
Its hard to get into specifics - if we were to survey men - how many would ask to 'equal time' with their children. I have been an active parent to my 2 daughters (every second weekend and every wednesday night was the common pattern - and I must in fairness add that my relationship with their mum is a very good one so I am lucky in that sense) and more recently the eldest has come to live with me. But most men have to work and so are restricted in how much time they can have with the children. If you wanted 'equal time' with the children - say taking week about then this would be great but would hardly be the 'biggest issue' for most men. Is that what you mean by equal parenting? If it was equal then that would be reflected in child support formula - even as it stands having them 2 nights a week (I think it is) gets you a reduction as 'significant care' when that involves you in very little care of the child.
Other issues such as addressing lower life expectancy higher suicide rates, and lower academic performance in males, smaller funding for Men's Centres, smaller funding for prostate cancer as opposed to breast and cervical cancer, pertain more to a Men's Movement, but are far less significant (perhaps I see it this way because of the type of forums I follow).
Many of these are important issues for men - but you ahve to compare apples with applies. I think male suicide is an issue (of course women attempt it more than men) but I don't think the funding is based on gender - theres quite a lot about male suicide especially in rural areas. Boys are falling behind in some areas but there's a huge variation based on other factors - and no one called it a 'crisis' in the last 50 years when boys outperformed girls. I'm not sure what the funding on different health issues looks like - about equal numbers dies from prostate and breast cancer - and both seems well promoted in the community. A bit complaint of those in health promotion is that men won't go to doctors till its too late.
The term 'gendered violence' is a feminist one. No one in the Men's Movement to my knowledge talks about 'gendered violence' or 'non-gendered' violence.
Why not? Do you seriously think that men and women are equally violent? Does this tally with your everyday experience? I'm not sure if you have more than the one son (I have 2 girls) and in my life and theirs everything tells me it is boys/men who are much more likely to solve their problems physically. And the main victims of this violence will be MEN - overall at twice the rate that women are.
True, most of us think that most reporting of domestic violence is skewed. However, most of us are happy to go along with the ABS PSS study stats. But we have it in writing that Federal and Qld State domestic violence campaigns showing all men as perpetrators and all women as victims were based on the Access Economics study which they claim stated that 98% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men. I'm not even going to bother pulling this one apart...
I used the ABS study as the least contentious. I haven't read the Access Economics study but I am guessing that its the one that costed DV at billions of dollars. If they suggested that 98% of DV is carried out by men I'd like to see how they reached that number but surely you are not suggesting that Access Economics is a feminist organisation - they are mostly right-wing economists.
It is true that sometimes people in the Men's Movement will argue that violence is equal between men and women, or even that women are more violent, but most accept a rough conceptual 1:2 ratio. Some, however, do want emotional and psychological violence recognised and researched more thoroughly. I assume many feminists would also !
Well it was feminists who first argued that DV was more than physical abuse so its interesting that the men's movement now wants to claim this too. When men are victims of DV then they should get the same sorts of responses as women do [of course theres still a large section of the community that thinks DV is not a issue and reject women's claims so not the same response in that sense]. But if we are concerned about violence against men then we need to focus on ALL the violence men suffer - most of which as the stats show is at the hands of other men - not at the hands of women. Violence is a gendered issue and unless men are prepared to address the fact that most of the violence in our society (not just at home) is committed by men then we don't have the right place to address the issue overall.
Ok its getting late here and so I won't continue right now but let me sign off with asking you about the 4 "myths" the feminist movement has created that you cite at the end of your email - can you provide me with references to feminists who make these specific claims?
I am pleased to have received a response from someone in your position and look forward to some further dialogue.
Regards, Shane
__________________________________________________
To :
Shane Hopkinson
Sociology, CQU
From: Geoff Holland
Hi Shane,
I acquired your e-mail address from the CQU website - I hope you don't mind. I recently read an article of yours from Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006
I am a dad who went all the way through the Family Court system, and who has since become an activist for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
I was subject to a false allegations of violence and received a DVO. I don't expect you to necessarily believe me. You probably think there were justifying actions or circumstances. There were not. My ex-partner and her mother also made - not specific accusations of sexual abuse to my young son - but strong direct insinuations in their affidavits. I was among the lucky few who was able to prove these insinuations were ingenuous. Usually false allegations of sexual abuse are very difficult to disprove. I do not know the frequency, as you may do, but yes Shane, it happens.
Recent politicking from Men's Rights groups and amendments to Family Law legislation are two examples of an apparent backlash against feminism".
Your link between the Domestic Violence arena and reforms of the Family Law Act is interesting, because I also make such a link but in a different way. I see the feminist movement as using the Domestic Violence campaigns, partly to reduce domestic violence (in a misconceived and misleading way I believe), but also to heighten fear of 'men' and thus scare people about reforms in the Family Law Act and the move to allow children greater access to their dads following separation.
I would like to say that it is important to recognise that two people can be looking at the same set of facts or data and read them in very different ways - and both have valid arguments for their own interpretation.
I would like to offer a few quick comments - ie feedback from someone in the Men's Movement - on a section of your article, for your interest.
"The Fathers Rights Agenda in many respects there is a false controversy being created in the media and, it would seem, in the minds of my students, which I think is an important marker of the extent to which the backlash politics is gaining ground. It is driven by a Fathers' Rights anti-feminism which has seen the government sponsor such groups as Lone Fathers Association to the tune of $100,000 over 2 years (Summers 2003:98), and who have thus been able to promote the idea that violence is not gendered and/or that the 'issue' of domestic violence is really the product of a 'feminist industry' that exaggerates the extent of family violence and unfairly blames it all on men".
Many men would argue that the Women's Rights movement receives millions of dollars in funding from the government, and that the Women's Rights movement promotes 'anti-masculinism'.
I don't know which groups you refer to, but on my radar the principle groups are Lone Fathers, Men's Rights Agency, Dads-in-Distress, Shared Parenting Council of Australia (umbrella group), Fatherhood Foundation, and the less active Fathers-4-Equality and the Men's Confraternity. Only one of these, MRA, talks about 'rights'. The others do not. They give exclusive priority to the notion of the 'best interests of the child'. (This is a whole other area I won't go into here). So it is really a Men's Movement or a Dad's Movement rather than a Men's Rights movement. Although I see the issues as involving rights, most do not.
As I see it, Equal Parenting is the single biggest issue for men. Following this is Child Support formulae. In this sense the Men's Movement is a Dad's Movement. Other issues such as addressing lower life expectancy, higher suicide rates, and lower academic performance in males, smaller funding for Men's Centres, smaller funding for prostate cancer as opposed to breast and cervical cancer, pertain more to a Men's Movement, but are far less significant (perhaps I see it this way because of the type of forums I folllow).
In my view, the Men's Movement is a weak, voluntary, relatively ad hoc and disorganized movement. The 'Black Shirts' are often misleadingly quoted in the media as representing the Men's Movement, but anyone who knows anything about the subject would know that while the half dozen people involved are probably still alive, there is no such organisation now, and even when it existed, it was just that - about six people who used a megaphone outside some homes on about three occasions - correct me if I am wrong. And all the above groups explicitly denounce this misconceived group. I am glad you didn't also quote them.
The term 'gendered violence' is a feminist one. No one in the Men's Movement to my knowledge talks about 'gendered violence' or 'non-gendered' violence. True, most of us think that most reporting of domestic violence is skewed. However, most of us are happy to go along with the ABS PSS study stats. But we have it in writing that Federal and Qld State domestic violence campaigns showing all men as perpetrators and all women as victims were based on the Access Economics study which they claim stated that 98% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men. I'm not even going to bother pulling this one apart...
It is true that sometimes people in the Men's Movement will argue that violence is equal between men and women, or even that women are more violent, but most accept a rough conceptual 1:2 ratio. Some, however, do want emotional and psychological violence recognised and researched more thoroughly. I assume many feminists would also !
As I see it, the labelling of domestic violence as 'gendered' serves the feminist cause - you can't have a Presumption of Equal Parenting because it will expose more children to more gendered (male) violence and abuse.
"While professing a concern for male victims of violence and showing a willingness to exploit men's pain and suffering at the end of relationships, Fathers' Rights groups have been able to generate considerable sympathy and have been able to get the ear of government. Unfortunately their real agenda is a re-assertion of traditional male prerogatives over women and children. Aside from the idea of gender symmetry in family violence they have promoted the idea that children need fathers above all else and this is gradually displacing the issue of child safety as the key issue in court determinations of custody and access. Further they seek to discredit female victims by alleging that women:1. fabricate false allegations of child abuse to deny men access to their children (in fact, cases of abuse only appear in a small number of hearings); and2. stategically and punitively use Apprehended Violence Orders or Domestic Violence Orders as a bargaining tool in Court rather than out of any genuine fear of violence."Shane Hopkinson, (male) Sociology, Central Queensland UniversityQueensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006
Yes, there is a percentage of the Men's movement that might like to reinstate the status quo of gender power relations pre 1950. Could I give a wild guess and say about 25%? For example some refer to fault-based divorce and criticise no-fault divorce policy, and describe how it is too easy for a women to leave a relationship. But the sentiment rarely surfaces in discussion. Most people in the Men's Movement seek gender equity, support no fault divorce and don't seek to force couples together. So I would say you are wrong on this point.
When you say "children need fathers above all else" I presume you don't mean we are saying fathers are more important than mothers.. I presume it is above the issue of child safety. If it is the former I would say you are wrong, if the second, yes I would agree with you because we do not feel that equal parenting, or even greater access leads to greater child abuse.
Some point to stats which indicate children are more at risk from the mother's new (male) partner (so yes, safer with the dad), and that mothers tend to inflict more physical abuse on children than fathers (whether they have taken into account mothers in general spend more time with their children, I can't say). These issues need to be looked at more closely and professionally.
My own view is that we need to resolve domestic violence and child abuse, child sexual abuse in other ways other than broad discrimination against men in terms of access to their children.
There are four myths that I believe are constructed and peddled by the Feminist Movement that I disagree with:
1. that men are intrinsically flawed
2. that men are not as worthy parents as women
3. that equal parenting is destabilising for children
4. that Equal Parenting Time will put children at a greater risk of abuse
I hope you find this e-mail in the spirit of healthy discussion and bridging the divide of mutual suspicion and non-communication. We are probably all guilty of stereotyping, and communication can be a good way of breaking down stereotyping and myth-making.
Best wishes,
Geoff Holland
I wrote to sociologist Dr Shane Hopkinson following what I thought was an unfair article by him on Domestic Violence.
He responded to me and I have since responded to him. The text follows. I didn't include the two attachments I sent him (The Trinity College Study on Domestic Violence and the Dads'Data document) but I can supply to anyone who wants a copy (previously posted on the forum).
Your comments and views can be added to what might be an ongoing debate, so send them in ! (I'm going to post it on my website www.equalparentingtime@blogspot.com at least).
Cheers,
Geoff
____________________________________________
Hi Shane,
Thanks for responding. Appreciate we need to fit in any sort of dialogue in amongst a busy work schedule for both of us.
Of course false allegations of sexual abuse are hard to disprove (and likewise hard to prove) but they are fairly rare (I'll see what stats I can find).
A study on the total number of allegations of abuse (physical and sexual) of men toward women, and women toward men, as well as allegations of abuse (physical and sexual) of fathers to their children and mothers to their children in the context of a case in the Family Court system would be very useful. Then we could look at what proportion were able to be confidently proven or disproven, and what proportion could not be either proven or disproven.
The trick is now to penalise people from making false or grossly exaggerated claims without deterring people from making genuine claims.
I suggest that if someone makes a claim that cannot be disproven, they would not be penalised. Only in cases where it can be reasonably disproven, then that claimant should be penalised - say in the form of Community Service. It is in the interests of everyone to penalise people who make false allegations because they devalue legitimate claims.
I am a bit puzzled by your claims of a 'feminist movement'. Outside a small academic circle where I work very few women I know called themselves 'feminists' these days.
I am equally puzzled. You suggest that women in your small academic circle might identify themselves as feminists. In the national academic circle there are, I suggest, a significant number of men and women who would identify themselves as feminists (I once applied to do a post-grad in Communications at UTS, and was told I could choose any area as long as I located my research and thesis within a feminist framework and argued from a feminist perspective. That was an entire faculty !)
Here are some organisations that could define the locus of the feminist movement. (Not that all members of these organisations would identify themselves as feminists, but I suggest the vast majority would).
Abortion Rights Network of Australia
Association of Women Educators
Australian Breastfeeding Association
Australian Capital Territory Office for Women, ACT Govt
Australian Council of Businesswomen
Australasian Council of Women and Policing
Australian Federation of Medical Women
Australian Federation of University Women
Australian Feminist Law Foundation
Australian Federation of Women's International Zionist Organisations
Australian Local Government Women's Association
Australian National Committee on Refugee Women
Australian Nursing Federation
Australian Office for the Status of Women
Australian Women's Coaltion
Australian Women's Health Network
Australian Women Lawyers
Australian Women's Party Australian Women's Studies Association
Breast Cancer Network of Australia
Business and Professional Women Australia
Catholic Women's League of Australia
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women
Coalition of Activist Lesbians- Australia
Coalition of Australian Participating Organisations of Women
Homebirth Australia Inc
International Women's Development Agency
Maternity Alliance
Mothers Opposing Pollution
Mothers' Union In Australia
National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence
National Association of Women in Construction
National Council of Jewish Women of Australia
National Council for the Single Mother and Her Child
National Council of Women of Australia
National Foundation for Australian Women
National Indigenous Women's Coalition
National Network of Indigenous Women's Legal Services
National Network of Women's Legal Services
National Union of Students Women's Department
National Women's Justice Coalition
National Women's Media Centre
Network of Women in Further Education
NSW Office for Women, NSW Govt
Northern Territory Office of Women's Policy, NT Govt.
Nursing Mothers Association of Australia
Office of Women's Affairs, Brisbane City Council
Pan-Pacific and South East Asian Women's Association of Australia Inc.
Public Health Association of Australia's Women's Health Special Interest Group
Queensland Office for Women. Qld Govt
Radical Women
Society of Women Writers of Australia
Sole Parent's Union
Soroptimists International of the South West Pacific
South Australia Office for Women, SA Govt
Tasmania Women, Tas Govt
UNIFEM Australia Inc.
Union of Australian Women
United Nations Association (Australia) Status of Women Network
Victoria Office of Women's Policy, Vic Govt
Western Australia Office for Women's Policy, WA Govt
Women's Action Alliance
Women and Aids National Working Party
Women in Engineering
Women in Film and Television (Australia)
Women in Management
Women in Science Inquiry Network
Women in Super
Women into Politics
Women on Boards
Women with Disabilities
Women's Economic Think Tank
Women's Electoral Lobby
Women's Services Network
Women's Financial Network
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Women's Network for Technical and Vocational Education and Training
Women's Rights Action Network Australia
Zonta International Australia
Are you able to produce a similar list of men's groups in Australia ?
Most women in the Australian Labor Party and in the Union Movement are likely to consider themselves feminists. And as you suggest, there are a considerable number of women in DV related services etc.
Many people, including the contemporary ("reconstructed") male, may not explicitly identify themselves as a feminist (as I once did) but have internalised feminist myths and ideology, and hence take a feminist-compatible position (of course, like anyone, they would say their position is independent and objective).
The point is that women who identify themselves as feminists are more likely to hold influential positions, eg in academia, politics and government, senior positions in the public service, in professional organisations, activist NGOs and community organisations etc.
I am merely responding to your comment that few women would call themselves feminists these days.
I speculate that many women may no longer identify themselves as a feminist due to what you may term a 'backlash' but what I may term an acknowledgement that the feminist movement is guilty of the same kinds of chauvanism, aggression and misandry that they blamed men for (misogyny).
From opinion polls I have seen, and my own experience in petitioning, most women support a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. I would also say that most women who regard themselves as feminists also support a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. But it is the more radical core of the feminist movement that opposes it. (This is how I define 'mainstream feminists' from 'radical feminists').
Some people, including myself, feel that the feminist movement is no longer about gender equity, but is simply a women's lobby, which now is becoming excessive - eg in terms of opposing a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, arguing against affirmative action eg scholarships to attract more male teachers to improve academic performance of boys, of portraying domestic violence as 100% perpetrated by men, and women as 100% of the victims (and only men exhibiting controlling behaviour etc), of arguing against male-only clubs but allowing female-only clubs etc, opposing the funding of Men's Centres etc etc.
The fact is, women would benefit by supporting the funding of Men's Centres. The best way to change male behaviour is to fund supportive services and organisations for men.
Women also need to look at their own behaviour ! Women are understandably becoming more assertive. But when does assertive behaviour become controlling and aggressive behaviour ?
I'm not sure how this small group promotes the fear of 'men'
By portraying men as violent. Most men are not violent. Myth-making by the feminist movement has been running for 40 years now. There has been no strong source of counter-myths until the last decade with the Feminazi myth-making by a part of the Men's Movement. But few people have heard the term "Feminazi" while nearly all have heard of "Male chauvanist pig". True, the latter term has lost currency (but the internalised myth will take much longer to dissipate). But the DV campaigns are more insidious as the myths are visual but non-textual. The myth is that men are 100% perpetrators of domestic violence and women and children are 100% victims of male violence. The truth is more like 70% male perpetrated to 30% female perpetrated.
The difference is extremely important. If it is 70% male perpetrated you have 70:30 ratio. If it is 99% male perpetrated you have 99:1 ratio. If it is 100% male perpetrated you have an infinity ratio, which is no ratio, which is a powerful myth. Men do it, women don't.
Mothers are more responsible for physical abuse toward children than fathers, but this form of domestic violence is not widely recognised. Why not include it in DV campaigns ? (I know why). It is argued that violence toward children breeds violence when they are adults. (I wonder how the data would shape up if you factored in time mothers spent with children as opposed fathers).
Of course mythologising women as eternal victims is hardly empowering for women either...
http://www.noviolence.com.au/public/newsletters/news18.pdf
Aside: the site won't let me copy. Can you send me a copy of your article so I can more readily quote from it ?
I used the ABS data because it was the most neutral data set.
Correct.
Why then does the Australian Office for the Status of Women and the Queensland Office for Women. Qld Govt use the Access Economics Report (Cost of DV)
http://www.accesseconomics.com.au/publicationsreports/showreport.php?id=23&searchfor=2004&searchby=year
which I believe is based on an obscure study commissioned by the Office of Women's Affairs, Brisbane City Council, that suggested at one point that 98% of domestic violence was perpetrated by men. The Advertising Standards Board has quoted this statistic from their client (Queensland Office for Women. Qld Govt), stating that 98% was close enough to 100% etc.
Access Economics was forced to publish a Corrigendum (see same URL), but the DV campaign feminists insist on using the erroneous data !
Do you agree that the ratio of domestic violence according to the ABS PSS data is about 70:30 men-perpetrated to women-perpetrated ?
As a sociologist trained in objectivity and neutrality, who is involved with research into Domestic Violence, and thus interested in the methodology and impact of Domestic Violence campaigns, would you please investigate the above, in what I would consider an important academic exercise ?
Can you also explain why it is important to show all perpetrators of domestic violence as men, and all victims as women and children (but not men) ?
A recent study (Trinity College, Dublin) of people attending doctor's surgeries (for any reason) reports that 43% of women reported one or more incidents of violence by their partner, and 54% of men reported one or more incidents by their partner. I attach a copy for your interest. I am not pushing the "equally violent" line. I just want more investigation in the light of blatant feminist bias in this area.
It shows that men are twice as likely to be victims of violence as women overall - and that overwhelmingly at the hands of other men....
I think it would be good if the 'men's right's' movement (or whatever you want to call it) stopped suggesting that men are the victims of women's violence (tho of course that happens) and look at the big picture. Men are the even bigger victims of male violence than women are but I rarely hear those men who are critical of 'feminism' point that out because it doesn't serve their agenda.
Sure, I acknowledge this. I have seen this figure in Men's Movement discourse. I don't think there is denial about this. What does it prove ? We focus on debunking the 100% male perpetration myth because we believe it is used to block a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
Women's groups have argued that a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will expose children to greater levels of violence (because men are violent). This is an indefensible argument in my view.
Some men argue that children in the care of single mothers with boyfriends and new male partners - ie when the Family Court awards majority residency to the mother - are at greater risk of abuse from the non-biological step-father. The data backs up this argument. I do not use this argument because it penalises the majority of men who are not abusive and we have to find better ways to prevent abuse other than restricting access (except of course in proven cases).
And the implication of this argument is to give majority residency to fathers, which in my view is as equally absurd (against the best interests of children) as the status quo.
We do not focus on men being the victim of women's violence as you suggest. On the contrary, it is the women's movement which is focussing on women being the victim of men's violence. We are merely responding to this to put it in perspective, and prevent the exaggerated myth-making and political manipulation of the myth to prevent a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
The DV campaigns not only pretend 100% of perpetrators are male, but they never give the data on how many families suffer from chronic domestic violence. This omission generates a myth that chronic domestic violence is prevalent in most homes. (Myths can be generated not just by information presented, but also information omitted).
I'm not sure what 'anti-masculinism' is but on many men's interpretation any attempt to equalise power between the sexes is a threat to male prerogatives and so is 'anti-masculine' in that sense. Perhaps you could spell out for me more clearly what you mean.
I use the neologistic term "anti-masculinism" to demonstrate bias of the feminist movement. Everyone knows what anti-feminism is. Anti-masculinism is simply the opposite - opposition to the Men's Movement.
Your interpretation is that:
"any attempt to equalise power between the sexes is a threat to male prerogatives"
My interpretation is that the Men's Movement is principally about gender equity. Surprised ?
And I regard your interpretation as "anti-masculinist" and a product of myths about the Men's Movement. (Prior to becoming involved myself, my view was that the Men's Movement comprised of angry psychopaths on the one hand, and firecamp co-counselling wooses on the other. I found neither). It suggests that you are not very familiar with the Men's Movement in Australia. Yes, there are people who occasionally espouse sexist rhetoric. But if you look at most of the discussion, as well as the policy and actions of the organisations, I don't believe you can conclude as you do.
The conservative end of the spectrum focuses on defending the family, opposes the recognition of same-sex marriage and their adoption of children. Some argue for a return to fault-based divorce. But none of this is sexist. And I would say this is not the concern for the majority of people in the Men's Movement.
Its hard to get into specifics - if we were to survey men - how many would ask to 'equal time' with their children...
Let's survey men and ask them if they would like the right to equal parenting. I am sure you would get an overwhelming response supporting this right. I believe the majority of fathers would take on the responsibility of equal parenting given the opportunity and support in the community.
But most men have to work and so are restricted in how much time they can have with the children.
Don't most women have to work ? If not, why not ? We have maternity leave in some areas of business and public service. Why aren't feminists also fighting for paternity leave ?
I regard this as a key issue for men. What would you regard as the "biggest issue" for men ?
If it was equal then that would be reflected in child support formula - even as it stands having them 2 nights a week (I think it is) gets you a reduction as 'significant care' when that involves you in very little care of the child.
Dads resent having to pay for the privilege of not having fair access to their children. The single parents' pension can only be paid to one parent. This is a dilemma for the Family Court system / CSA / Govt which they don't want to deal with. Yes, equal parenting should mean equal benefits. Yes we support the women's movement in their drive for more flexible work arrangements, more job-sharing, more affordable childcare facilities. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would no doubt have a major positive impact on men's culture and society in general.
I think male suicide is an issue
Yes it is. And Dads-in-Distress in particular has promoted the link between male suicide and the blatant discrimination and alienation fathers from their children in the Family Court system.
The Men's Movement remembers the anniversary of the suicide of ALP MP Greg Wilton following an unfair Family Court ruling. We know there are many hundreds of others like him, not to mention victims of murder-suicide (mums and children).
DiDs generally likes to refer to the total male suicide rate, about five per day, four times that of women. The total number directly attributable to the Family Court system could be as high as 10%. That is a lot of blood on the hands of the Family Court. Unfortunately only a few Coroners test for this link. Some do, and others could retrospectively. In any case, you could measure the difference after an implementation of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
Why not? Do you seriously think that men and women are equally violent? Does this tally with your everyday experience? And the main victims of this violence will be MEN - overall at twice the rate that women are.
I am not trying to promote the notion that men and women are equally violent, but rather to counter the notion that men are violent and women are not. Also, I would like emotional and psychological violence to be more fully researched - not to prove one gender is more violent in this area than the other, but to establish the link - the myth that a woman after many years of psychological abuse, stabbed her husband - but here I am not trying to discredit this myth. Men often explode after being presented by unfair or manipulative behaviour by women - yes, equally a myth. Let's explore them and test them. Violence by the male is not justified. But if we are going to resolve violence, we need to become aware of the broader patterns of behaviour, including the triggers. I think feminist research into DV is unwilling to look at manipulative behaviours by women.
When men are victims of DV then they should get the same sorts of responses as women do
Yes but they don't ! Can you show me a text from a Women's DV organisation that highlights this problem and recommends remedial action ?
of course theres still a large section of the community that thinks DV is not a issue and reject women's claims
of course there's still a large section of the community, especially the feminist community, that thinks that female DV against their male partner is not an issue and reject men's claims...
Violence is a gendered issue and unless men are prepared to address the fact that most of the violence in our society (not just at home) is committed by men then we don't have the right place to address the issue overall.
Why call it a "gendered issue" ? This term implies that men are to blame for violence. Does it really help solve the problem to call it "gendered" ?
Physical assaults in 12 months prior to the 2005 PSS ABS study.
By men By women Total (By both men and women)
Women victims 195,300 66,579 242,000 19,879
Men victims 425,429 79,500 485,400 19,529
By this data, there is violence happening in all directions. By calling it "gendered" are you going to reduce the number of women assaulting women, or women assaulting men ?
by male stranger by fem. stranger by partner or ex-p other
men 65% 4.4% (21,200)
women 15% 31% (73,800)
Indicates partner or ex-partner violence (a key form of domestic violence) is perpetrated 22.3% by women and 77.7% by men.
125,100 women experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator at home while 60,900 men experienced physical assault by a female perpetrator at home. This suggests partner or ex-partner violence at home (a key form of domestic violence) is perpetrated 33% by women and 67% by men.
Physical assaults in 12 months prior to the 2005 PSS ABS study.
By men By women Total (By both men and women)
Women victims 195,300 66,579 242,000 19,879
Men victims 425,429 79,500 485,400 19,529
The reason that the total number of victims is less than the number of victims by men plus the number by women is that some people have been a victim of both men and women.
The ratio of male assaulting female compared to female assaulting male (but not only in the home) appears to be 29:71
> Ok its getting late here and so I won't continue right now but let me sign off with asking you about the 4 "myths" the feminist movement has created that you cite at the end of your email - can you provide me with references to feminists who make these specific claims?
1. that men are intrinsically flawed
2. that men are not as worthy parents as women
3. that equal parenting is destabilising for children
4. that Equal Parenting Time will put children at a greater risk of abuse
It is unlikely that a feminist would say outright that men are instrinsically flawed (and women are not) - but there may even be examples. However, it is the implication of much feminist discourse.
If you
1. say violence is "gendered" (ie perpetrated by men)
2. portray 100% of domestic violence as perpetrated by men, and
3. say we cannot increase children's access to fathers following divorce as this would expose children to greater levels of violence and abuse
...you are suggesting that men are instrinsically flawed. Myths do not work on the conscious level, on the level of reason and intellectual debate. They work on the sub-conscious level. Sometimes myths can be sown unintentionally. If separated parents argue, the child often comes to believe they are to blame for the conflict and the separation of the parents.
The other three myths I can demonstrate more explicitly, eg by going through media archives and submissions to the 2004 Inquiry Into Child Custody http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/subs.htm
But that would take time. If you press me for evidence, I will follow it up.
Regards,
Geoff Holland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shane Hopkinson"
To: "Geoff Holland"
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:06 PM
Subject: RE: Your article 'Are Women as Violent as Men'
Dear Geoff
Work has been pretty busy so forgive me if this is a bit cursory but I wanted to respond and I hope that we might get some useful dialogue out of the exchange.
I was subject to a false allegations of violence and received a DVO. I don't expect you to necessarily believe me. You probably think there were justifying actions or circumstances. There were not. My ex-partner and her mother also made - not specific accusations of sexual abuse to my young son - but strong direct insinuations in their affidavits. I was among the lucky few who was able to prove these insinuations were ingenuous. Usually false allegations of sexual abuse are very difficult to disprove. I do not know the frequency, as you may do, but yes Shane, it happens.
I have no reason to disbelieve you there are certainly cases of women using DVO's in a punitive fashion. I, too, have been a victim of false allegations (not from my ex-wife tho) but I don't think that that means the vast majority of cases are like that. Of course false allegations of sexual abuse are hard to disprove (and likewise hard to prove) but they are fairly rare (I'll see what stats I can find).
Your link between the Domestic Violence arena and reforms of the Family Law Act is interesting, because I also make such a link but in a different way. I see the feminist movement as using the Domestic Violence campaigns, partly to reduce domestic violence (in a misconceived and misleading way I believe), but also to heighten fear of 'men' and thus scare people about reforms in the Family Law Act and the move to allow children greater access to their dads following separation.
I am a bit puzzled by your claims of a 'feminist movement'. Outside a small academic circle where I work very few women I know called themselves 'feminists' these days. I'm not sure how how this small group promotes the fear of 'men' except in the relation to the kinds of statistics that I quote in my article - as far as I can see you don't address this data at all. Women in DV services of course tend to see the worst of the violence that exists between men and women - and most of that is committed by men - so in that sense they have a bias since most often there work involves protecting women from male violence.
I would like to say that it is important to recognise that two people can be looking at the same set of facts or data and read them in very different ways - and both have valid arguments for their own interpretation.
I am sociologist by training and so adopting different perspectives and interpretations is pretty normal. I used the ABS data because it was the most neutral data set. It shows that men are twice as likely to be victims of violence as women overall - and that overwhelmingly at the hands of other men. For men tho most of that violence happens at the pub whereas women experience violence much more often at home. I think it would be good if the 'men's right's' movement (or whatever you want to call it) stopped suggesting that men are the victims of women's violence (tho of course that happens) and look at the big picture. Men are the even bigger victims of male violence than women are but I rarely hear those men who are critical of 'feminism' point that out because it doesn't serve their agenda.
Many men would argue that the Women's Rights movement receives millions of dollars in funding from the government, and that the Women's Rights movement promotes 'anti-masculinism'.
Of course this is their interpretation. I'm not sure which 'women's rights' groups recieve millions in funding. If you mean DV services or services for women's health then certainly the government sponsors specific services. These groups tho are government controlled and subject to rules and regulations. I'm not sure what 'anti-masculinism' is but on many men's interpretation any attempt to equalise power between the sexes is a threat to male prerogatives and so is 'anti-masculine' in that sense. Perhaps you could spell out for me more clearly what you mean.
I don't know which groups you refer to, but on my radar the principle groups are Lone Fathers, Men's Rights Agency, Dads-in-Distress, Shared Parenting Council of Australia (umbrella group), Fatherhood Foundation, and the less active Fathers-4-Equality and the Men's Confraternity. Only one of these, MRA, talks about 'rights'. The others do not. They give exclusive priority to the notion of the 'best interests of the child'. (This is a whole other area I won't go into here). So it is really a Men's Movement or a Dad's Movement rather than a Men's Rights movement. Although I see the issues as involving rights, most do not.
I was using Men's Rights' as shorthand - the groups you mention seek to increase the rights of men - in relation to the custody of their children after separation. So I would say that 'Father's rights' is fair shorthand. The issues you raise here are important ones but they weren't what I was addressing in my article. So its interesting that this is the direction the argument has taken.
As I see it, Equal Parenting is the single biggest issue for men. Following this is Child Support formulae.
Its hard to get into specifics - if we were to survey men - how many would ask to 'equal time' with their children. I have been an active parent to my 2 daughters (every second weekend and every wednesday night was the common pattern - and I must in fairness add that my relationship with their mum is a very good one so I am lucky in that sense) and more recently the eldest has come to live with me. But most men have to work and so are restricted in how much time they can have with the children. If you wanted 'equal time' with the children - say taking week about then this would be great but would hardly be the 'biggest issue' for most men. Is that what you mean by equal parenting? If it was equal then that would be reflected in child support formula - even as it stands having them 2 nights a week (I think it is) gets you a reduction as 'significant care' when that involves you in very little care of the child.
Other issues such as addressing lower life expectancy higher suicide rates, and lower academic performance in males, smaller funding for Men's Centres, smaller funding for prostate cancer as opposed to breast and cervical cancer, pertain more to a Men's Movement, but are far less significant (perhaps I see it this way because of the type of forums I follow).
Many of these are important issues for men - but you ahve to compare apples with applies. I think male suicide is an issue (of course women attempt it more than men) but I don't think the funding is based on gender - theres quite a lot about male suicide especially in rural areas. Boys are falling behind in some areas but there's a huge variation based on other factors - and no one called it a 'crisis' in the last 50 years when boys outperformed girls. I'm not sure what the funding on different health issues looks like - about equal numbers dies from prostate and breast cancer - and both seems well promoted in the community. A bit complaint of those in health promotion is that men won't go to doctors till its too late.
The term 'gendered violence' is a feminist one. No one in the Men's Movement to my knowledge talks about 'gendered violence' or 'non-gendered' violence.
Why not? Do you seriously think that men and women are equally violent? Does this tally with your everyday experience? I'm not sure if you have more than the one son (I have 2 girls) and in my life and theirs everything tells me it is boys/men who are much more likely to solve their problems physically. And the main victims of this violence will be MEN - overall at twice the rate that women are.
True, most of us think that most reporting of domestic violence is skewed. However, most of us are happy to go along with the ABS PSS study stats. But we have it in writing that Federal and Qld State domestic violence campaigns showing all men as perpetrators and all women as victims were based on the Access Economics study which they claim stated that 98% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men. I'm not even going to bother pulling this one apart...
I used the ABS study as the least contentious. I haven't read the Access Economics study but I am guessing that its the one that costed DV at billions of dollars. If they suggested that 98% of DV is carried out by men I'd like to see how they reached that number but surely you are not suggesting that Access Economics is a feminist organisation - they are mostly right-wing economists.
It is true that sometimes people in the Men's Movement will argue that violence is equal between men and women, or even that women are more violent, but most accept a rough conceptual 1:2 ratio. Some, however, do want emotional and psychological violence recognised and researched more thoroughly. I assume many feminists would also !
Well it was feminists who first argued that DV was more than physical abuse so its interesting that the men's movement now wants to claim this too. When men are victims of DV then they should get the same sorts of responses as women do [of course theres still a large section of the community that thinks DV is not a issue and reject women's claims so not the same response in that sense]. But if we are concerned about violence against men then we need to focus on ALL the violence men suffer - most of which as the stats show is at the hands of other men - not at the hands of women. Violence is a gendered issue and unless men are prepared to address the fact that most of the violence in our society (not just at home) is committed by men then we don't have the right place to address the issue overall.
Ok its getting late here and so I won't continue right now but let me sign off with asking you about the 4 "myths" the feminist movement has created that you cite at the end of your email - can you provide me with references to feminists who make these specific claims?
I am pleased to have received a response from someone in your position and look forward to some further dialogue.
Regards, Shane
__________________________________________________
To :
Shane Hopkinson
Sociology, CQU
From: Geoff Holland
Hi Shane,
I acquired your e-mail address from the CQU website - I hope you don't mind. I recently read an article of yours from Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006
I am a dad who went all the way through the Family Court system, and who has since become an activist for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
I was subject to a false allegations of violence and received a DVO. I don't expect you to necessarily believe me. You probably think there were justifying actions or circumstances. There were not. My ex-partner and her mother also made - not specific accusations of sexual abuse to my young son - but strong direct insinuations in their affidavits. I was among the lucky few who was able to prove these insinuations were ingenuous. Usually false allegations of sexual abuse are very difficult to disprove. I do not know the frequency, as you may do, but yes Shane, it happens.
Recent politicking from Men's Rights groups and amendments to Family Law legislation are two examples of an apparent backlash against feminism".
Your link between the Domestic Violence arena and reforms of the Family Law Act is interesting, because I also make such a link but in a different way. I see the feminist movement as using the Domestic Violence campaigns, partly to reduce domestic violence (in a misconceived and misleading way I believe), but also to heighten fear of 'men' and thus scare people about reforms in the Family Law Act and the move to allow children greater access to their dads following separation.
I would like to say that it is important to recognise that two people can be looking at the same set of facts or data and read them in very different ways - and both have valid arguments for their own interpretation.
I would like to offer a few quick comments - ie feedback from someone in the Men's Movement - on a section of your article, for your interest.
"The Fathers Rights Agenda in many respects there is a false controversy being created in the media and, it would seem, in the minds of my students, which I think is an important marker of the extent to which the backlash politics is gaining ground. It is driven by a Fathers' Rights anti-feminism which has seen the government sponsor such groups as Lone Fathers Association to the tune of $100,000 over 2 years (Summers 2003:98), and who have thus been able to promote the idea that violence is not gendered and/or that the 'issue' of domestic violence is really the product of a 'feminist industry' that exaggerates the extent of family violence and unfairly blames it all on men".
Many men would argue that the Women's Rights movement receives millions of dollars in funding from the government, and that the Women's Rights movement promotes 'anti-masculinism'.
I don't know which groups you refer to, but on my radar the principle groups are Lone Fathers, Men's Rights Agency, Dads-in-Distress, Shared Parenting Council of Australia (umbrella group), Fatherhood Foundation, and the less active Fathers-4-Equality and the Men's Confraternity. Only one of these, MRA, talks about 'rights'. The others do not. They give exclusive priority to the notion of the 'best interests of the child'. (This is a whole other area I won't go into here). So it is really a Men's Movement or a Dad's Movement rather than a Men's Rights movement. Although I see the issues as involving rights, most do not.
As I see it, Equal Parenting is the single biggest issue for men. Following this is Child Support formulae. In this sense the Men's Movement is a Dad's Movement. Other issues such as addressing lower life expectancy, higher suicide rates, and lower academic performance in males, smaller funding for Men's Centres, smaller funding for prostate cancer as opposed to breast and cervical cancer, pertain more to a Men's Movement, but are far less significant (perhaps I see it this way because of the type of forums I folllow).
In my view, the Men's Movement is a weak, voluntary, relatively ad hoc and disorganized movement. The 'Black Shirts' are often misleadingly quoted in the media as representing the Men's Movement, but anyone who knows anything about the subject would know that while the half dozen people involved are probably still alive, there is no such organisation now, and even when it existed, it was just that - about six people who used a megaphone outside some homes on about three occasions - correct me if I am wrong. And all the above groups explicitly denounce this misconceived group. I am glad you didn't also quote them.
The term 'gendered violence' is a feminist one. No one in the Men's Movement to my knowledge talks about 'gendered violence' or 'non-gendered' violence. True, most of us think that most reporting of domestic violence is skewed. However, most of us are happy to go along with the ABS PSS study stats. But we have it in writing that Federal and Qld State domestic violence campaigns showing all men as perpetrators and all women as victims were based on the Access Economics study which they claim stated that 98% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men. I'm not even going to bother pulling this one apart...
It is true that sometimes people in the Men's Movement will argue that violence is equal between men and women, or even that women are more violent, but most accept a rough conceptual 1:2 ratio. Some, however, do want emotional and psychological violence recognised and researched more thoroughly. I assume many feminists would also !
As I see it, the labelling of domestic violence as 'gendered' serves the feminist cause - you can't have a Presumption of Equal Parenting because it will expose more children to more gendered (male) violence and abuse.
"While professing a concern for male victims of violence and showing a willingness to exploit men's pain and suffering at the end of relationships, Fathers' Rights groups have been able to generate considerable sympathy and have been able to get the ear of government. Unfortunately their real agenda is a re-assertion of traditional male prerogatives over women and children. Aside from the idea of gender symmetry in family violence they have promoted the idea that children need fathers above all else and this is gradually displacing the issue of child safety as the key issue in court determinations of custody and access. Further they seek to discredit female victims by alleging that women:1. fabricate false allegations of child abuse to deny men access to their children (in fact, cases of abuse only appear in a small number of hearings); and2. stategically and punitively use Apprehended Violence Orders or Domestic Violence Orders as a bargaining tool in Court rather than out of any genuine fear of violence."Shane Hopkinson, (male) Sociology, Central Queensland UniversityQueensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006
Yes, there is a percentage of the Men's movement that might like to reinstate the status quo of gender power relations pre 1950. Could I give a wild guess and say about 25%? For example some refer to fault-based divorce and criticise no-fault divorce policy, and describe how it is too easy for a women to leave a relationship. But the sentiment rarely surfaces in discussion. Most people in the Men's Movement seek gender equity, support no fault divorce and don't seek to force couples together. So I would say you are wrong on this point.
When you say "children need fathers above all else" I presume you don't mean we are saying fathers are more important than mothers.. I presume it is above the issue of child safety. If it is the former I would say you are wrong, if the second, yes I would agree with you because we do not feel that equal parenting, or even greater access leads to greater child abuse.
Some point to stats which indicate children are more at risk from the mother's new (male) partner (so yes, safer with the dad), and that mothers tend to inflict more physical abuse on children than fathers (whether they have taken into account mothers in general spend more time with their children, I can't say). These issues need to be looked at more closely and professionally.
My own view is that we need to resolve domestic violence and child abuse, child sexual abuse in other ways other than broad discrimination against men in terms of access to their children.
There are four myths that I believe are constructed and peddled by the Feminist Movement that I disagree with:
1. that men are intrinsically flawed
2. that men are not as worthy parents as women
3. that equal parenting is destabilising for children
4. that Equal Parenting Time will put children at a greater risk of abuse
I hope you find this e-mail in the spirit of healthy discussion and bridging the divide of mutual suspicion and non-communication. We are probably all guilty of stereotyping, and communication can be a good way of breaking down stereotyping and myth-making.
Best wishes,
Geoff Holland
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Why did children go to Brisbane in the first place ?
Letters to the Editor
Daily Telegraph
When Anita Quigley speaks of custody breach, ('Anxious reality of family break-up' 05 May 07), she mentions only fathers. In fact most custody breaches are committed by mothers. This is a common mistake which results from the bias of the Family Court and society in general.
Nobody in the media has yet questioned why the mother, Philippa Yeland, was allowed to take the children to Brisbane in the first place.
The Family Court system certainly is to blame. Expect crises like these for children to continue until we end discrimination, and implement and enforce a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
Geoff Holland
Cairns, Qld
________________________________________
http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,,21671642-5001031,00.html
The Daily Telegraph 5 May 2007
Anxious reality of family break-up
By Anita Quigley
All around the state today divorced and separated parents will hand over their children to their estranged partner for their weekend custody access.
While many will be pleased at the prospect the freedom a child-free weekend may offer, others will feel uncomfortable.
Particularly this weekend.
Some may even return home to watch the clock, anxiously counting down the minutes until their child/children are returned safely (and on time) from the court-ordered access visit.
Philippa Yelland knows the feeling.
Late on Thursday night she was reunited with her three children Bokkie, Matilda and Barney who had spent almost two months on the run with their father.
After a national police and airport alert, the children – aged 10, 9 and 7 – were found in a house in Launceston with her ex-husband Murray Robertson.
When found, Mr Robertson said: "The kids made the decision, not me."
While not privy to the circumstances of the couple's divorce, I am confident that this custody breach – rare to be publicised – is not infrequent among other families.
Whether it is a loving, but frustrated, father who in a moment of madness fails to return his children at the set time because he simply wants to spend longer with them (and they him) or a bitter one wanting to upset and scare his ex-wife.
Many news reports referred to the "happy-ending" of this case. It is only to the extent the children were found safe. Not when you consider the future Family Court hearings ahead and the loss of trust. Any decent parent should view their children as a joy and a responsibility, not a handy bargaining chip to screw more money out of the ex when the marriage fails.
How many divorcing parents do you see forget that the most crucial part is to protect their children and put their own selfish instincts on hold?
Stopping being married doesn't mean stopping being parents.
Unless the child's father happens to be of the likes of Ivan Milat or mother Katherine Knight, they are entitled to have a relationship with their child.
There are many dysfunctional, angry, unhappy children as a result of divorce.
But the Family Court can only be blamed for so many of them.
Daily Telegraph
When Anita Quigley speaks of custody breach, ('Anxious reality of family break-up' 05 May 07), she mentions only fathers. In fact most custody breaches are committed by mothers. This is a common mistake which results from the bias of the Family Court and society in general.
Nobody in the media has yet questioned why the mother, Philippa Yeland, was allowed to take the children to Brisbane in the first place.
The Family Court system certainly is to blame. Expect crises like these for children to continue until we end discrimination, and implement and enforce a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
Geoff Holland
Cairns, Qld
________________________________________
http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,,21671642-5001031,00.html
The Daily Telegraph 5 May 2007
Anxious reality of family break-up
By Anita Quigley
All around the state today divorced and separated parents will hand over their children to their estranged partner for their weekend custody access.
While many will be pleased at the prospect the freedom a child-free weekend may offer, others will feel uncomfortable.
Particularly this weekend.
Some may even return home to watch the clock, anxiously counting down the minutes until their child/children are returned safely (and on time) from the court-ordered access visit.
Philippa Yelland knows the feeling.
Late on Thursday night she was reunited with her three children Bokkie, Matilda and Barney who had spent almost two months on the run with their father.
After a national police and airport alert, the children – aged 10, 9 and 7 – were found in a house in Launceston with her ex-husband Murray Robertson.
When found, Mr Robertson said: "The kids made the decision, not me."
While not privy to the circumstances of the couple's divorce, I am confident that this custody breach – rare to be publicised – is not infrequent among other families.
Whether it is a loving, but frustrated, father who in a moment of madness fails to return his children at the set time because he simply wants to spend longer with them (and they him) or a bitter one wanting to upset and scare his ex-wife.
Many news reports referred to the "happy-ending" of this case. It is only to the extent the children were found safe. Not when you consider the future Family Court hearings ahead and the loss of trust. Any decent parent should view their children as a joy and a responsibility, not a handy bargaining chip to screw more money out of the ex when the marriage fails.
How many divorcing parents do you see forget that the most crucial part is to protect their children and put their own selfish instincts on hold?
Stopping being married doesn't mean stopping being parents.
Unless the child's father happens to be of the likes of Ivan Milat or mother Katherine Knight, they are entitled to have a relationship with their child.
There are many dysfunctional, angry, unhappy children as a result of divorce.
But the Family Court can only be blamed for so many of them.
views of Justice John Faulks
Here are some quotes from the Family Court Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks:
"In conclusion, Judge Faulks made two final points: final orders are never final orders because the needs of a family when children are young will not be the same as when the children are older and so orders would need to be varied; he commented that the concept of equal shared parenting responsibility must not be confused with the notion of equal shared parenting time. He recounted an anecdote of a case of his in which a parent had requested equal parenting time; he suggested to the parent that he could have all the sleeping time to point out the absurdity and unfairness of the notion of equal parenting time. - Justice John Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia."
If Final Orders are never Final Orders because the needs of a family change as children grow older, how does Judge Faulks propose to allow parents to reapply without the risk of losing $10,000+ because it is decided the Applicant's case does conform to the narrow criteria of "a substantial change of circumstance " ?
Judge Faulks' comment about giving the father all the sleeping time is facetious and purile. How does his absurd suggestion in any way weaken the case for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. We did not think we had to specify roughyl equal daytime and equal night time because we assumed the Family Court judges have more intelligence than they apparently do.
I have heard Family Court officials sincerely ask "but how can you divide a week [with seven days] in two ?" It's worrying that these people are in such (inappropriate) positions of power.
___________________
Source:
Changes in Family Law and the Impact on Victims of Domestic Violence Forum
Thursday 8th December 2005
Meeting Room, Level 1
The Borgia Community Centre 531 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville 9:45am
Judge Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia
Title of presentation: “Recent Changes & Developments in the Family Law Court” - Overview of the Children Cases Program; the Child Responsive Pilot Program and other recent developments introduced into the Family Court.As reported in:
http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Newsletter_24.pdf (1.4MB)http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/Word%20Files/Newsletter_24.doc (700KB)
Australian Domestic & Family Violence ClearinghouseNewsletter 24 / Autumn 2006 / Pages 4-5
Feature: Report on Family Law Forum
Recent changes and developments in the Family CourtThe Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, the Honourable Justice John Faulks, provided a comprehensive overview of the Children’s Cases Program, the Child Responsive Pilot Program and other developments introduced into the Family Court.
He acknowledged the previous speakers’ concerns about the women’s stories but stated that he would hear an equal litany of opposing allegations from a group of men.
In discussing the jurisdiction of both the State courts and Federal courts over the care of children, he said that this often resulted in uneven responses to serious allegations of abuse of children. He briefly outlined the Magellan Project which seeks to address this issue, family matters involving serious cases of child abuse, involving a specific registrar, mediator, legal aid, a children’s representative and State/Territory departments of community services, the statutory bodies with the mandate for the welfare of children.
The Judge then went on to explain that the Children’s Cases Program (CCP) will have a legislative base under the Shared Parental Responsibility amendment bill. He described the CCP as a less adversarial process for determining family law matters. Rather than the parties deciding on what evidence to put before the court, the Family Court judge directs the proceedings by identifying the issues at hand, works out how to resolve those issues and then determines any matters that cannot be resolved.
Parties are able to have lawyers present but the rules of evidence are relaxed to allow the judge to make inquiries of the parties, as well as the children. The Program is being evaluated and findings are proving positive. The pilot CCP excluded matters involving allegations of violence and/or child abuse.
Justice Faulks outlined how Family Court counsellors will have a larger role to play under the Child Responsive Program, as part of the Family Court’s Family Violence Strategy. Matters reported to the counsellors, either by a party or by the children, will no longer be privileged information and will form part of the report to the presiding judge for determination on those matters.Justice Faulks explained one aspect of the Family Court’s Family Violence Strategy, currently being piloted in Brisbane with a view to developing guidelines about early intervention, screening, assessment and safety.
He stressed that there are currently no appropriate assessment and screening standards in place for the Family Court and thus the Court was falling short in its safety strategy. He added however that the Court had made a commitment to do something about it, though it was not currently achieving that end.
In conclusion, Judge Faulks made two final points: final orders are never final orders because the needs of a family when children are young will not be the same as when the children are older and so orders would need to be varied; he commented that the concept of equal shared parenting responsibility must not be confused with the notion of equal shared parenting time. He recounted an anecdote of a case of his in which a parent had requested equal parenting time; he suggested to the parent that he could have all the sleeping time to point out the absurdity and unfairness of the notion of equal parenting time.
=============================*
Deputy Chief Justice Justice Faulks
<Biography" eudora="autourl">http://www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/connect/www/home/about/the_courts_organisation/judges/court_org_judges_deputy_chief_justice>Biography
Biography of Deputy Chief Justice Faulks
Deputy Chief Justice Faulks was appointed as Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia on 25 June 2004. Prior to his appointment to the Family Court of Australia on 12 October 1994, Deputy Chief Justice Faulks was a Senior Partner of Phillips Fox, practising extensively in family law.
He was Chairman of the Family Law Council of Australia from 1992 to 1995, and a Member of the Council between 1990 and 1992.Deputy Chief Justice Faulks was President of the Law Council of Australia from 1987 to 1988, Vice President from 1986 to 1987, and Treasurer from 1984 to 1985.He was admitted as a Barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1969 and holds a Bachelor of Laws degree from the Australian National University.
"In conclusion, Judge Faulks made two final points: final orders are never final orders because the needs of a family when children are young will not be the same as when the children are older and so orders would need to be varied; he commented that the concept of equal shared parenting responsibility must not be confused with the notion of equal shared parenting time. He recounted an anecdote of a case of his in which a parent had requested equal parenting time; he suggested to the parent that he could have all the sleeping time to point out the absurdity and unfairness of the notion of equal parenting time. - Justice John Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia."
If Final Orders are never Final Orders because the needs of a family change as children grow older, how does Judge Faulks propose to allow parents to reapply without the risk of losing $10,000+ because it is decided the Applicant's case does conform to the narrow criteria of "a substantial change of circumstance " ?
Judge Faulks' comment about giving the father all the sleeping time is facetious and purile. How does his absurd suggestion in any way weaken the case for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. We did not think we had to specify roughyl equal daytime and equal night time because we assumed the Family Court judges have more intelligence than they apparently do.
I have heard Family Court officials sincerely ask "but how can you divide a week [with seven days] in two ?" It's worrying that these people are in such (inappropriate) positions of power.
___________________
Source:
Changes in Family Law and the Impact on Victims of Domestic Violence Forum
Thursday 8th December 2005
Meeting Room, Level 1
The Borgia Community Centre 531 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville 9:45am
Judge Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia
Title of presentation: “Recent Changes & Developments in the Family Law Court” - Overview of the Children Cases Program; the Child Responsive Pilot Program and other recent developments introduced into the Family Court.As reported in:
http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Newsletter_24.pdf (1.4MB)http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/Word%20Files/Newsletter_24.doc (700KB)
Australian Domestic & Family Violence ClearinghouseNewsletter 24 / Autumn 2006 / Pages 4-5
Feature: Report on Family Law Forum
Recent changes and developments in the Family CourtThe Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, the Honourable Justice John Faulks, provided a comprehensive overview of the Children’s Cases Program, the Child Responsive Pilot Program and other developments introduced into the Family Court.
He acknowledged the previous speakers’ concerns about the women’s stories but stated that he would hear an equal litany of opposing allegations from a group of men.
In discussing the jurisdiction of both the State courts and Federal courts over the care of children, he said that this often resulted in uneven responses to serious allegations of abuse of children. He briefly outlined the Magellan Project which seeks to address this issue, family matters involving serious cases of child abuse, involving a specific registrar, mediator, legal aid, a children’s representative and State/Territory departments of community services, the statutory bodies with the mandate for the welfare of children.
The Judge then went on to explain that the Children’s Cases Program (CCP) will have a legislative base under the Shared Parental Responsibility amendment bill. He described the CCP as a less adversarial process for determining family law matters. Rather than the parties deciding on what evidence to put before the court, the Family Court judge directs the proceedings by identifying the issues at hand, works out how to resolve those issues and then determines any matters that cannot be resolved.
Parties are able to have lawyers present but the rules of evidence are relaxed to allow the judge to make inquiries of the parties, as well as the children. The Program is being evaluated and findings are proving positive. The pilot CCP excluded matters involving allegations of violence and/or child abuse.
Justice Faulks outlined how Family Court counsellors will have a larger role to play under the Child Responsive Program, as part of the Family Court’s Family Violence Strategy. Matters reported to the counsellors, either by a party or by the children, will no longer be privileged information and will form part of the report to the presiding judge for determination on those matters.Justice Faulks explained one aspect of the Family Court’s Family Violence Strategy, currently being piloted in Brisbane with a view to developing guidelines about early intervention, screening, assessment and safety.
He stressed that there are currently no appropriate assessment and screening standards in place for the Family Court and thus the Court was falling short in its safety strategy. He added however that the Court had made a commitment to do something about it, though it was not currently achieving that end.
In conclusion, Judge Faulks made two final points: final orders are never final orders because the needs of a family when children are young will not be the same as when the children are older and so orders would need to be varied; he commented that the concept of equal shared parenting responsibility must not be confused with the notion of equal shared parenting time. He recounted an anecdote of a case of his in which a parent had requested equal parenting time; he suggested to the parent that he could have all the sleeping time to point out the absurdity and unfairness of the notion of equal parenting time.
=============================*
Deputy Chief Justice Justice Faulks
<Biography" eudora="autourl">http://www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/connect/www/home/about/the_courts_organisation/judges/court_org_judges_deputy_chief_justice>Biography
Biography of Deputy Chief Justice Faulks
Deputy Chief Justice Faulks was appointed as Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia on 25 June 2004. Prior to his appointment to the Family Court of Australia on 12 October 1994, Deputy Chief Justice Faulks was a Senior Partner of Phillips Fox, practising extensively in family law.
He was Chairman of the Family Law Council of Australia from 1992 to 1995, and a Member of the Council between 1990 and 1992.Deputy Chief Justice Faulks was President of the Law Council of Australia from 1987 to 1988, Vice President from 1986 to 1987, and Treasurer from 1984 to 1985.He was admitted as a Barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1969 and holds a Bachelor of Laws degree from the Australian National University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
