Case #001 2004-?
Psychologist Simon Kennedy; Registrar Fitzgibbon; Justice Dessau; Justice Peter Young
Separated Sept 2004.
Intervention order sought by my ex-partner and granted. Naturally, no evidence of any wrongdoing, criminal behaviour or threats was supplied. It was a custody strategy.
After a no contact period of five months, psychologist Simon Kennedy "grants" me nine hours a week with children for 12 months (following ridiculous "supervised access" for 6-8 weeks).
Kennedy's report is littered with errors, wild assumptions, sequence of events back to front etc to prop up his assumptions etc. It looked as though he'd whipped it up in 20 minutes.
At no stage during his three reports, has he acknowledged any of the six eye-witness affidavits I supplied. Every other affidavit is detailed as having been read, but not six on my behalf ! Coincidentally, they all vehemently contradict most of his assumptions and premises.
At a second meeting with him six months later, I vented my righteous indignation at his role in removing my children. I also refused to go back for a third appointment.
He predictably marked me down as unstable and "narcissistic" and recommended cutting children's access to their father from 9 hours a week to 9 hours a month.
After reading this rubbish, my ex-partner suddenly stopped handing the children over for their nine hours a week.
At what was meant to be a Final Hearing in Feb 2006, a barrister then said we must combat this report and get another one done. He organized more "family therapy" for 14 days time in my presence in the Family Court.
He presented me with a piece of paper to sign, which stipulated
1. More "therapy" (with psychologist named Papaleo)
2. Anger Management course
3. No contact in the meantime.
I was horrified with what was presented to me but was told it was what the Child Lawyer was insisting upon. The Child Lawyer later denied it and reasoned I could put up with it for another fortnight. Little did I know.
Papaleo then refused to do the therapy and passed us on to someone else who also refused to do it. I think they realized that there was no money to be had from the hapless parents.
Three months later we went back to court to report on progress. There had been none and Child Lawyer said therapy was proving difficult to organize but he'd organized a couple of possibilities.
I had a coffee with him afterwards and he said:
1. He was in favour of access and
2. He was surprised I'd signed the "no contact" clause!
I was shocked to say the least.
He also said he wasn't too fussed who did the therapy. I requested a David Bruce or George Storey but he didn't do anything to contact them. Rather he told me Bruce had retired and wouldn't do it. This was on the same day as Bruce spoke to me personally and assured me he'd do it.
I wasn't too bothered at this stage if we were transferred to the public system as I couldn't afford to pay some expensive private psychologist for a second time after Kennedy had charged exhorbitant fees the first time round.
After six months and still no "therapy" had been organized. I sought new orders. Registrar Fitzgibbon knocked me back, despite the Child Lawyer supporting my application.
Got told to go off and do my Anger Management etc etc. This I did.
I was eventually directed to see a counsellor who'd never done Family Court work before. My ex-partner saw him once and refused to continue. The Child Lawyer later interpreted the breakdown of therapy as due to my non-cooperation!
I sought new orders and this time the Child Lawyer changed his tune and opposed my application.
Once again, Registrar Fitzgibbon knocked me back, this time awarding costs of $2800 to my ex-partner. We went back to court sometime in 2006 only to be told we needed another report!
I refused to see Kennedy again so the Judge (Dessau) shunted us off to a Family Court social worker.
At all these interviews, I was being told my children were terrified of me. Needless to say, they never used to be and I attempted to show them vox pop videos the children had made in my company during their 9 hour regime in 2005. It showed them acting the goat, and taking the piss out of me - a normal everyday occurrence. Strangely enough, no one wanted to look at them.The next Final Hearing was set down for Feb 07.
The social worker's "report" came out and recommended absolutely no contact and insisted I have intensive therapy.
In October 2006 acting on legal advice, I sought out another psychologist familiar with PAS. A legal aid hack read Kennedy's reports and said it would come down to a battle of the "experts" and to enlist mine, which I did.I started seeing Wendy Northey, who informed me I was the third person she'd enlisted as a client as a result of no contact recommendations by Kennedy.
Anyway, she persuaded me to take an MMPI-2 test (industry acknowledged apparently) and amazingly, it showed no grounds for concern.
She did an affidavit, and lodged the results to the court in about December 2006.Come the Final Hearing in February 07, the social worker's wife died and he couldn't appear, so it was adjourned until May 07. I requested it be heard immediately but Justice Peter Young insisted the social worker would need to be cross examined, so he adjourned it until May 07. A request for contact to be resumed in the meantime was refused.
In the meantime, he ordered the three "experts" to get together and see what they could come up with. They could reach no agreement, with the two of them wanting "more therapy" and Wendy Northey saying it was ridiculous. She later told me she found their meeting rather disturbing and that in her opinion it was apparent they were both on some kind of power trip.
The Child Lawyer then wrote his recommendations, saying in his opinion the Final Hearing was a waste of time as the experts "were unanimous" that more therapy was required. Not true but that didn't seem to worry him. In actual fact, the "expert" who tested me, insisted that a hearing was the only solution.
The judge allowed myself and my ex-partner to give evidence-in-chief (gentle questions from own side) and then called in the "experts" for much of the same.
My solicitor was expressly forbidden from cross-examining the psychologist or social worker and yet when my "expert" gave evidence, my ex-partner's barrister tore strips off her.
The Child Barrister at one stage leant over to my solicitor and whispered: "There are your grounds for appeal" over the no-cross examination bit.
The result was that no witnesses were called and there was no Final Hearing. The two court-appointed "experts'" advice was accepted, with the Judge making great play of the fact that in their opinion, there was not a "scintilla" of evidence supporting the existence of PAS.
The judge refused to view the videos made by the children.
He made the quite remarkable comment that: "No one is denying there were some good times, but it is the bad times the mother is worried about."
I was instructed to get more therapy and report back in September 07. I did go and see a therapist once but he refused to bulk bill so I didn't bother pursuing it. In August we were told to go back and see the social worker. I told the social worker what I thought of him.
Needless to say, his next report had the children "wanting to move on", "get closure" and not wanting to see their father. He magnanimously thought I may communicate via letter but the police threaten to prosecute me again for breach of Intervention Orders if I do. In September 07, my ex-partner and Child Lawyer opposed my application for contact - all this without any cross examination of experts or calling of witnesses.
I told the judge that I couldn't afford more "therapy" as they wouldn't bulk bill.He told me to go off and find someone who would bulk bill and get another report done, adjourning the next hearing until March 07.
I pointed out to him that a report had already been done nine months previously.
He made a few remarks about "time moving on, out of date, children's best interests" etc etc and get another one.
I said the only reason time was moving on, was he kept refusing to have a hearing !
I've since been told that no psychologist will bulk bill a Family Report. Between the May and September hearing, I spent four days in jail after being grabbed by the police for watching my son play football.
I received a suspended sentence of one month last week for watching my son play football and later talking to him.
One of the conditions of my "bail" was to be clinically assessed by a particular forensic psychologist. In his assessment, apart from criticising me for being sarcastic and angry, he did mention I didn't need "therapy".
As far as I'm concerned, his letter will suffice for the ordered report for the next Family Court hearing in March 08, by which time my three children won't have seen their father for 26 months.
In a nutshell, three children have lost a father because of my failure to pay obeisance to a psychologist and a social worker.
People, these are the hallmarks of Totalitarianism.
Ideological warriors, with the help of feminists jurisprudence, take it upon themselves to remove blameless fathers from their children's lives.
There is no due process whatsoever.
As Baskerville says, these secret courts are an affront to democratic constitutions and an insult to our countrymen who died defending our freedoms.
It is a judicial reign of terror imposed on law-abiding citizens for ideological reasons.
There can be no justice done by secret courts.
They were used by the French Revolutionaries and also the Communists in Russia in 1917. In fact every totalitarian regime that there ever was, has recourse to secret courts.
It is ridiculous that we should have to lobby politicians to let us see our children.
What right has the state to interfere into the realms of the family? None at all.
The family is the only bulwark against the ravages of the state. Remove the father and the state controls that family.
It all gets back to unwarranted power being assumed by people who shouldn't have this power in a democracy.