Presumption of Equal Parenting Time

More tragedy and denial at West Gate Bridge

2009-02-03T16:44:00.000-08:00

A four-year old girl died after being thrown from West Gate Bridge by her father (Melbourne 29 Jan 2009) .

Amazingly the Australian media is not interested in finding out why a father would do that. Most did not even mention the Family Court. Those that did glossed over with oblique references to an “ongoing custody battle.”

In fact the Federal Magistrates Court had ruled the previous day unfairly against the father.

The Federal Magistrates Court should not even have been involved. The matter should have been settled in a Family Relationship Centre backed up by a policy of a Presumption of Equal Parenting.
Surely if you want to understand you would investigate? But the media cowers to outrageous media censorship laws regarding coverage of Family Court system matters.

The Family Court system has blood on its hands once again. Family murders and family murder-suicides will continue as long as we fail to implement a policy of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.

This society is in a state of denial.

So what was the real cause of this tragedy?

a) because men are inherently violent (as hardline feminists have been indoctrinatng society for the last 40 years).

b) because the Family Court system is inherently unjust

Society will now try to drug the father in an attempt to prevent his suicide, so they can later him lock him up in jail. But he will suicide anyway.

About time we held an urgent Parliamentry Investigation as to why the Family Court system continues to kill people.

***
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/29/2477192.htm

Man arrested after girl thrown from bridge
Posted Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:32am AEDT Updated Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:49pm AEDT

The girl was found in the water under the bridge. (AAP: Andrew Henshaw)
Map: Melbourne 3000

A 35-year-old Hawthorn man has been arrested after a young girl was thrown from the Westgate Bridge in Melbourne.

The girl, believed to be four years old, is in a critical condition in hospital after being dragged from the Yarra River about 9.15am (AEDT).

Police say witnesses reported seeing a man stop his white Landcruiser near the top of the bridge and throw the child over the side.

About 10 minutes later water police pulled the girl from the river near the Scienceworks Technology Museum, close to the Spotswood pumping station.

Paramedics then spent 45 minutes trying to revive her on the riverbank. She suffered life threatening injuries and was flown to the Royal Children's Hospital.

A man, believed to be the girl's father, was later arrested outside the court precinct in the city and is being questioned by police.

Police say he was with two other children, aged six and eight, and was visibly distressed.
Detective Inspector Steve Clark says the two children are with police and the mother of the injured girl has been informed.

"It's a dreadful set of circumstances, and often you think you've seen it all but you haven't," Det Insp Clark said.

"It's particularly distressing obviously for family members but for the witnesses who saw what occurred, a number of those people are upset and I've got a number of police here who have young children themselves, who have had to deal with it."

Police want witnesses to the incident to contact them.

Victorian Premier John Brumby says the incident is a terrible tragedy.

"It's such a horrible thing to happen to the child," he said.

"As a father I think, what are the circumstances that could possibly bring this about?

"I just shuddered when I heard about it, I think every Victorian, you just shudder, you just think, how can that happen?"

***
Yes indeed - how can that happen? But did you really think about it Premier Brumby?

Family Court system - more blood on your hands

2008-11-28T01:13:00.000-08:00

David Cass told mother they’re asleep forever as he smothered two children
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3531002/David-Cass-told-mother-theyre-asleep-forever-as-he-smothered-two-children.html

As soon as I saw the headline I knew what the story was about. The father had been denied equal time with his children, and had murdered them and committed suicide.

Sure enough, when I went to the article, it was a case of family separation, and the father had been upset because he didn’t get to see his children enough.

Note the censorship here. It is about EQUAL TIME. Why not give us the full facts?

The Family Court system in the UK, throughout Europe, in Canada, the US and Australia and New Zealand etc has blood on its hands. Had their Family Law and Policy not been blatantly skewed against fathers, many childrens’ lives would have been saved. And they say they are only interested in the best interests of children? What a farce.

Not to mention the number of fathers and mothers that have also suicided or been murdered in Family Court-driven murder-suicides.

The coroner says "An event of this nature is extraordinarily rare. Certainly I have not had to deal with a similar tragedy in the 15 years I have held this particular role”.

Well it may have been extremely rare for the coroner, but ‘extremely rare’ is a relative term. Unfortunately murder-suicides are all too common (perhaps 100-500 per year in the OECD countries overall).

And they are often not reported in the media or under-reported (the story omits the key facts such as that the murder-suicide followed a separation and a biased ruling by the Family Court). In Australia there are media laws preventing the media from discussing cases in the Family Court.

Family Courts - more blood on your hands!

Get out of the business of deciding on 40:60, 30:70, 33:67, 29:71 time between the parents – very arbitrary rulings by judges who need to keep themselves in business, not to mention protecting a very lucrative and immoral Family Law industry.

Use Family Relationship Centres and Social Workers to resolve disputes where they are backed up by law – a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.

De-escalate the Family Court system and escalate Family Relationship Centres and unbiased Child Protection Services. Help parents to be good parents. Teach parents that Parental Alienation (eg denigrating the other parent and acting uncooperatively) constitutes serious harm to the mental and emotional wellbeing of children.

The Family Court of Australia says that if the parents cannot cooperate, then the mother must have majority time. Not only does this give incentive for the mother to be uncooperative (and make false or highly exaggerated accusations etc), it does not deal with the main issue of parents acting inappropriately and in a way which harms children.

Occasionally the Family Court will act on extreme cases of parental alienation by reducing the time the offending parent has with the children. This shows that they really do not understand the issue because by restricting time you are punishing the children. What is required is a raft of graded responses:

- warning
- course in good parenting at Family Relationship Centres
- Community Service
- fines
- daytime jail (when not looking after children)

The feminist lobby will use incidents like this as evidence that men are intrinsically violent and that instigating a Presumption of Equal Parenting in Family Law will expose children to more violence.

But the feminist lobby is a hypocritical opportunist movement interested in enhancing the power of women, irrespective of its original philosophy of gender equity.

A Presumption of Equal Parenting will not expose children to more violence - quite the contrary.

If there are accusations or suspicions of child abuse, perpetrated by men or women (and our society mistakenly believes women do not commit child abuse, or perhaps only extremely rarely), they need to investigated thoroughly irrespective of whether parents are together or separated.

Where false accusations have occurred and can be shown to be deliberately misleading, then the perpetrator needs to be punished in some way because the investigations draw resources away from real incidences of child abuse - not to mention unnecessary harm to the accused victim.

In the meantime, the Family Court can reflect on the three deaths it has indirectly caused and the suffering of the mother and other family members for years to come.

*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3531002/David-Cass-told-mother-theyre-asleep-forever-as-he-smothered-two-children.html

David Cass told mother 'they're asleep forever' as he smothered two children
David Cass told the mother of his two children "they're asleep forever" in a phone call just moments after he had smothered them, an inquest has heard.

Cass, 33, killed his daughters Ellie, three, and 14-month-old Isobelle in his caravan in the grounds of the garage where he worked in Southampton, Hants, in September this year.

Just after carrying out the killings, he called his mother Lynn and then the girls' mother and his estranged girlfriend, Kerrie Hughes, 20, to say what he had done.

He then went into a building at Paynes Road Car Sales and hanged himself on September 21 this year.

Southampton Coroner Keith Wiseman recorded verdicts that both girls were unlawfully killed and Mr Cass had committed suicide.

Ms Hughes and her family attended the hearing at Southampton Coroner's Court and left without comment.

The court heard that Mr Cass and Ms Hughes had split in August this year and Mr Cass had been given weekend access to look after the girls, plus time during the week.

But in the days before the killings, Mr Cass grew angry he was not seeing the girls enough and had threatened to kill himself, but never mentioned harming the children.

He told work colleagues he was quitting the garage and he had a plan and they described him as subdued, the hearing was told.

He had also said he wanted to move back into the rented family home, which had caused anxiety with Ms Hughes.

The hearing was told Mr Cass called his mother at 6.22pm and she initially asked if he had taken Ellie and Isobelle back to their home in Fairoak, Hants.

Reading from a statement, Detective Sergeant Glyn White said Mr Cass replied: "No I cannot allow the children to live in the conditions they have to live in. The children have gone to sleep and so am I. I love you Mum."

Just minutes later at 6.26pm he called Ms Hughes and Mr White said Mr Cass told her: "They're asleep."

She replied: "What do you mean asleep? Where are they?"

Mr Cass said: "They're asleep forever."

Ms Hughes: "What do you mean?"

Mr Cass: "Just remember I will always love you." And he put the phone down.

Mr White said a distraught Ms Hughes could not remember everything that was said and told a neighbour, Valerie Fraser, telling her Mr Cass could not live without the children. He had smothered them and he was about to hang himself.

Police eventually went to the garage and broke into the caravan to find the two girls dead on a bed.

Mr Cass was found later hanging in the building.

Post-mortem examinations concluded the two girls had died from smothering and Mr Cass from hanging.

The hearing was told the split between the Mr Cass and his girlfriend had been protracted with both sides calling the police and social services.

Ms Hughes had accused Mr Cass of trying to run her over in 2007 and Mr Cass had called the police over the theft of money.

He also called social services to complain about the state of the house the girls lived in.

In the days before the deaths, social worker Susan Poole had spoken to both parents and described both as being calm and thoughtful. Ms Hughes described her estranged boyfriend as a good father, she told the court.

Mrs Poole described the situation as an ordinary contact with a young family under stress and that she was not anxious about the children.

Giving the verdicts, Mr Wiseman said: "There is no indication or likelihood of harm coming to these children until literally the event itself.

"An event of this nature is extraordinarily rare. Certainly I have not had to deal with a similar tragedy in the 15 years I have held this particular role.

"This was something totally out of the blue. It's impossible to say whether planning lasted more than moments or even seconds.

"No one has provided any information or evidence that suggested this event could have been anticipated in any way at all."

Polygraphs to fast-track

2007-10-23T07:18:00.000-07:00

My letter to The Age:

Polygraphs to fast-track
So child abuse claims (Oct 19) are being fast-tracked by the (dinosaur) Family Court system ? I don't call a six-month wait "fast". We are talking about child abuse here. And in many cases we are also talking about parental alienation.

A judge anonymously admits cutting contact between the child and accused parent damages their relationship. Why didn't this judge speak up earlier, and why don't they have the courage to identify themselves ?

In my experience, that only 1-2% of claims are deliberately false is hard to believe. Maybe there is a large percentage of "mistakenly false" ?

Why not offer polygraph testing for those accused so the matter can be potentially dealt with in a matter of days, not months !

Geoff Holland
Cairns

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/child-abuse-claims-get-fairer-look/2007/10/18/1192300954597.html

The Age (Melbourne)
19 October 2007

Child abuse claims get fairer look
By Karen Kissane

The Family Court's new system for dealing with claims of physical or sexual abuse of children is faster and fairer than the previous one but still needs improvement, according to research released today by the court and the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Previously, such cases often took more than 12 months, and it was up to the parent making the allegations to try to prove the case. Often the court's decisions were made in a "factual vacuum" because no independent investigation was made into the claims and judges simply had to decide which parent to believe, the research reported.

But a new system introduced in most parts of Australia from 2003 has led to most cases being decided in just over six months.

Decisions are also better-informed because child-protection agencies now investigate and assess the claims, according to the report Co-operation and Co-ordination: An evaluation of the Family Court of Australia's Magellan case-management model.

The report's author, AIFS researcher Dr Daryl Higgins, said yesterday that protective services now reported to the court on their investigation within six weeks of the allegations being filed. This gave both parents an early sense of the strength of the evidence.

He said the Magellan system was a world-first in terms of the way the court and protective services worked together. This was needed because "it's the court's job to decide parenting matters, not conduct investigations".

Disputes involving child abuse claims are estimated to make up only 2 to 6 per cent of Family Court cases overall but about 23 per cent of hotly contested cases. Earlier research found that allegations considered to be deliberately false were not common (1 to 2 per cent).

This study compared 80 families who went through the new system with 80 families under the old system. The largest group of alleged perpetrators in both was fathers (65 per cent of the new group and 59 per cent of the old), followed by mothers (19 per cent of the new and 26 per cent of the old).

A judge quoted anonymously in the report said that under the old system, cases had always taken a long time to get to hearing and judges had had to err on the side of caution in the meantime, restricting the accused parent's relationship with the child. "The interruption to the relationship … would go on for many, many months or years … In many cases it was found that those allegations were without basis, and the families were left trying to restore a relationship … that had probably been damaged."

The report said earlier research had found that many professionals believed that child-abuse allegations made during family breakdown were not to be taken seriously because they were just another weapon manufactured for use in the marital dispute. Dr Higgins said his study found no such attitude among those working with the Magellan system. His report recommended more training on the system for court staff, lawyers, protective services workers and police, and that the system's approach be applied more consistently.

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/

http://www.aifs.gov.au/http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/magellan/index.html
Cooperation and coordination: An evaluation of the Family Court ofAustralia's Magellan case-management modelBy Daryl Higgins (author)Full Report (1.5MB PDF)http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/magellan/magellan.pdf

Case #001

2007-10-23T07:11:00.000-07:00

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.

"Killer dads"

2007-10-07T01:28:00.000-07:00

Hi All.

My letter to The Age in response to their article "Killer dads - why they do it" Oct 07 http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/10/06/1191091425494.html

I have included the full article below.

I feel sure my letter will not get published.

I feel sure The Age is controlled by feminist editors and that this article is one small jigsaw piece in a conscious, covert and orchestrated feminist campaign to promote the negatve male stereotype in a fear campaign to stymie the movement for equal parenting time.The sexism and denial in this article are apparent. The sexism of the DV campaigns are also obvious.Am I paranoid ?

It is important to note that many many women who identify themselves as feminists support equal parenting time (I know because I have spent months collecting signatures for the F4E Petition, and talking to many women in the process).

But the radical feminists who control feminist/women's organisations and many senior positions in government and the media generally do not.

Cheers, Geoff

------------------------

The Age
Letters to the Editor
letters@theage.com.au

Preventing such murders

It is a shame that while your article emphasised the pathology of "killer dads" (Oct 7) - six per year, you could have also explored the pathology of "killer mums" - 13 a year by your own data.

And when you consider that 15 more children are killed by step-fathers, then it is apparent that children are 467% safer with their natural fathers. Why does the Family Court system then award residency to the mother in 80% of cases ?

More importantly your article didn't even raise the most likely reason for the Farquharson tragedy. Typically a father's chronic anger and frustration is due mainly to his restricted access to his own children, to losing most of his assets, and then being forced to pay Child Support to a mother who is often better off financially than the father (as in this case).

The Family Court system sets the stage for such tragedies.

A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would dramatically reduce the incidence of suicide and murder associated with family separation, not to mention resolve the need for "custody battles".

Why does the government and media insist on avoiding discussion of this obvious option ?

Geoff Holland
Cairns, Qld
prism@optusnet.com.au
_________________________________

Killer dads – why they do it

Fathers who murder their children exact the ultimate revenge on an estranged partner, writes Karen Kissane.

He is a bottler. He holds in his anger and other emotions. He might seem to be an easy-going, appeasing sort of man but he is what psychologists call "over-controlled", a person whose silent fuming might one day explode into violence.

Add to this a marriage break-up in which he is the spurned partner — and a new partner for his wife before he has adjusted to his changed circumstances — and the rage can fester into vengeful obsession.

"Obsession deprives people of a sense of proportion to such an extent that, in the end, they can countenance their own death and the death of others they love in pursuit of that obsession," says Professor Paul Mullen, psychiatrist and clinical director of Forensicare, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health.

A man who has become obsessed with revenge against his partner and who is pathologically jealous of her can allow his children to become caught up in his delusions. His feelings about her fidelity can morph into doubts about the paternity of the children.

"Men may become convinced that the children are not theirs, and part of the killing of the children is the acting out of this rage at the (supposed) infidelity, and at being saddled with children who are 'not yours' when in fact they are yours," Mullen says.

The killing is also about destroying the whole relationship and the products of that relationship, he says. And it is payback against the woman who has rejected him, the children's mother.

"Apart from anything else, he's telling her essentially that she's responsible. This is one of the ways they get back: 'Look at what you've made me do."'This might be part of the answer to the question now being asked about Robert Farquharson: How could he do it?

A Supreme Court jury on Friday found that Farquharson deliberately drove his three boys, aged from two to 10, into a dam near Winchelsea on Father's Day 2005. His wife had left him 10 months earlier and had begun a relationship with another man.

Cindy Gambino told the court that her ex-husband had been a good father and was a "softie" who always agreed to do what she wanted over matters such as whether to have another baby.

The court was also told that Farquharson was angry about the break-up, child-support payments and the fact that his former wife had the better car and a new partner. One of his oldest friends said that a couple of months before the killings, Farquharson had spoken of an accident involving the children in which they would die, so that his former wife would suffer for the rest of her life. It would happen on a special day — such as Father's Day — so that she would be tormented every year on the anniversary, he allegedly said.

Farquharson pleaded not guilty. He claimed that he blacked out in a coughing fit and the car veered out of control and into the dam. He is yet to be sentenced, and his lawyer has said he will appeal against the verdict.

Dr Lynne Eccleston, director of the forensic psychology program at Melbourne University, says killing children "is the ultimate harm (angry men) can inflict on the woman that they think has wronged them, for whatever reason. It's a higher order of revenge, because the woman is left alive to deal with the grief — that is his intention.

"She says such men often have a detailed plan that they perfect over a long period, "working up to the time when they will finally take action".

The killings are often related to relationship breakdown. A man who has pre-existing emotional problems and poor coping skills can also become angry because he feels his rights as a father have been taken away.

Forensic psychologist Professor Bob Montgomery, of the University of the Sunshine Coast, says most men who try to kill their children have distorted thinking as a result of severe depression.

They believe they are failures and that they have failed their children. They see no way out other than suicide and taking the children with them so that they are not left to suffer further."In most cases, the guy tries to kill himself as well," he says.

Cases such as Farquharson's are much rarer. "If (a father is) just killing the children and making no attempt on himself, he has a different motivation, like, 'You took my kids away from me — well, I'm going to take my kids away from you,"' Montgomery says.

"That's a very much smaller group. They are sad reflections of the view that children are your possessions, your property, rather than people who have their own rights and interests."

A psychologist who had been treating Farquharson told the court that his depression had seemed to improve.

Montgomery says it is common for deeply depressed people who have decided upon suicide or murder to experience a lift in mood because, in their disordered minds, they believe they have a way out of their problems: "Now I know what to do, I don't feel so bad."

Cases such as Farquharson's arouse intense interest because they seem so rare and so unnatural as to be bizarre. In fact, says Mullen, they are not such an unusual form of homicide: "The commonest form of multiple killing is not serial killing, as you would think from watching the telly. It's family slaying — the man who kills his partner and his children."

It is also not uncommon for such a killer to have previously been viewed as a good parent.

"When you look at the mothers who do this, you often find they were noted by their friends and neighbours to be particularly caring, assiduous parents who spent more time with their children than other parents did."

Ten per cent of all Australian homicides involve children as victims. If the child is under six, the killer is most likely to be in the child's care network, says Ken Polk, professor of criminology at Melbourne University and co-author with Christine Alder of the book Child Victims of Homicide.

The most typical male killer of children is the batterer who attacks a step-child because he finds the child difficult, partly because he does not have reasonable expectations of the child's behaviour for his or her age.

Biological fathers are much less likely to kill their children, but this does happen in an emotional game in which "the child is a pawn — you sacrifice the pawn to get to the main piece, and that's the woman", Polk says.

For every man who goes on to kill, there are many more who carry an angry sense of grievance that makes them want to lash out.

"We get lots of calls from men who are very recently separated and hate the world and are furious at the perceived conspiracy against them," says Danny Blay, manager of No to Violence, the Male Family Violence Prevention Association.

"And we know that women and children are most at risk of violence from their former partner or father during the early stages of an acrimonious separation."

There are lots of men … who, for one reason or another, are in a place where they don't see a way out and are wanting to punish the people who they see as putting them in a predicament, rather than taking at least some responsibility for their predicament themselves and asking why it is that their partner wants to leave, or why they have been denied access to their children."At the same time, Blay says, most men who are violent within their family are mostly good people, aside from this aspect of their behaviour.

"They are not psychopaths. They form intimate relationships and have friends, they are engaged at work, members of the footy club."

In Farquharson's case, he confided his thoughts of murder to an old friend who did not believe he was serious and who is now tormented by what happened. What would Blay's advice be to anyone who finds themselves listening to a friend talking this way?

If a man is seething and looking for support, says Blay, accept his distress and express empathy for it. Ask him about his plans.

"Get them to name what's in their heads and what they are going to do." Has he thought about what he will do with the kids this weekend? What are his feelings for his children and what does he want for their futures — next week, next month, when they are 30?

"Convey to him that you are really concerned about him, his partner and his children. Let him know that you'd like to help him find a better way out of his situation — that there are always better alternatives to violence."

In talking it through, there is an opportunity for the man to realise that his plans are not just a short-term fix to make him feel better, but they will potentially have long-term consequences on the people he loves, and him.

Blay says that if, in talking to the man, you discover that he has developed a detailed plan to hurt anybody, "I would be ringing the police immediately and trying to contact the people who have been threatened. We must always prioritise the safety of people over any personal allegiance or loyalty we have to our friend, relative or client and, at the same time, we would be doing them an enormous favour (to report them)."

For telephone counselling, contact
Men's Referral Service, 9428 2899 or 1800 065 973 (free call).
Women's Domestic Violence Crisis Service,1800 015 188.
Lifeline, 13 11 14.

CHILD HOMICIDES 2005-06
35 children under 15 killed — 11 under 12 months.
92 per cent killed by a family member.
The killer is a parent in 32 out of 34 recorded family relationships.
13 homicides involve the mother killing her child and 21 are committed by male family members.

Only six of these men are custodial parents. Four are non-custodial parents and nine are step-parents of the child victim(s).

Source: Homicide in Australia: 2005-06 National Homicide Monitoring Program Annual Report, by Megan Davies and Jenny Mouzos, Australian Institute of Criminology

Information Kit

2007-10-07T01:19:00.000-07:00

PRESUMPTION of EQUAL PARENTING TIME

INFORMATION KIT

This Information Kit has been prepared by Geoff Holland and others of the Equal Parenting Network.

EqualParenting@optusnet.com.au

Feedback, including constructive critical arguments are appreciated.

Version 07 Oct 2007

Contents
1. What is a “Presumption of Equal Parenting Time” ?
2. 10 Reasons to implement a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time
3. How the current Family Court system is failing children
4. How a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will benefit children (more reasons)
5. Other benefits of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time
6. When equal parenting time is not appropriate

1. What is a “Presumption of Equal Parenting Time” ?

A “Presumption of Equal Parenting Time” is a proposed amendment to the Family Law Act 1975 which means that following family separation, parenting time will be equal unless one parent prefers to have less parenting time (and therefore must pay Child Support).

It is a “presumption” which means that if there are strong grounds to demonstrate that equal parenting is not in the best interests of the child, then, following mediation in a Family Relationship Centre, the matter can go to court (the Family Court system) to test those grounds.

2. 10 Reasons to implement a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time

1. Children need both parents.

2. Children have a right to the meaningful involvement of both parents in their lives.

3. Children who do not have meaningful involvement of both parents tend to have lower academic achievement, higher teenage pregnancy rates, higher delinquency rates, substance abuse, eating disorders and incidence of depression.

4. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time is necessary for the Family Relationship Centres to be able to achieve successful outcomes with separating couples and drastically reduce the numbers who go on to the Family Court system. Without it, the Centres will function as a waiting room.

5. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will remove much of the uncertainty which obliges couples to go all the way to the Final Hearing to get a verdict, and which creates more conflict and lasting animosity.

6. The lasting animosity and amplified conflict between separated couples created by the Family Court system damages children for life. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time can prevent much of this amplified conflict.

7. Children understand fairness and equity from an early age, and research shows they desire that both parents be treated equally.

8. Active involvement of both parents in children’s lives provides more love, more security, more resources, greatest safeguard against abuse (abuse typically happens when one parent has little contact and knowledge of the day-to-day experience of their child), more parental guidance, more active role models, more wisdom and experience.

9. The Family Law Act now guarantees and imposes on parents the right to Equal Responsibility of their children. However, it is not possible to fulfil one’s obligations of Equal Responsibility without adequate time – and adequate time is best ensured with equal time.

10. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would significantly downsize the Family Court system which is currently wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars. These funds would be better spent on services (eg expanding Family Relationship Centres) helping parents resolve their differences, changing behaviours, developing the potential of parents, and facilitating better prospects of staying together in healthy, cooperative and loving relationships – which of course would be in the best interests of children.

3. How the current Family Court system is failing children

Children need both parents. The Family Court system has been alienating fathers and non-custodial parents (ie. sometimes mothers) for over three decades with tragic consequences for children.

The Family Court system is a blunt instrument which has caused immeasurable and needless human suffering beyond the pain that comes from family separation.

Successive Federal Governments need to accept responsibility for this tragedy in the same way they need to accept responsibility for the tragedy and shame of the Stolen Generation of Aboriginal children when they relocated them away from their rightful parents.

The arrogance of the government, judges and magistrates who believe they know better than the parents as to who should look after the children, persists in the Family Court system today.

We would not expect judges and magistrates to decide who is going to look after the children when couples are together. Why should they assert such a right just because couples have separated ?

The number of families with children that end up separating is rapidly approaching 50%. It is a very common phenomenon.

Amplification of conflict damages children

We must find an alternative to the current adversarial Family Court system because the current system sets parents against each other in a “custody battle” and this amplification of conflict is most harmful to children.

The Family Court system reiterates that it is only acting in the “best interests of the children” but the tragic irony is that in alienating parents and amplifying conflict they are damaging the wellbeing of children.

The Family Court system has little accountability and is prejudiced against both fathers, and non-custodial parents (ie. sometimes mothers). This prejudice and injustice, under the guise of “best interests of the child,” causes much grief and resentment.

Suicide and murder-suicide

The Equal Parenting Network estimates that as many as 100 people (mostly dads) suicide each year as a direct result, and another 200 people (mostly dads) suicide each year as an indirect result, of the injustice and prejudice against fathers, and against non-custodial parents due to the Family Court system and the Child Support Agency regime.

We also estimate that approximately 20 ex-partners and 20 children are murdered each year (mostly as murder-suicides by dads) as a result of the amplified conflict and unfair treatment of fathers and non-custodial parents in the Family Court system. Most of the suicides and murder-suicides we believe were/are preventable, and the Family Court system must bear responsibility for these preventable cases.

It is notable that the statistics for suicides and murder-suicides relating to Family Court cases and the Child Support Agency are either not officially available or have been covered up.

From the dads’ perspective (or sometimes the non-custodial mum), they lose meaningful involvement in their children’s lives, even though they are available and competent to look after them. They typically lose the family home and car, and are then forced to pay high levels of Child Support for the privilege of rarely, or sometimes never, seeing their children.

These factors together with the lies and distortions of truth generated in an adversarial system, not to mention the huge legal fees and the extended period of stress and uncertainty, constitute a powerful driver of suicide and murder-suicide.

The system reduces the chances of any form of reconciliation

The Family Court system is a formal adversarial system. It is a very expensive process, typically costing $20,000-$60,000 for each parent who uses a solicitor and barrister. This is money that should be going toward securing a home and material wellbeing for the children. The current Family Court system is deluded when it says it is acting in the best interests of children.

The Family Court system requires parents to prepare Affidavits. Family Law solicitors often encourage their clients to consider issues that were not previously issues.

Because Family law solicitors see their duty as an advocate to maximise the gains (in terms of residency and material gain) of their client irrespective of the needs of the child or fairness toward the other parent, they regularly broaden the theatre of conflict. They also need to do this to justify their exorbitant fees – typically $400 per hour, and $5,000 a day for a barrister.

In the tension of the formal, expensive, uncertain, and adversarial system which can have a wide range of outcomes depending on the broad discretionary powers (ie. largely unaccountable) of the judge or magistrate, the litigating parents begin to embellish, exaggerate and construct their Affidavits. This leads to outrage by the other parent and a round of Responses to the Affidavits follows. “Truth” becomes selective and loses balance. As they say – truth is the first casualty of war.

Because of the lies and distortions that typically eventuate from a Family Court process due to its adversarial nature, and because of the huge expense, the tension of the process that typically lasts two years before Final Orders are handed down, and because the Final Orders are typically prejudiced against and unnecessarily marginalise one of the parents, the relationship between the parents often becomes so embittered that the chances of some sort of reconciliation in the future has become highly unlikely.

The Family Court system minimises the chances of some sort of friendship reconciliation between the parents, and this is the most damaging aspect with regards to the psychological and emotional wellbeing of the children. The children are now likely to be damaged for life.

Family Court system provides incentive for conflict – does not address problems

The Family Court system currently says “if there is any evidence of conflict between the parents then equal parenting time is not an option.”

This gives incentive for the parent most likely to “win” custody (ie. usually the mum) to generate conflict.

The Family Court system has abrogated its responsibility to ensure parents behave responsibly and appropriately toward each other and toward their children (eg. to refrain from speaking badly about the other parent, known as “parental alienation”).

The response of the Family Court system is to minimise contact of the child to one of the parents (usually the dad). The authorities throw their hands in the air. In the words of one senior Family Court official “we can’t change human behaviour.”

On the contrary, case workers at the Family Relationship Centre must attempt to resolve issues of inappropriate behaviour and parental alienation, and if unsuccessful, they should be referred to the Family Court system where suitable penalties must be imposed such as Community Service, monetary fines, or even daytime jail for chronic offenders. We must address harmful behaviour and attitudes (parental alienation) by parents which are a form of emotional abuse of children.

However, reducing access of children to the offending parent should be a last resort as this penalises the children ! Better to treat the cause rather than apply a bandaid.

Penalising the parent who shows restraint

Another nonsensical policy of the Family Court system is to base residency on precedent. That is, when the case finally reaches the Final Hearing, the judge or magistrate looks at who has been the primary carer, and then awards residency to that parent.

This gives an incentive for couples to fight over residency in the two year lead-up to the Final Hearing (or at least until Interim Orders are granted which can also involve a considerable waiting time).

It means that parents who have been aggressive in maintaining majority residency prior to Orders are rewarded, and parents who have demonstrated restraint for the sake of peace and the sake of their children, are penalised.

We recommend that a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time apply from the moment of family separation, which can be backed up an immediate Recovery of Contact Order (RCO) by the police in the event that one parent is being obstructive.

It is often agued that a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will put some children at risk.

If children are at risk from one of their parents, reducing contact from 50% to 40%, 30% or even 20% will not remove the danger. By not awarding equal parenting, the Family Court system is not solving problems of children at risk.

If a child is at risk from one of the parents, that situation requires a definitive response from the Child Protection Agency.

The most recent statistics indicate that the Family Court awarded Joint Custody in 2.5% of cases (2000/01) 1.. Equal Custody would have been awarded in only a fraction of 2.5% of cases. Are we suggesting that children were at risk in over 97.5% of these cases ?

1. "Family Court of Australia, Residence and Contact orders - Any Application, For children by outcome 1994-95 to 2000-01"
www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/connect/www/home/about/business_administration/statistics/statistics_public_interest/

4. How a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will benefit children (more reasons)

A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time means that even before couples separate, they will know what the residency arrangements will be for the children (except in special circumstances where there is evidence of abuse). Couples will know this even before they have children. It will come as no surprise.

The Federal Government has set up a network of Family Relationship Centres around the country. This is an excellent initiative provided they are transparent and accountable. They are a recognition that the current Family Court system is seriously flawed. The Family Relationship Centres should have been introduced decades ago.

The idea of the Family Relationship Centres is to provide a free or low-cost service in an informal and friendly environment so professional mediators can assist separating couples in working out the details of their Parenting Plan.

If couples are unable to agree, the matter can then move on to the Family Court system. The mediator will write a report, and include details of whether one or both parents were inflexible or unwilling to negotiate.

We recommend that if a parent has been advised by a Family Relationship Centre mediator that the Family Court system will most likely award equal parenting time, yet they insist on refusing to negotiate, but instead take the matter to the Family Court system, and equal parenting time is then awarded, that parent would be responsible for the other parent’s legal fees as well as court costs.

So the Family Relationship Centres can succeed

The Family Relationship Centres are unlikely to be effective (and anecdotal evidence suggests that the success rate is so far quite low) until they are backed up by a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, because typically dads want half time with their children and many mums do not accept this (perhaps because they are resentful or for other reasons which do not justify reducing the children’s contact with the dad).

Children have a right to spend maximum time with both parents. The way to express this right is with a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.

Studies demonstrate that a consistent concern of children going through the experience of family separation is that they want to see their parents being treated equally.

Children who do not have a meaningful role of both parents in their lives are handicapped. Research demonstrates that children in single parent families have higher incidences of teenage pregnancy, lower academic performance, higher drop-out and delinquency rates, as well as higher rates of depression, substance abuse and eating disorders.

With equal parenting, where one parent is deficient in one area, another parent is there to compensate.

Equal parenting time gives each parent a chance to recharge their batteries. They are likely to appreciate more spending quality time with their children during their contact days. Equal parenting time allows both parents a chance to find a balance between work and family life, and also to enjoy their social life.

Equal parenting time means that children can have contact with their grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles on both sides of their family.

The old argument that mums had custody because the dads are working no longer applies. The Family Court system regularly awards residency to mums who work full time. They have even been known to award residency to fulltime working mothers when the dads were not working or had flexible work arrangements !

More block time

It is often argued that equal parenting time is not good for children because it will involve more handovers and greater instability. But equal parenting time does not have to involve more handovers, and in most cases will require less handovers (for example in the most common pattern of “week-about”). Since the Family Court system has begun allowing children to spend more time with their dads by throwing in an afternoon after school, they have created more instability. Any child psychologist will tell you that children prefer not fragmented time but block time.

Once again, in an effort to hold on to a flawed regime, as well as their own centrality in family separation outcomes, the Family Court system compromises to best interests of children.

“If the judiciary is viewed in part as a business, as Charles Dickens suggested, the family courts’ customers are divorcing mothers who hope to win custody and windfall settlements. The more satisfied customers an enterprise has, the more it prospers. So it is not surprising that family courts are interested in attracting and satisfying customers.”

“The Myth of Deadbeat Dads” Baskerville, Stephen PhD. Liberty p28 June 2002 pp27-32
www.stephenbaskerville.net/The%20Myth%20of%20Deadbeat%20Dads.pdf

5. Other benefits of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time

Downsizing the Child Support Agency

The Child Support regime is also a cause for much bitterness and even suicide in some cases. With a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, the bitterness of Child Support will simply disappear in most cases.

Also we will save tens of millions of dollars from downsizing the Child Support Agency. It is estimated that it costs the Child Support Agency, ie taxpayers, about $2.00 for every $1.00 recovered by the Child Support Agency from marginalised parents who resist payment on principle.

Naturally, a fair Child Support regime must remain for parents who are not willing to care for their children half the time.

We argue that there be no Child Support obligations where there is equal parenting time, no matter what the respective income of either parent after separation. The reason for this is that it acts as a disincentive for both parents to look for ways to increase their own income, which is not beneficial for the children.

In cases where one parent argues they have limited capacity to generate income because they were looking after the children in the relationship while the other parent developed their career, compensation can be made in terms of division of assets at the time of separation, leaving no open-ended obligations.

Many alienated parents (typically dads) remain on low income or Unemployment Benefits in order to minimise their Child Support payments. This is not beneficial to the children or the national economy.

Many alienated parents (typically dads) skip the country often taking their assets with them as they know that they will lose most of their assets and gain little contact with their children if they stay. There is a huge ex-patriot population living overseas because of the unjust Family Law regime we currently have. Typically when they move overseas they lose all, or virtually all, contact with their children which is detrimental to the children.

This also means a considerable drain of assets out of the country which is a negative for the national economy.

Family Court system bursting at the seams

The Family Court system is bursting at the seams. There are now more Family Court judges and Federal Magistrates than ever before. The typical period of a case going to Final Hearing is two years – two years of posturing by the parents, of uncertainty, tension and stress. Judges and magistrates regularly make mistakes due to the pressure of work. They often make judgements on the run.

The Family Court system costs tens of millions of dollars a year to maintain.

The rate of family separation, when including de facto relationships, is steadily increasing. We need to find a way to assist separating couples resolve their differences quickly, before they have time to ferment and conflict escalates.

Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will downsize the Family Law industry

The Family Court system is to some extent “captured” by a very lucrative billion dollar Family Law industry from which most judges and magistrates originate. The Family Law industry has spent considerable sums of money preparing submissions arguing against sensible reform of Family Law, in order to preserve its prosperous existence.

Family Law solicitors have been known to undermine negotiations at pre-trial conferences.

Limited (and weak) reforms have been introduced in 2005 and 2006 which included the establishment of the Family Relationship Centres. Immediately the Family Law industry lobbied the government to guarantee themselves a slice of the new Family Law mediation industry.

But Family Law solicitors have been trained in adversarial methods and techniques, and not in conflict prevention, conflict resolution, mediation, family psychology and child psychology etc. We believe they should be excluded from such mediation services.

In fact, we believe that all couples must attend a designated Family Relationship Centre before they can enter into the Family Court system. At present couples merely have to assert they have attempted some sort of mediation somewhere.

It is important to restrict pre-Court mediation to the Family Relationship Centres in order to maintain an adequate and consistent level of quality control, and to be able to conduct comprehensive retrospective analyses of their effectiveness.

Allowing Family Law solicitors to conduct pre-Court mediation makes a mockery of the new mediation strategy. Solicitors say they will sign contracts which will bar them from representing either party following mediation, but while this may prevent individual conflict of interest, it does not prevent industry conflict of interest.

Family Law solicitors are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will allow Family Relationship Centres to achieve successful outcomes and make much of the Family Law industry redundant.

6. When equal parenting time is not appropriate

Reasons why equal parenting time may not apply include
6.1 child abuse
6.2 chronic neglect
6.3 parent has moved away

6.1 Child abuse
In the case of child abuse, sexual child abuse would indicate that the offending parent would have no unsupervised contact, at least until after a long period of monitored rehabilitation.

In the case of physical and emotional abuse, Child Protection officers in conjunction with a case worker from the Family Relationship Centre would determine the severity of the abuse, and make recommendations to the judge or magistrate as to the level of contact. Emphasis would be placed on rehabilitation of the offending parent with the aim of achieving equal parenting.

Child Protection Agencies must investigate allegations of child abuse immediately, whether parents are together or separated. Both parents must be investigated to determine the truth. There must be appropriate penalties in place for false allegations, and of course immediate action to protect children in cases of demonstrated abuse, as well as appropriate penalties for the offending parent. The process of investigation must be transparent and accountable.

We should make polygraph tests / lie-detectors available to parents.

Parents must have recourse to a dedicated Ombudsman for Family Issues.

6.2 Chronic neglect
Child Protection officers in conjunction with a case worker from the Family Relationship Centre would work with the parent in question to achieve a high level of quality care. If after a period of time this has not been achieved, then the presumption of equal parenting time can be withdrawn and contact reduced until such time the parent has demonstrated responsible and adequate parenting skills.

6.3 Parent has moved away
It is not fair on children to expect them to regularly travel long distances between parents’ homes, which increases the risk of car accident. Likewise excessive travel to school is not in the child’s best interests.

If a parent has moved more than half an hour’s drive from where family separation occurred, they must be given the opportunity to move back closer or risk losing the Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.

(If both parents have moved away more than half an hour’s drive from the place where family separation occurred, parents can structure equal parenting on a three-year rotational basis, for example).

Either parent can move half an hour by car away from the point where family separation occurred without forfeiting the Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, so children may be up to one hour’s drive away from the other parent, but still only half an hour’s drive from their school.

______________________________________________________________

This Information Kit has been prepared by Geoff Holland and others of the Equal Parenting Network EqualParenting@optusnet.com.au.

Feedback, including constructive critical arguments are appreciated.

CSA 1950's propaganda

2007-09-06T05:49:00.000-07:00

A recent mailout from the Child Support Agency includes the following article:

Me and my family

My name is Stuart and I would like to share my story with you about how my ex-wife and I have managed our relationship since we separated.

As far fetched as it sounds, and despite the circumstances, I have been able to maintain a strong relationship with my two daughters.

My ex-wife and I have a private arrangement for child support payments. After our marriage ended we managed to amicably sort out our financial matters and made a conscious effort to remain friends, for the benefit of our kids.

Four years down the track, we remain good friends and have found a balance, centred on our children. We openly discuss and mutually agree on any changes to our regular child care arrangements.

I know that my children love to come and stay with me and my new partner every second weekend.

As well as the regular child care arrangements, I look after the kids in the school holidays to minimise school holiday care.

[bold added]

The biggest positive of the arrangement is that our children are happy. They can openly talk to either parent and know they will get an equally open and unbiased answer or advice.

I strongly recommend that any parent put aside issues they have with their ex-partners and change the focus to what is better for the children.

If any other separated parents read this and it makes a difference to them and their children, I know sharing this story is well worth the effort.

Next edition: A mum's case study

____________________________________

This sounds as subtle and credible as a page out of a 1950's propaganda leaflet.

A friend of mine who was handed down exactly the same formula as the one recommended above (and they say the system has changed ?) - that is, every second weekend and half the school holidays - ie the same stew they've been dishing out since the 1975 Family Law Act, has been seeing a counsellor to help him deal with his frustrations.

The female counsellor said to him on his most recent visit:

"I don't know why you are still coming along [to counselling]. There is nothing I can do for you until you accept your situation [two days a fortnight]"

This female counsellor is using a mild form of blackmail (conditional counselling) to force her agenda. Another option would be to suggest how my friend could channel his frustration into constructive activism to change a system which extinguishes rights and generates, not averts, confict.

This friend has a son 5yrs old. The school has contacted him to get together with a guidance officer. The impact of conflict is beginning to show in the emotional and psychological wellbeing of his son.

The preventative cost of assigning case workers to situations such as these would be far less than the remedial cost of a boy who grows up a man permanently damaged by chronic passive conflict and parental alienation.

The government and Family Court system do not take preventative measures. On the contrary their policies are harmful to children. In this case the mother is behaving in a way (parental alientation) which is very harmful to the boy.

The father (my friend) could also probably learn something from a course in parental cooperation. A case worker could organise both parents to do such a course - and learn about the harm of passive and chronic conflict and parental alienation on the child, and the statistics of such children ending up in suicide or drug addiction or mental disorders such as depression etc. A case worker could also follow up to make sure the course or courses have had an impact on the behaviour of the parents.

Penalties need to be in place for parents who behave inappropriately.

A Family Court Registrar said to me "we can't change people's behaviour."

The Family Court system throws its hands up in the air unable to respond to inappropriate behaviour. The philosophy is - if there is any conflict, shared parenting is not an option. But can't they see that even if you marginalise the father, the problem is not going to go away? It is no solution. The solution is in respecting rights of both parents, and the rights of the child to both parents, and in EDUCATION as well as a raft of PENALTIES for ongoing inappropriate behaviour.

Another account of how the system fails Dads

2007-08-29T19:44:00.000-07:00

Well everyone,
I had my day in court yesterday and what a complete waste of time it turned out to be.

This magistrate [Ms Hamilton of the Family Court system in Western Australia - just to give some sort of accountability here, where generally little exists - Editor] has been giving the ex anything she wants to date, because she had not heard any other story. So, yesterday she heard another story, my story, and dispite making the statement at the failed hearing 3 weeks ago that the matter WILL be finalised yesterday, this same magistrate couldn't make a decision yesterday. The damn coward has adjourned it till the 29th of October, because she wants it dealt with in the Family Court. The ex mentioned that her lawyer was possibly putting in an application in the Family Court for children's matters, so the cowardly magistrate decided she would pass the buck to the Family Court and let them make the decision.

This is real justice in action. She doesn't know which way to go now. She knows there is no reason for the existence for the restraining order, but she is not going to get rid of it for fear of upsetting the Sisterhood.

What a complete waste of time, energy and everything else I had to go through to be there. I have bronchitis, a chronic pain condition, the stress of suffering children on my mind and here I am in this court not having a clue as to what to say or do. I have had some wonderful advice from some very knowledgeable and kind people in this group, but on the day it was all worth nothing. Because when you are ill, and live in fear of the law you find you just cannot function in this environment.

I mean this magistrate did not help me much at all even when I told her I have never done this before and do not know what to do.

She wanted me to ask questions, so I did and then she told me I couldn't ask 'that' type of question etc, etc. It's all utter bullshit if you ask me.

She asked me what evidence is there that I can give to her to decide whether or not to continue the restraining order or not. I told her that I don't have anything at all, that there is no evidence in existence for the order to be in place in the first instance and that there is no evidence that it should be in place right now or in the future.

And that is the damn truth!

I mean, how do you prove nothing, with, or from nothing?

So, what does she do? She just blasts the two of us, stating that we use any and all forums to argue over children.

What a load of utter tripe! That is what the ex is doing not me!So then she decides to adjourn the hearing and states that this needs to be sorted out in the Family Court.

I can't get any Legal Aid help, I cant' get any community legal service lawyer to talk to me (because I am a male?) and I am on a disability pension and cannot afford to waste the few dollars I do own.

And I can't find a single human being who is knowledgeable enough to tell me how to go about doing this stuff. I am not lazy, I just do not understand a bloody word I am told and I don't understand what it is I have to do. If I did, it would have all been done a year ago, because I am not a time-waster.

There is absolutely not a person anywhere nearby who can give me an ounce of help.

I ask for some advice from some law advice people over the phone and they do like everyone does, they talk in legal speak. The kind of language I do not understand!

Peter

"Leading cause of death and disability"

2007-08-16T22:59:00.000-07:00

To: The Hon. Rob Hulls
Attorney-General
State of Victoria

From: Geoff Holland

Dear Mr Hulls,
You were quoted in The Age, 13 Aug 2007 "Vic govt plan to address family violence" as saying:
"Family violence affects one in five Victorian women and is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in women under 45"

According to Greg Andresen, whose letter was published in response to your article:

"The top five causes of death and disability for females aged 15 to 44 are in fact anxiety and depression, migraine, type 2 diabetes, asthma and schizophrenia. These are the latest (2003) figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, as published on their website."

So, is Greg Andresen incorrect ? What are the sources of your data ? Have you been misled ?
I hope this misunderstanding can be clarified.

I am part of the Dads' Movement - that is, part of a network of online forums throughout Australia. Your response may prevent tens of thousands of Dads from believing that you are untruthful.

The Dads' Movement takes the issue of Domestic Violence very seriously. It is a shame we are never invited to have an input into campaigns to reduce Domestic Violence. One would think this would be an obvious first step.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Geoff Holland
Equal Parenting Movement
prism@optusnet.com.au

The article refered to:

Vic govt plan to address family violence

August 13, 2007 - 8:54AM

New laws to stamp out domestic violence will allow authorities to remove offenders from the family home and make it easier for victims to stay, the Victorian government says.

Attorney-General Rob Hulls unveiled the proposed Family Violence Act, saying it would help address the "epidemic of family violence" in Victoria.

The new laws, which the state government wants to have in place within six months, would widen the definition of family violence to include psychological and economic abuse, Mr Hulls said.

"Family violence affects one in five Victorian women and is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in women under 45," Mr Hulls said.

"For too long the judicial system has not adequately supported women who have had the courage to report family violence.

"In the past, family violence has been seen as a domestic matter. It's not. It's a crime."
Under the act, the perpetrator of the violence would be required to leave the family home, allowing the victims to stay, Mr Hulls said.

"These changes will help ensure that victims of violence are not further distressed by being forced from their homes, often uprooting their children from their friends and schools," he said.

The new laws would also bar alleged offenders without a lawyer from cross-examining victims in court.

The act would also protect older Victorians from being abused by unpaid or informal carers, Mr Hulls said.

The proposal comes almost five years after the government asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission to review laws and procedures related to family violence, and 17 months after the commission's final report was tabled in state parliament.

The Family Violence Act was expected to be introduced into parliament before the end of the year.

_____________________________________________

Even the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Study 2005 show that about 30% of domestic violence is perpetrated by women. For those who think that women cannot hit hard, these instances include murder (as do instances of domestic violence of men against women).

The message in any domestic violence campaign is that only men are the perpretrators and women are always the victim. The above article reinforces this. When men have the courage to speak out about domestic violence against them, they are often ridiculed (much more so than women). For this reason many men do not come forward.

Why would you want to bar the accused from the right to cross-examine the alleged victim ? The victim can have adquate support and protection. This is a fundamental legal right that is being withdrawn.

It is my understanding that a partner can be removed from the home merely on allegations made by the other partner but where there is no physical evidence. I wonder if the police would remove a mother based on unproven allegations put forward by the father.

The government response is an expedient one. It offers punishment, and will inevitably include cases where the punished are innocent. It does not seek to treat the root of the problems.

Where there are cases of domestic violence between partners (as there are many other forms of domestic violence), these partners should be interviewed by trained (and impartial) psychologists / relationship counsellor. For example, one partner can be taken to a large comfortable Family Relationships van outside the house and interviewed at length, looking not only at the incident but also at the circumstances and behaviour that led to the incident. Then the other partner would be interviewed.

Plain-clothed police officers trained in forensics could examine the house for evidence to verify claims by both partners as to the details of the violent incident.

Where there are children in the home, a social worker should be available to help the parents supervise the children during the interview period (eg eating their dinner, doing their homework, getting ready for bed, etc).

In circumstances where the conflict has been de-escalated and both partners and the psychologist feel there is minimal danger of further violence in the short term, the couple should be allowed to remain together. Where one partner feels threatened, the alleged perpetrator could be removed if there is evidence to support the claim.

If there is no evidence, but at least one of the partners wishes not to remain with the other, one of the partners would be transfered to comfortable temporary accommodation while further interviews are conducted with both partners. The parent who is chosen to go to temporary accommodation is decided by a random selection generator. Sons would stay with the father, daughters would stay with the mother.

In cases that were not considered too serious, the court case could be held in an informal setting, with a plain-clothes judge, as well as the psychologist and the plain-clothes police officers who attended the original incident, but without the legal representation of solicitors and barristers. Partners who were found guilty of perpetrating violence would be assigned Community Service and also requested to attend course in Anger Management and Conflict Resolution etc. One would expect that in many cases, both partners would be found to have contributed to the violence, and so both would be expected to do Community Service (possibly for different periods of time depending on the severity of their actions) and attend courses. They may also have to pay fines.

For serious cases, the case would go to a formal court and those convicted of serious domestic violence would be required to go to jail. The law should be applied evenly to men and women.

The State is being expedient by introducing a system where it appears virtually no questions are asked. The male is taken away on the assumption that he is the perpetrator, and if not, well the couple is separated so it should prevent further violence (and who cares if the male is guilty or not anyway).

But this will only aggravate and amplify tensions, not resolve them or change behaviour. It will lead to more men being locked up in jail at great cost to the State. On the otherhand, Community Service and fines can contribute to the costs of assigning a psychologist / relationship counsellor and social worker to each case.

If Domestic Violence has a major impact on the economy (as the 2004 Access Economics report "The Cost of Domestic Violence" suggests, investing money in treating root causes would seem like the more prudent option - not merely implementing a harsh and scattergun penalty system which is unlikely to be a successful deterrent, and more likely to worsen the situation.

Child's rights to both parents

2007-07-27T16:21:00.000-07:00

http://www.bendweekly.com/Opinion/8387.html

Bend Weekly (USA)
20 July 2007

Children's rights should include life with both parents
By Phyllis Schlafly

Debates about same-sex marriage and gay adoptions always include the argument that a child has the right to both a father and a mother. If that is true, why is a child usually deprived of that right when heterosexual couples divorce?

It would seem that maintaining the father's love and authority would be crucial when a child's life is turned upside down by divorce. Yet, family courts routinely deprive children of one parent, usually the father, restricting his time with his child to about six days a month.

The courts pompously assert they are invoking "the best interest of the child," but how can it be in the best interest of children to make them forfeit one parent?

We hear many pious comments about the need for fathers to be involved in the upbringing of their children. This need should be even more important in times of emotional stress, such as divorce, than the need for fathers to play ball with their kids in an intact family.

Some states are considering legislation that establishes a presumption of shared parenting whereby divorced parents divide equally both time and authority over the children. This enables children to maintain strong ties to both parents.

When primary or sole custody is given to the mother, the father becomes merely a visitor in the child's life (that's why it's called "visitation"), whose only value is to mail a paycheck and be an occasional baby sitter. The father loses his parental authority and fades out of his own child's life.

An argument is sometimes made that shuttling back and forth between two homes might be upsetting or a nuisance, but there is no more shuttling with equal custody (where parents, for example, get alternating weeks) than with the typical mother-custody/father-visitation schedule (where the father gets two weekends a month plus some Wednesday evenings). Do the math; both plans have about the same number of shuttles between homes.

An argument is also made that giving custody primarily to the mother promotes stability, but the need for stability is really a reason for shared custody. The stability of parental relationships is a great deal more important than contact with material things.

Americans have always assumed that parents share decision-making authority because only parents can determine what is in the best interest of their own children. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville reaffirmed this principle and rejected the argument that a judge could supersede a fit parent's judgment about his child's "best interest."

Nevertheless, in what Stephen Baskerville calls a "silent revolution," millions of divorced parents have had their fundamental right to decide what is in the best interest of their own children taken away and given instead to a vast array of government officials and so-called "experts" such as judges, lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, child protective services, child support enforcement agents, mediators, counselors, parenting classes, and feminist groups.

This shift began in the 1970s after the spread of unilateral divorce was followed by the creation of a giant federal child support-enforcement bureaucracy. The notion that this mix of government officials and government-appointed advisers can dictate what is the best interest of the child rather than a child's own parents is how liberals and feminists are fulfilling their goal that "it takes a village (i.e., the government) to raise a child."

An example of the bias against fathers can be seen in the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2007 recently introduced by Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind. The bill mentions "child support" 65 times, but not once does it mention parenting time, custody, visitation, or access denial.

Baskerville's new book, "Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family" (Cumberland House, $24.95), provides a copiously documented description of society's injustices to children who have been deprived of their fathers and of fathers who have been deprived of their children. This book is a tremendous and much-needed report on how family courts and government policies are harming children.

It is a breakthrough for shared parenting that a noncustodial father, Robert Pedersen, was recently named runner-up in the nationwide Best Life Magazine's "Hero Dad" Contest. Pedersen is only allowed 6 to 8 days a month with his two children from a previous marriage.

Pedersen has devised a novel way to demonstrate the importance of fathers to children of divorced parents. He is leading an "Equal Parenting Bike Ride" starting in Lansing, Mich., on Aug. 11 and culminating with an Aug. 18 rally in Washington, D.C.

---Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded "Supremacists." She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org

The distortion of feminism

2007-07-19T21:10:00.000-07:00

These are old references (1999) but they are a valuable critique of some of the excesses and dangers of radical feminism.

Quote: "The goal of these authors remained the redistribution of labour and wealth within the family, from men to women. Yet they conceded they had to do so without alienating the majority of people by attitudes that appeared to be hostile to men. The way they would do this would be to emphasise the interests of the children." - Melanie Phillips, "The Sex-Change Society", Melanie Phillips, 1999, Page123

http://www.melaniephillips.com/http://www.melaniephillips.com/books/
The Sex-Change Society- Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male
Melanie Phillips Paperback, 370 pages (1999)
Social Market Foundation. ISBN: 1-874097-64-X

The Sex-Change Society issues a devastating attack on androgynous public policy, arguing that feminism has distorted its own agenda of equality by replacing it with sameness. The results are startling. Men have been demonised through a distorted view that they are intrinsically violent and feckless while all women are essentially 'saint-like'. At the same time, women are being encouraged to work at all times, whether they want to or not. In this timely critique Melanie Phillips tells the disturbing story of the attempt to feminise the state, to reverse the roles of men and women and to run masculinity out of town altogether. The result has been an anti-family policy in which everyone has become a potential loser.-----------------------------------

-----------------------Unrelated article by Melanie Phillips re DV
http://www.travel-net.com/~retap/DV-1.htm

The Sunday Times (Britain)
24 October 1999

Women are at least as violent as men but the evidence is being dismissed or ignored
By Melanie Phillips

Mention feminism to most people and the reaction will probably be one of faintly amused indifference. Some men may be irritated by feminist rhetoric; some women might feel their agenda is a little extreme. But the extent to which feminism in its most extreme form has embedded itself within the institutions and thinking of Britain has simply not been grasped.

Feminism has become the unchallengeable orthodoxy in even the most apparently conservative institutions, and drives forward the whole programme of domestic social policy. Yet this orthodoxy is not based on concepts of fairness or justice or social solidarity. It is based on hostility towards men.

The idea that men oppress women, who therefore have every interest in avoiding the marriage trap and must achieve independence from men at all costs, may strike many as having little to do with everyday life. Yet it is now the galvanic principle behind social, economic and legal policy-making.

Buried within this doctrine, though, is an even deeper assumption. Male oppression of women is only made possible by the fact that men are intrinsically predatory and violent, threatening both women and children with rape or assault. Men are therefore the enemy - not just of women but of humanity, the proper objects of fear and scorn.

This assumption runs through feminist thinking as a given. "Most violence, most crime ... is not committed by human beings in general. It is committed by men," wrote Jill Tweedie.

According to Marilyn French, men used violence both to threaten and control, as well as actually harm: "As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women."

Moreover, it is marriage and family life that expose women most to male violence. According to Gloria Steinem, "patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself... The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home".

All this has been enough to turn the stomachs of some feminists, particularly those who love husbands or sons. Novelist Maggie Gee said she once thought the sex war was exciting, but had now concluded it went too far. "Women are giving up on their relationships too quickly. Living with a man I love very much, I keep thinking that all the generalisations about men just aren't true."

These generalisations, however, are now the stuff of public policy. Male violence against women, said the government in June 1999, was no longer going to be "swept under the carpet". Virtually nobody questioned the premise that men were invariably victimisers and women always their victims.

There is no doubt that some men are violent towards women; the evidence of women's injuries is real enough. However, this is one side of the story only. There is another side: the extent of women's violence against men and children. That, though, is a story that almost every official body in Britain and America has successfully suppressed.

There are now dozens of studies which show that women are as violent towards their partners, if not more so, than men. Unlike most feminist research, these studies ask men as well as women whether they have ever been on the receiving end of violence from their partners. They are therefore not only more balanced than studies which only ask about violence against women, but are more reliable indicators than official statistics which can be distorted by factors affecting the reporting rate - women using claims of violence as a weapon in custody cases, for example, or men who are too ashamed or embarrassed to reveal they have been abused.

Many people are likely to be astonished and sceptical about the conclusion drawn by these reports. The idea that women are as violent as men is counter-intuitive and simply disbelieved. So it is important to provide a flavour of the scope and significance of their findings.

A 1994 British study by Michelle Carrado and others, for example, interviewed 1,800 men and women with heterosexual partners. Some 11% of the men but only 5% of the women said their current partner had committed acts of violence towards them, ranging from pushing, through hitting, to stabbing. Five per cent of married or cohabiting men reported two or more acts of violence against them in a current relationship, compared with only 1% of women. A further 10% of men but 11% of women said they had committed one of these violent acts.

Study after study shows women are not merely violent in self-defence but strike the first blow in about half of all disputes. The American social scientists Murray Straus and Richard Gelles reported from two large national surveys that husbands and wives had assaulted each other at approximately equal rates, with women engaging in minor acts of violence more frequently. Elsewhere, they found more wives than husbands were severely violent towards their spouses.

Moreover, there is now considerable evidence that women initiate severe violence more frequently than men. A survey of 1,037 young adults born between 1972 and 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, found that 18.6% of young women said they had perpetrated severe physical violence against their partners, compared with 5.7% of young men. Three times more women than men said they had kicked or bitten their partners, or hit them with their fists or with an object.

In any event, the idea that women are never the instigators of violence is demolished by the evidence about lesbians.

According to Claire Renzetti, violence in lesbian relationships occurs with about the same frequency as in heterosexual relationships. Lesbian batterers "display a terrifying ingenuity in their selection of abusive tactics, frequently tailoring the abuse to the specific vulnerabilities of their partners". Such abuse can be extremely violent, with women bitten, kicked, punched, thrown down stairs, and assaulted with weapons including guns, knives, whips and broken bottles.

It is true that most women who are the victims of violence suffer domestic assaults. Yet the 1996 British Crime Survey reported that nearly one third of the victims of domestic violence were men, and that nearly half of these male victims were attacked by women. Moreover, if a woman starts a physical fight with a man, even a mild slap might provoke him into retaliating, with far worse consequences. Women who murder violent husbands may be treated leniently because they were provoked; yet men who are violent against women are never granted the same understanding. Provocation, it appears, is a feminist issue.

Moreover, given the greater strength of men, it is particularly noteworthy that so many women initiate violence against them. The fact is that men hold back. The psychologist John Archer has noted that, among female college students, 29% admitted initiating an assault on a male partner. Of those women, half said they had no fear of retaliation or, since men could easily defend themselves, they did not see their own physical aggression as a problem. In other words, far from assuming that men are violent, women take men's non-aggression for granted.

Archer went on to remark on the apparent restraint shown by many men in western cultures. "We might speculate that to some extent a strong norm of men not hitting women enables women to engage in physical aggression which might otherwise not have occurred," he wrote. Male aggression, he suggested, was a kind of default value associated with patriarchal structures.

When these are overridden, as they have been by modern secular liberal values and by the emancipation of women, female aggression increases. "These values will have greatest impact in a relationship that can be ended by the woman at little cost, and where the rate of male aggression is low. "We can speculate that these represent specific instances of a more general set of circumstances entailing a relative change in the balance of power between men and women."

In other words, as women have become independent of men, they have also become more violent towards them - because men have become dispensable. This unpalatable conclusion, however, has been completely overlooked in a culture that believes infamy is the prerogative of the male.

Much to everyone's astonishment, the Home Office recently produced its own evidence that domestic violence was not a male disease. In January 1999, it reported that 4.2% of women and 4.2% of men aged 16 to 59 said they had been physically assaulted by a current or former partner in the past year. Women separated from their partners were most likely to be victims, with 22% assaulted at least once in 1995.

The public reaction to the Home Office research was almost complete silence. The government, too, appeared impervious to its implications. Shortly after it was published, the Home Secretary opened a domestic violence court in Leeds that was founded on the explicit assumption that only men were violent.

In June this year, the Cabinet Office women's unit launched a campaign to "change the culture" that presented domestic violence as almost exclusively a problem of male crime. It managed to omit another under-reported fact: that most violence against children is committed by their mothers, not their fathers. A study by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children revealed a few years ago that natural mothers, not fathers, are most frequently the perpetrators of physical injury, emotional abuse and neglect. This is not particularly surprising, since mothers generally have much more daily contact than fathers with their children. There was yet another notable omission: the women's unit material did not differentiate between couples who were married and people who were living together or had irregular lovers.

It therefore omitted a key fact: that the risk of violence increases significantly for unmarried couples. The Home Office study itself observed that marital separation was a "key risk factor". Only 12.6 in every 1,000 married women are victims of violence, compared with 43.9 in every 1,000 never-married women and 66.5 in every 1,000 divorced or separated women. As husbands are replaced by partners and lovers, therefore, violence against women increases. Marriage is a strong safety factor for women.

Yet this is not said. Instead, the opposite idea is fostered, that violence against women typically takes place within marriage. In November 1998, the women's unit announced a new initiative. Children were urged to report violence against mothers and sisters. There was no mention of abuse against fathers. Instead, a television advertisement showed a husband berating his wife when she told him dinner would be late. That was the violence. It was followed by a helpline number for children to call if a woman in their house had been abused.

This fictional scenario illuminated some remarkable thinking by civil servants and ministers. It had become acceptable, it thus appeared, for children to inform on their fathers to teachers or "helplines" simply for shouting at their mothers. Shouting was now to be classified as domestic violence. If that is the case, then violence happens with enormous frequency in families. Don't women sometimes shout at men?

There was another telling aspect of this advertisement. It featured an "Oxo" middle-class nuclear family. The thinking behind this, according to the then Scottish Office minister Helen Liddell, was that "domestic abuse knows no boundaries of social class or social group". However, not only was this scenario not violence, but the nuclear family is the least likely setting for abuse of women or children. It was no accident, however, that it was chosen. The married nuclear family has to be demonised because it is said to be the vehicle for the oppression of women.

The outcome of all this is that it is now generally accepted that violence is intrinsically male. This is a gravely distorted picture. It is true that most recorded crime is committed by men. It does not follow, however, that most men commit crime. Yet this is the false conclusion that has been drawn, as the result of the suppression or distortion of the facts about violence as well as the message that is constantly promulgated that violence is a problem of masculinity. The evidence suggests that a quite different conclusion should be drawn. This is surely that both women and men are capable of aggression and violence, but that violent men, like violent women, are not typical of their sex.

---Extracted from The Sex Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male, by Melanie Phillips.

Mediator says no contact, ever, because mum doesn't want it

2007-07-19T15:28:00.000-07:00

An acquaintance separated from his partner before the baby was born.

He arrived at the hospital to see his new born child, accompanied by his sister. He was not aggressive. He is polite, soft-spoken and well-mannered.

The mum punched him in the face. The nurse was a witness. He has suffered mild whiplash since. He hasn't asked the nurse to be a witness, but feels it very unlikely she would testify anyway. The courts give mums plenty of lee-way regarding their behaviour around the time of birth.

This acquaintance went to a mediation session at the Family Court. His ex-partner was not present in the room (possibly not present at the mediation). The (female) mediator told him quite categorically that he could expect absolutely no contact with his new born daughter "because the mother doesn't want it."

This was not - say - over the next few weeks while the mother and baby bonded. This was EVER !

He found the mediator very patronising - let's say - 'matronising'.

This acquaintance was reasonably confident going in to the Family Court process and wasn't really looking for advice. He had confidence in a system which he believed was fair and based on common sense. He came out of that mediation session shell-shocked, and immediately began visiting solicitors and groups to get advice and help make sense of what appeared to him outrageous behaviour by the mediator.

It amazes me how many people say to me "but the Family Court has all changed hasn't it ? It is all fair and equal now, no ?"

The government has done a good job of sowing deceptive information in the media to make people think things have changed. As I have said previously, one senior Family Court official said to me that the changes were merely a "repackaged brief".

It because of the lack of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, and an unwillngness to enforce orders and impose appropriate penalties (but NOT by reducing access to the children except in extreme and chronic cases where they constitute child abuse) when the mother (or father) contravenes them, that people must continually return to the court system, with all the amplification of conflict and stress this entails.

The Family Court system in Australia is ethically and philosophically bankrupt. The government should be held accountable for the damage they have done and their failure to rectify the situation. But as we know, governments are rarely held accountable except in clear cases of breaking the law (even in cases of genocide, government officials can often get away with murder).

In a true democracy, a class action suit would be brought against the government, and fathers who had had their rights abused would be compensated, and the law would be changed to a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. But the Dads Movement is not sufficiently organised, and even if they were, the government would continue to control the agenda of the courts in such a way that it would not be able to even consider such a case.

Moreover, no one talks about the rights of parents. It is politically incorrect to do so. Such rhetoric is seen as neglecting the best interests of the child, as if they were somehow mutually exclusive.

Meanwhile, radical feminists like Elspeth McInnes continue to fearmonger. For example Elspeth was quoted in a newspaper article a few days ago as saying that 66% of cases before the Family Court system involve safety issues with the children. Does this include the plethora of cases involving false or grossly exaggerated claims of domestic violence for which a DVO has been handed down whether or not the matter has even been investigated ?

In the case mentioned above, I suggest it reflects a strategy by Family Court staff to fulfill their brief of minimising the number of cases that go to trial by intimidating one of the litigants - nearly always the father, with the objective that they become demoralised and compliant with the demands of the other party - ie the mother. The Dad is more likely to be a self-represented litigant and an easier target.

I suggest the mediator is taking advantage of the fact that the medition session is not recorded and that she cannot be quoted in court proceedings.

I suggest that all mediation sessions be recorded, and that the recordings can be quoted whenever any of the participants deem appropriate. The lack of transparency aids the ongoing injustice.

The mediator mentioned above should be taken to task. I suggest that if she display this type of behaviour again, she should be sacked. But it is almost certain that she continues to behave in this way.

An example of using DVOs for parental alienation

2007-07-19T15:23:00.000-07:00

I am posting an account of one Dad about a DVO charge against him, which had no justification in the first place, and which he is struggling to have removed.

If anybody thinks that women do not regularly use false accusations of domestic violence to have DVO charges laid against the Dad to minimise the child's contact with the father, then they are either naive or in denial.

"I do not know this for a fact, but I have been told by some people here in Western Australia not to make a report to the police about being abused by your wife. If you do the police will remove me (the victim) and I will be prevented from going back home. This is because they believe the children are still far safer with the abusive woman/mother than they would be with the father.

"This was a question I had asked some people before my ex went and got the restraining order out on me. Apparently Western Australia has a more draconian set of Domestic Violence laws than the rest of the country. This is a problem we all have to suffer when we have politicians in positions of great power with gender-biased agendas.

"So, I followed the advice and did nothing, but my ex-partner went and made a report against me ! and I ended up DVO.

"On the 30th of this month (July), I am in court for the very first time since the order was taken out against me 18 months ago, with an application to cancel the DVO.

"I do not feel confident, but I just cannot see how they can keep this order against me when the ex has not one shred of evidence against me that I have committed any acts of domestic violence against her or our children.

"Obviously I will be on my own in court and I am facing a female magistrate who apparently has a reputation for giving women what they want and caning men.

"I will try to not believe that until she has behaved that way toward me, because I normally do not judge a person until I have met them myself, and I see no reason to change now.

"So, I am going to be pointing out the fact that my ex-partner has no proof, and that the children are suffering terribly, because of her use of the DVO to control and silence me".PG

Jail term for mum halved

2007-07-11T16:19:00.000-07:00

Family Court policy seems to fluctuate wildly - one minute giving the children contact with the dad, the next taking it away again for no apparent reason.

How can the Family Court justify giving the children only six hours a months contact with their dad ?

Why did the Court do this ? Because the mum cannot handle allowing the children contact with their dad ?

The Family Court system believes they are acting in the child's best interests by pandering to mums. But they send the wrong signal (it's ok to behave inappropriately) and create more conflict in the longterm.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22052211-5001021,00.html

The Daily Telegraph

11 July 2007

Jailed mum would do it all again

By Janet Fife-Yeomans

A mother who went to jail in a tug-of-love row with her ex-partner was quickly reunited with her son and daughter after her release from prison.

As she hugged her young children yesterday, the mother - who made legal history - told The Daily Telegraph that she would do it all again.

"It would but it's not easy," the woman, who cannot be identified, said.

"I'm just giving them as much love as I can."

She was jailed in March by the Federal Magistrates' Court after refusing to allow her ex-partner access to their children, a boy, 8, and girl, 6.

She was already on a good behaviour bond for defying court orders when Magistrate Michael Jarrett, sitting in Lismore, took the rare step of jailing her for four months.

In May, the Full Bench of the Family Court, made up of three judges, halved her four-month sentence and released her immediately from jail.Lawyers expect the judgment, yet to be published, to set fresh guidelines, raising the bar for the jailing of parents who contravene court orders.

In jail for two months, the mother received support from fellow inmates, who praised her for being "gutsy" in standing up for her children and baked her a 31st birthday cake.

Yesterday she revealed how she got through with prayer and believing she had done the right thing."

It was very rough," she said of the first night in a cell, with her children ordered by the court to live with their father."

Our families are the most important assets our country has and we need to keep them together. They had never lived with their father since we separated."

Refused Legal Aid, the woman organised an appeal from her cell with financial help from family.

She said her children were "extremely confused" after the court ordered the father to return the children to their mother the day after she got out of jail."

"What can I say? They've had a really hard time of it ...," she said.

"Our children are precious but they are treated like slabs of meat by the courts in many cases and it's very sad."

Steven Tester, the solicitor for the woman's ex-partner, said the children had "a ball" living with their father.

Court orders have now restricted the father's access to six hours a month.

Pedophile hysteria

2007-07-08T16:25:00.000-07:00

Printed on www.theageonline.com.au

The Bogeyman Myth
Simon Castles
July 8, 2007

In seeking to protect our children from pedophiles, we are also, sadly, undermining the healthy bonds between men and children.

At my local cafe, which is plain and daggy enough to be family-friendly, children often sidle up to where I'm reading the paper to say hello. They don't actually say hello, of course. They stare at me, seemingly fascinated, or say something random like, "I've got white shoes on", or they show me something they're holding in their sticky little hands.

Occasionally, if I'm on one of the couches, they'll climb on up, placing a steadying hand on my thigh as their feet sink into the cushions.

When I'm with my girlfriend, these moments are amiable and warm. The child's parents are at ease (as much as parents can be). When I'm on my own, though, it's different. Something darker enters the picture when it's just me, a man in his mid-30s alone, and there's a child who has wandered away from his or her parents in search of distraction. I sense the parents' apprehension, even as they try to fight it. Discomfort acts like a contagion: they feel it, I feel it, the child feels it. It's as if the moment can't quite bear the weight of all the things thought and not said.I suspect most men know this dispiriting feeling.

In an age haunted by the spectre of pedophilia, average men do pay a price for the sins of a few. It's in the wariness and suspicion that now attends their interactions with children. A clearly positive imperative — to protect children from a most repugnant crime — has a downside, in the way it has corrupted the informal, healthy bonds between men and children.

Many men today worry (and if you don't believe me, ask a few) about appearing to enjoy children too much, about innocently touching children, about picking children up from school, about photographing children. The natural has come to feel aberrant.

Men have every right to feel saddened by this, and even a little angry. It is not in any way to play down the crime of child sex abuse to point out that, in our response to it, the sensitivities of the majority of men are somewhat trampled because of the actions of a minority.

Nowhere is this sad fact better illustrated than in a policy now common in the aviation industry. On many major airlines, including Qantas, United Airlines and British Airways, men are banned from sitting next to a child travelling alone. News of this discriminatory policy came to light when average blokes began coming forward with stories of their humiliation at being shifted — with suspicious passengers looking on — away from children. (Qantas says it moves the children, not the men.)

British MP and journalist Boris Johnson recently revealed how he was asked to move on a British Airways flight. "We have very strict rules," the stewardess told a confused Johnson. "A man cannot sit with children." Johnson remained seated to allow the children next to him to say something. "But he's our father," they chimed.

Airlines have defended the policy by saying they're simply erring on the side of caution and reflecting the concerns and wishes of parents. But in their efforts to cover (presumably for legal reasons) what is surely a minuscule risk, they stamp all men potentially dodgy, and send a message to children that men aren't to be trusted.

A policy like this does more harm than good. It takes risk aversion to a phobic extreme. It insults men, and cottonwool-balls children. It views all interactions between men and children as somehow poisonous, which actually blurs the distinction between good and bad.

Some will say that if such a policy saves just one child from abuse, it will have been worthwhile. This sounds like common sense, but really isn't. What of the damage — impossible to measure — done to the fabric of society by practices that essentially presume guilt in all men, foster suspicion, collapse trust, and discourage casual bonding between men and children?

Given the social trend towards seeing male interaction with children as potentially suspect, it is hardly surprising that the number of men lining up to work with kids continues to fall. In the past decade, the proportion of male primary teachers in Australia dropped from 23.8 per cent to 20.6 per cent. The younger the children, the less likely a man will be within cooee: in Victoria, about 1 per cent of preschool teachers are male.

A culture of suspicion must also impact on the number of men willing to put their hand up to coach a sports team or help with a school camp. A recent study by a British children's charity found that 13 per cent of men wouldn't volunteer to work with children because they feared being judged a pedophile.

There is a terrible paradox here. Good men are staying away from supervising children for fear of how they will be perceived, and yet at the same time many parents — and particularly single mothers — desperately want their children, especially their sons, to be exposed to good male role models. No parent wants a child's schooling and play to be a male-free zone, and yet society looks with some wariness at men who are keen to mentor and coach children. Messages are mixed, instincts are in conflict.

The sadness of all this is trumped by the difficulty of knowing exactly what to do about it. There are pedophiles in the world, after all, and parents want to protect their children with every ounce of their beings.But we mustn't allow a fear of pedophiles to turn into a phobia that undermines much more than it achieves. All phobias begin with a "what if" scenario that builds on its own logic, escalates in intensity, and turns an unlikely occurrence into something so terrifyingly real that it seems perfectly sensible and rational to shut out the world and bolt the door. It isn't. About 95 per cent of child sex abuse happens within families. The abuser is likely to be someone the parents and the child knows — not the creepy stranger at the park (or on the plane) who looms large in the collective imagination. We may like to think we can lock child abuse out, but the sad truth is we are more likely to lock it in.

Today, most people over 30 can't help but notice, usually with some wistfulness, that children don't play on suburban streets any more. We have become very protective of children, and fearful of neighbourhood threats that, on the evidence, are no greater than they ever were. Perhaps as our own lives feel busier and less certain in areas like work and housing, overprotecting children becomes a means of securing some sense of order and control.

Whatever the case, treating all men as potential predators will do nothing to stamp out child abuse. But it will give rise to horrors — not of bad men touching children in ways that revolt us, but of good men too scared to touch children at all.

Simon Castles is a Melbourne writer.

"significant change of circumstance" - letter to Chief Justice Diane Bryant

2007-06-07T03:39:00.000-07:00

07 June 2007
Chief Justice Diane Bryant
Family Court of Australia

c/o Meg ForemanClient Feedback Coordinator &Administrative Law Consultant
clientfeedback@familycourt.gov.au

(Dear Meg, please forward this message directly to Chief Justice Diana Bryant. As I am sure you realise, this is not about a particular case, but concerns policy and practice of the Family Court of Australia as a whole).

Dear Chief Justice Diane Bryant,
I would like to commend the Family Court of Australia for taking the unusual step of reopening the case of Samuels and Errington whereby the child will be returned from the mother in Perth to the care of the grandparents in Hobart, even though there has been no appeal process.

I would hope that in the event that the mother chose to relocate to Hobart without her partner Mr B., that she should have the option of 50/50 residency.

I interpret the reopening of this case as a recognition of inappropriate decisions made by the Family Court of Australia, where there has been a bias toward granting full or majority residence to the mother.

I suggest that the Family Court of Australia has been making inappropriate decisions in a significant number of cases, and still continues to do so, alienating one parent, usually the father, to the detriment and against the best interests of the child, for the last three decades.

I suggest therefore, that this previous (and current) bias in favour of the mother be redressed by giving an opportunity for cases to be reconsidered in the context of the new legislation. To disallow this would, in my view, be immoral.

To think that a judge can determine orders that then become immutable until a child reaches 18yrs unless there is a "significant change of circumstances" is truly outrageous. It is my understanding that Justice Faulk has indicated that there needs to be an opportunity to revisit cases even with "Final Orders" in place, even though the current (ill-defined) and extreme "significant change of circumstances" may not apply.

Cases could be reconsidered by a parent presenting a one of two page set of reasons to a Family Court judge, and where that judge feels there are no complicating circumstances, the parent could then have the matter heard in a Family Relationship Centre (and pay the full cost of the mediation, unless they can demonstrate financial hardship). And where the other parent cannot agree to equal residency (or to what the applicant parent is asking up to 50%), or come to some agreement, then the matter would go before the judge (12A Hearing ? Judge speaks directly to the parents etc ?) who must then consider the child spending equal time with each parent as described in Section 65DAA.

At the Family Relationship Centre (FRC), the parent with majority residency should be informed that since the judge has allowed the matter to be heard, there is a good chance they will award equal parenting time (or whatever has been asked), and that if both parents cannot agree in the FRC, the parent with majority residency may be liable for court costs.

Thankyou for your time in considering this matter.

I would appreciate an acknowledgement that you have actually received this e-mail.

Sincerely,
Geoff Holland

Case of Rob T - property settlement

2007-06-07T01:19:00.000-07:00

I would like to include people's stories on this blogsite. Yes some are going to be one-sided. But there are outrageous injustices being perpetrated, and have been in the Family Court system in Australia for the last 30 years or more. When we document the stories, we see patterns that indicate where the system has failed.

"...I went into the marriage with two investment properties. I was pressured to sell one when funds became scarce, (and lost $30,000 in the process, only to see it raise $50,000 in value 6 months later).

"I still have one now which I am being pressured to sell and either pay child support for my step daughter, or hand over a percentage of the cash. Given I have owned that house since I was 21, why the hell should I give my ex-partner a cent?

"And for anyone who would say it's for the kids, I'm happy to sign it over in a trust fund for the kids, as long as my ex-partner has no access to it. She paid nothing toward that house, and berated me for the entirety of the five years we were together for keeping it.

"The funny thing is, she inherited 30% of an investment property while we were together. No mention has ever been made of taking that into account for a property settlement. But of course that is HER house. The one I have is OURS, (or so she says). "

Rob T.

"One size doesn't fit all"

2007-05-31T05:12:00.001-07:00

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.

Their wise verdicts

2007-05-31T04:13:00.000-07:00

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

Exposing the anti-male myth

2007-05-24T23:19:00.001-07:00

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

Draft: Family Relationship Centres policy recommendations

2007-05-21T02:56:00.000-07:00

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.

Right versus privilege

2007-05-19T21:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Letter to the Chief Magistrate

2007-05-18T22:56:00.000-07:00

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

Unequal v. equal shared parenting

2007-05-18T02:51:00.000-07:00

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?

I am an uneducated black man

2007-05-15T06:04:00.000-07:00

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.

Letter to Sydney Morning Herald responding to Adele Horan

2007-05-13T22:32:00.000-07:00

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.

Better make it a four-year trial

2007-05-08T08:35:00.000-07:00

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.

Robertson children and parental alienation

2007-05-08T07:33:00.000-07:00

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.

Debate with a male feminist sociologist on DV

2007-05-07T01:28:00.000-07:00

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

Why did children go to Brisbane in the first place ?

2007-05-06T06:32:00.000-07:00

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.

views of Justice John Faulks

2007-05-06T06:23:00.000-07:00

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.

The "r" word

2007-05-02T19:43:00.000-07:00

The 'r' word

There was some point in the 20th Century when custody of Children following divorce switched from the Father to the Mother. We should revisit that history and understand how it happened.

In Japan only recently did the law switch from favouring the Father to favouring the Mother.

In many countries including Lebanon, the Father is still favoured for child custody.

There was no catastrophe when Fathers had custody of the Children. Still, I believe allowing both Parents to participate fully in a Child's life is preferable to marginalising either of them.

I am, of course, an advocate for the Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.

I believe that this is a natural right - to have full access to one's own child ('full access' means 'half access' in the case of separated parents). This natural right can only be taken away in circumstances of abuse (or negotiated where there are obvious practical problems such as living in different cities).

If there are problems with parenting in society, focus on resolving the problems ! Don't sweep the problems under the carpet by reducing access ! This achieves nothing.

To me the situation is prima facie - I shouldn't even have to argue it. We live in a society based on civil rights and this is one of them. Parenting is a civil right which has been taken away from Dads (and sometimes Mums). Dads have been hoodwinked.

It is akin to people being against, or being indecisive about, poorly educated black people having a right to vote. Or simply - universal suffrage (eg women getting the vote). In my view there is no difference.

We should be indignant. We should be outraged.

But it is politically incorrect to talk about 'rights'. We must only talk about 'the best interests of the Child'. A recent article in The Age finishes by saying "Someone has to keep an eye out for the interests of the child." Of course we should. But this sentiment has become gratuitous. It has been used for decades by the Family Court system and the Radical Feminists to keep Children and Dads apart. The sentiment is being facetiously and politically manipulated.

There is only one men's group I know which will openly talk about men's rights. All the others keep well away from this explosive word 'rights'.

Here are a couple of recent quotes by a (male) feminist which indicates how the Domestic Violence campaigns are a feminist strategy (the fear factor) being used to block the movement for increased involvement of Dads in their Children's lives following family separation:

"Recent politicking from Men's Rights groups and amendments to Family Law legislation are two examples of an apparent backlash against feminism".

Shane Hopkinson, (male) Sociology, Central Queensland University
Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006 p4

The Fathers Rights Agenda
In many respoects 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.

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); and

2. 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 University
Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006

Yes - only one men's organisation that I know of that dares to speak about 'men's rights' (funny how 'men's rights' has an ominous resonance, and 'women's rights' conjures up images of morality and justice. How did 'men's rights' become a dirty word ?)

However, this organisation is run by a woman (who censors my postings and has removed me from the list though I have done nothing provocative - until this e-mail at least. I am simply speaking up). Another men's group has warned me not to represent them otherwise I will face police prosecution. Bizarre as I have never attempted to represent them ! How can the movement be so immature ?

Two prominent men's groups who receive government funding are not working for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time in my view. One says we have missed the boat, the other says we already got a good deal. (They nominally agree with the policy of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time but they do not appear to be actively lobbying for it).

I don't want to fragment the Dad's Movement, but rather to argue that Presumption of Equal Parenting Time is not a radical extreme position, but the obvious and central goal.

Yes, Dad's have been hoodwinked. We have been led to believe that:

1. men are less worthy Parents than women,

2. equal parenting is too destabilising for Children,

3. a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will put Children at greater risk of abuse.

All three of these myths are false.

The authorities know it. They are attempting to appease us by modifying the Family Court system culture somewhat. But we do not want appeasement. We wish our natural rights as fathers to be recognised and acted upon.

One prominent feminist has stated that if Dads want equal parenting we have to earn it. I suppose she would nominate herself to be on the judging panel for each and every Dad.

The Feminist Movement is a formidable opposition. Worse, the Labor Party will probably win the next election (we must vote for supportive Independents, and Family First - as long as Family First can make their support for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time a little more explicit). This will not be an easy or short term campaign, but we will win in the end.

This e-mail is provocative - it is intended to be. Some Dads groups may recommend we walk softly and come in from the back door. I say we enter from the front door. But we must be well-dressed, well presented, calm, happy, and well-reasoned. Yes, it is a Public Relations competition.

Some people will label me an extremist - perhaps a 'radical masculinist'. But I promote:

1. peace, non-violence, conflict resolution, mediation, reconciliation, and respect
2. discussion and debate
3. equal rights, equity and reciprocation.

The feminist position is a radical one founded on deceit (98% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men). My experience is that Radical Feminists are generally not willing to engage in debate.

The position of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time is a reasonable and moderate one.

But we won't make much further progress until Dads start waking up to the situation. We need to organise, and we need to be independent of government funding.

Of course I welcome women to be a part of the movement for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, and a number of women have already made fantastic contributions.

Also, I believe the majority of feminists, judging by opinion polls and my own experience with petition tables in the street, is that most feminists support a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. Unfortunately the Executive is not listening to their Constituency. In fact you could probably define Radical Feminism, as distinct from mainstream Feminism, by their view on a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. You are either for it, against, or undecided. There is no compromise position.

Each of us needs to be active on a regular basis. Integrate it into your weekly schedule.

And we need to be actively waking up other Dads to the ongoing injustice of the Family Court system, as well as the benefits of Children spending more time with their Dads.

Cheers, Geoff

(PS with no intentions of running for office or seeking government funding. So please pardon the grandstanding, but some of us have to do it).

Letter to The Age 03 May 2007

2007-05-01T18:35:00.000-07:00

Please see my Letter to the Editor of The Age newspaper today, as well as the article it refers to below it.

Vital piece of information
Your article "Mother pleads for return of missing children" (02 May 2007) fails to include a vital piece of information: Did the relationship between the parents breakdown in Brisbane, or the Blue Mountains / Sydney, (or elsewhere)? Crises like these arise when the Family Court allows the Mum to move away from the Dad, which thankfully is happening less frequently but is still a serious problem.

They also arise because the Federal Government continues to shy away from implementing a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time in the Family Court system.

Geoff Holland
Cairns, Qld

___________________________

Mother pleads for return of missing children
The Age May 2, 2007

PHILIPPA Yelland knew something was wrong when her three children weren't waiting at the school gate as usual on a Monday afternoon in March. And when told the children hadn't turned up at the Eagle Junction State School in Brisbane that day, Ms Yelland knew: "Oh my God, he hasn't returned them."

Bokkie, 10, Matilda, 9, and Barney, 7, had spent the weekend with their father, Murray Robertson, at his home in the Blue Mountains town of Hazelbrook. Under arrangements put in place after Ms Yelland and Mr Robertson separated, the children visited their father every third and sixth weekend.

Ms Yelland has not seen or spoken to her children since she dropped them off at school on March 16 before that scheduled weekend with their father. Yesterday, the distraught mother made a plea for help in finding her children, who are thought to still be with Mr Robertson.

Ms Yelland implored her ex-husband: "Please return the children safely to me. Everyone misses them." Asked what message she wanted to send to her children, she said: "I love them very much and I look forward to them coming home."

Ms Yelland, a freelance journalist, has been unable to contact her ex-husband, who has had his mobile phone switched off since the weekend the children went missing. "They've disappeared, literally," she said.
Ms Yelland said she yearned for her children and the day they return home. "I just miss them. Their joyousness, their unending enthusiasm. They are the most glorious children. The place is dead without them."

For now she takes comfort from prayer. "I believe God will keep them safe," she said. "I just pray they will be brought home safely. What else can you do?"

She has kept busy helping family and friends with chores. "There is a great benefit in constant activity," she said.

Although their marriage ended acrimoniously in divorce 18 months ago, Ms Yelland said she had no inkling her former husband would run off with the children. "This was out of the blue, completely."

The Family Court of Australia has authorised the Australian Federal Police, state and territory police forces and the marshal of the court to locate the Robertson children. It has allowed the names of the children and their father to be publicised in an effort to find them.

Biased mediators in the Family Court

2007-04-29T20:24:00.000-07:00

A single Dad I know told me about his experience with the Family Court mediator.

He was summoned in first to talk to the mediator. The conversation lasted about five minutes. Then he was ushered out and the Mum was summoned in. The Dad waited outside for approximately 45 minutes.

Then the Dad was summoned in again. The female mediator said to him: "Look, this is what we have decided..."

The Dad objected to the manner of decision-making. His objections were ignored. He walked out.

Family Court reforms

2007-04-29T20:01:00.000-07:00

An article from the Age and my letter to the editor, which to my knowledge was not published. Do editors feel they have a community responsibility to publish the least number of letters concerning Equal Parenting and reform of the Family Court issues ?

The Age 26 April 2007

Taking some of the pain out of family breakdowns

THE Family Court has had a short but tumultuous history. Since its inception as part of the 1975 Family Law Act — initiated by Labor attorney-general Lionel Murphy with the aim of allowing failed marriages to end with dignity and minimum expense — the court has indeed simplified divorce proceedings, but it has also witnessed battles between parents, lawyers and judges, often with tragic consequences.

It has been described, with reason, as the most dangerous and violent court in the country. The most extreme clashes have resulted in death and serious injury. In the 1980s, Family Court judge David Opas was shot dead when he answered his doorbell; Pearl Watson, the wife of a second judge, died when a bomb exploded on her doorstep; and Judge Richard Gee was hurt in a bombing. Indeed, there have been numerous cases resulting in death or injury in violent episodes outside family courts around Australia.

While these incidents are tragic and deplorable, it is not surprising that the personal and financial devastation that so often follows the dissolution of a marriage has had such consequences — especially when drawn-out legal negotiations have left numerous fathers feeling abandoned by the courts and mothers struggling to raise their children with inadequate support from their former partners. But in recent months the Family Court has undergone radical changes in its processes and the results have been encouraging. As The Age reports today, the spirit of the Murphy reforms may finally have been embraced.

The formality of a trial, dominated by lawyers whose approach often exacerbated tensions between the parties, has been replaced by a conference in which the judge has a conversation with the parents and allows each to speak directly of his or her experiences, attitudes to parenting and hopes for the future. Even its straightforward title — the less adversarial trial — indicates the fact that the traditional British "adversarial" system has been replaced with a European-style inquisitorial system in which the laws of evidence are less stringent. The focus of the judge's inquiry is on the children and the arrangements that will best meet their needs.

This process is the subject of Finding a Better Way, a report to be launched tomorrow by Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant. Written by La Trobe University academic Jennifer McIntosh, it is a study of the effects of the process on children and parents who participated in trials of the new system in 2004 and 2005. The results are encouraging. Children whose parents were divorced under the new system emerged happier than children whose cases were processed in the traditional way; their parents argued less and were more likely to have co-operative arrangements for sharing the children than other parents. Dr McIntosh concluded that the new system "demonstrated a greater capacity to respond to and safeguard the psychological vulnerabilities of the co-parental relationship, post separations than the traditional, adversarial process". In general, parents have also been positive about the new approach: whereas 70 per cent of parents involved in the previous approach felt the process had a negative effect on them as parents, just 28 per cent of those in the new process felt this way.

This does not mean an end to disputes about custody and child support — there remains much to be done to ensure that all parents meet their responsibilities in these matters — but the Family Court has taken a huge step towards civilising what was too often a demeaning process for all involved. The great strength of the new system is that for the first time the law insists that the interests of the child be paramount and that both parents have, as far as possible, equal rights and responsibilities. The system is not perfect — for example, there are legitimate concerns about ditching the rules of evidence (particularly the abolition of the ban on hearsay) — but with goodwill, strong support systems and careful adjudication, children will be the real beneficiaries of these changes. As one QC said: "Someone has to keep an eye out for the interests of the child."

_____________________________________________

The Age Letters to the Editor 26 Apr 2007

Judges must also get out of the way

Finally ! It has taken 30 years for the Family Court system to acknowledge what Dads have been arguing all along - that their adversarial system is grossly inappropriate ("Taking some of the pain..." 26 Apr 07). In fact, by amplifying conflict they have been damaging children and acting contrary to the child's best interests.

However, they still don’t get it ! While the Family Court now admits that trials have been “dominated by lawyers whose approach often exacerbated tensions between the parties”, they still do not see that judges also need to get out of the way.

The new Family Relationship Centres are the way to go, but until they are mandatory, until they have authority, transparency and accountability, and until they are based on a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, they are not going to be able to keep separating partners out of court.

A judge has no right to decide how much access a child has to each parent when the parents are together. Assuming there is no child abuse - by far the majority of cases - what gives judges the right to make arbitrary judgments on access just because the parents have separated ?

Geoff Holland
Cairns, Qld

Letters to Desley Boyle, Qld Minister for Child Safety

2007-04-29T19:23:00.000-07:00

From: Geoff Holland Sent: Friday, 27 April 2007 11:50 PMTo: Cairns Electorate OfficeSubject: Qld Govt Domestic Violence campaign
Desley Boyle
Minister for Child Safety

Dear Desley,
I would like to congratulate you on your recent comments about child abuse, to the effect that women's role in child abuse has been largely overlooked while the focus has been on men's role in child abuse.

I therefore forward a letter to you (please see below) that recently came my way, for your consideration.

I am not out to villify women. Nor am I attempting to diminish the urgency and seriousness of Domestic Violence (though indicators tentatively suggest a general trend for the better).

However, there is a clear distortion of the reality concerning Domestic Violence in society, and the Queensland Govt. must share some responsibility for this in funding the recent Domestic Violence campaign which shows that all victims of Domestic Violence are women and all perpetrators are men.

The campaign is a blame game. Men are to blame for Domestic Violence. This only serves to heighten fear and to reduce men's self-esteem. Reducing self-esteem in the long run is a sure fire way to get the worst behaviour from people. The whole approach is fundamentally flawed. Domestic Violence must be seen as a Community Problem !

There are many forms of Domestic Violence - men against women, women against men, women and men against each other (the most common form), women against women, men against men, men against children, women against children, children against children, children against parents etc. Why single out one form of Domestic Violence, and in a discriminatory way ?

A friend of mine recently complained to the Advertising Standards Board regarding the latest State Govt. Domestic Violence campaign. They wrote back stating that their client, the Qld Dept. of Communities, had based the advertisements (women 100% victims, men 100% perpetrators) on a study by Access Economics which demonstrated that the figures were in fact 98% which was close enough to 100%. This is absurd ! This is deceiptful ! I know the Access Economics Report. They were obliged to publish a corrigenum. Also, they never conducted the study, they merely drew from a study which was commissioned by Brisbane City Council and was hopelessly flawed. Why use an obscure study anyway ? Why not use the ABS Personal Safety Study ?

Just over two years ago I was advised to accept a Domestic Violence Order without admission of guilt. This was the advice from the Cairns Regional Domestic Violence Centre since they said it would be impossible for me to overturn the charge (though I had not physically assaulted anybody, nor threatened to, not even verbally abused anybody - it was a total sham in the context of a Family Court case). The case was never investigated. The police never asked me what happened (or rather, what didn't happen). I regret following the advice of the Cairns Regional Domestic Violence Centre. Following the hearing I wrote an eight page letter to the judge. She refered me to my State member. I believe I contacted you at the time.

I could continue ad nauseum. Suffice to say, I hope you have enough critical awareness to reevaluate the situation for yourself, and enough courage to advocate a different policy direction should you feel the status quo is seriously flawed and counterproductive.

Desley, I would appreciate at least a brief acknowledgement from you that you have personally received this e-mail.

Many Thanks,
Regards,
Geoff Holland

In the interests of a fair and GENUINE approach to the issues of Domestic Violence in both Australia and internationally, and in response to the Government Task Force dealing with DV in women and children it is undeniably essential that the matter be considered at its true face value.
The ABS Personal Safety Survey 2005 (PSS), http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4906.02005%20(Reissue)?OpenDocument, provides some disturbing accuracy in its statistics regarding the occurence of DV across a variety of populations of which I Mr Andresen has made you well aware.
The http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/eureka/Eureka_95/domviol.html "Men also hit by domestic violence", shows clearly that Men make up almost one-third of all domestic violence cases that result in hospitalisation, according to a Monash University study. The study looked at 53,320 cases of "partner-inflicted injuries" at the emergency departments of four Melbourne hospitals and one regional Victorian public hospital. And according to the report, Domestic Violence: Patterns and Indicators, social and cultural factors such as men's reluctance to report their abuse indicate the rate may be even higher. While women are injured more often than men, men who are assaulted by their female partners sustain more serious injuries and spend more time in hospital. The report indicates that men were lacerated or punctured by knives far more frequently than women, especially to the head and arms,"
It should be noted at this time that patients with Acquired Brain Injury resulting in permanent institutional care are only recorded as DV victims if they are women. It is considered politically uncomfortable to place this diagnosis on the greater proportion of these victims who are male victims of violent female partners. These men are simply labelled "assualt victims" and are not protected from visits from their assailants as are female DV victims in the same care facility just as they are not compensated for the loss of their lives.
However, the report found that up to 70 per cent of domestic violence victims went undetected by hospital emergency departments in Victoria. And only 11 per cent of those detected were referred on to an appropriate domestic violence service.
Such reports as the Monash University study are not uncommon as researchers initiate Genuine Efforts to ascertain the impact of this social issue across all demographics with no underlying group skewing the outcomes and results to meet a personal or group agenda. All such reports indicate the concern that men consistently underreport themselves as Domestic Violence victims. Health care providers, Family and Community workers, Religious Groups, Shelters, Housing services, Police forces and Law Courts are notoriously ineffective in identifying Domestic Violence as a whole, but this situation is worsened by notably deficient education on the matter and distortion of information on DV sources, victims and related victims (particularly significant others and children).
The Domino effect of this mishandling becomes more and more evident the the depreciation of societal values, increasing DV rates, Street violence, drug use, suicide rates, mental illness and crimes of emotion that we see today.
Whilst I understand that the subject is an emotionally and societally uncomfortable one, it is nonetheless very real. Whilst the true data on DV raises some very disturbing trends and and acceptance of the facts raises by default the moral and ethical obligation to take action in a potentially politically inflammatory vessel, the failure to do so fails an enourmous proportion of the voting population and even more future voters.
Please remember that, as a country of 2.2 children per couple, there are a great deal many more children affected than there are either male of female victims. Why are they blatantly neglected?
Why does a man calling the police as a DV victim get brushed off, even arrested, told "slap her one and wise her up", or referred to "anger management counselling"?
Why does a man removing his children from such a situation get branded and treated as a kidnapper?
Why does a man calling a shelter for he and his children get turned away and referred to "anger management counselling"?
Why does a man presenting in family court seeking the custody and therefore safety of his children from a violent mother get ignored, his children placed in the custody of their violent mother, and behold the father is then referred to "anger management counselling"?
Why does a man presenting at a religious shelter suffer immediate separation from his children, traumatised by their violent mother, to be placed in the care of a woman, "as a father is not able to nurture!!", and then the father referred to "anger management counselling"?
Why is a man calling VAWA treated with contempt and provided with, lo and behold, provided with a referral to anger management counselling.
Why is a man presenting to a trained psychologist (at his own expense of course) for support and coping strategies, informed that he must "learn to manage his anger".
Why do housing services refuse to provide emergency housing to men and their children fleeing a violent situation?
and further
Why do women have the highly funded VAWA, television advertising, health centres, CYWHS, shelters, Women focussed support services in SAPOL, Family Court, Religious groups, housing services?
Why does a woman contacting police as a DV victim get immediate attention, protection and is not required to provide any evidence of DV although her partner may be in the same home, injured from her beating.
Why does a woman running from a DV partner receive full supports from Centrelink, Housing Services, Police, Courts?
Why does a woman attending a shelter receive this care, or get referred on to other shelters/safe houses where places are limited?
Why does a woman in family court (where over 70% of DV claims by women are known to be falisified), succeed in alienating her chidlren from a loving and supportive father, despite the provision of substantial and irrefutable evidence of her unprovoked violence?
Why does a womea presenting at a shelter after leaving the family home remain with her children in her care? Why is she instructed to claim DV even where she emphatically denies its existance so that the shelter can obtain funding for her placement?
Why is a woman calling VAWA or other DV services treated with respect, consideration and care and provided with all available references, supports and services?
Why is a woman attending counselling services provided an ongoing outlet, at taxpayers expense? (and if necessary guidance in falsifying DV claims to maintain child custody and alienate a father)???
Why is a woman able to obtain emergency housing for herself and her children, trust housing, financial support and guidance, and why is she advised to claim DV in order to expidite the process?
And then:
Why does Violence Against Women exist? Why not Violence Against Humans, Violence against People, Violence against Population, Violence against Children? Why this grossly irresponsible discrimination? Why this blatant determination to support an exacerbate a dysfunctional mien and service?
Mrs Keryn Eden
Clinical Nurse Specialist
Mobile: 0416 028 497

Desley Boyle,
Qld Minister for Child Safety

Thankyou Desley, I appreciate your interest. I hope you have an opportunity to suggest a more enlightened approach to reducing Domestic Violence in the community in the future.

Perhaps we could have a balanced campaign - for example one which depicted a female public figure (eg singer, sports personality) speaking to women to refrain from violence, and a similar male public figure speaking to men to refrain from violence ?

Perhaps we could look at how children suffer both directly and indirectly from Domestic Violence ?

Since verbal abuse and psychological violence are grounds for a Domestic Violence Order (rightly so - provided allegations can be substantiated), then we should perhaps also look at non-physical forms of violence in future Domestic Violence campaigns.

I think that we should also acknowledge that things have improved - eg give some statistics - but then remind ourselves that we have a long way to go before we become a truly non-violent society... The message should always, in my view, contain a positive element (eg at least show families that have been able to work through and overcome Domestic Violence). The Qld State and Federal Domestic Violence Campaigns that I have seen have been 100% negative. I believe it shows a lack of understanding of human psychology and how best to influence behaviour patterns. (Yes, the same can be said for speed-driving and anti-smoking campaigns).

Perhaps you are able to forward these suggestions to relevant people in the Dept of Community Services ?

Thanks again,
Regards,
Geoff Holland

From: Cairns Electorate Office
To: Geoff Holland
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: RE: Qld Govt Domestic Violence campaign
Geoff, thank you for y our letter. I agree we have a long way to go to get a fairer system wherein any violence, and most particularly in the home, is not acceptable. Regards, Desley.
Desley Boyle MP Member for Cairns Ph 4051-2868 / Fax 4051-6760

Article has been censored after five months

2007-03-27T17:47:00.000-07:00

The Online Opinion website at www.onlineopinion.com.au invited me to write about my experiences with divorce and the Family Court system.

I did this. The story was accepted and published in October 2006 along with a couple of other articles on this subject. Over time the article received about 40 comments from various readers.

On Monday 26th a reader known as "Liz" stated that she was familiar with my case, and stated that I had had two marriages and that I had "done the same to both wives" and added "shame on you Geoff." She said that she could publically humiliate me.

I responded suggesting that this person "Liz," whoever she was, was not directly acquainted with the background, and so was working on secondhand, possibly thirdhand or fourthhand information. I challenged her to make plain her gossip so that at least I could respond to it, but I added, it seems gossip and innuendo is safer than addressing the real issues.

By Tuesday 27th, the article and all comments had been removed from the Online Opinion website. Why ? Remove the comment by "Liz" by all means, but why remove my article which had been there for the last five months ?

I have asked the moderator of Online Opinion to explain what happened.

Attempt to silence our modest protest

2007-03-18T16:31:00.000-07:00

Rob and I have been holding a weekly stall for about three months now. The stall consists of a fold-up table and two fold-up chairs. We have a petition for people to sign supporting a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.

About three weeks ago, Seantor Jan McLucas came out of her office to ask us to relocate as people might confuse our campaign with her own policies (God forbid !). I explained to Jan that we were here because we were located ouotside the Family Court, but that we might consider moving six metres further along (outside the offices of a law firm which carries out Family Law cases).

The next day I went to visit Jan. She was good enought to see me without an appointment. I explained to her that we were not targeting the Family Court so much as Federal members and Federal Senators (such as herself) as they are the law-makers, and they need to introduce a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.

We talked about the issues. Jan mentioned her own case where she has custody of her daughter. Her daughter plays piano and it would be impractical to have mid-week contact woth her Dad. She also used the computer - she couldn't lug this between homes.

I pointed out that in such a case, the Dad may be willing to buy a keyboard. Also, the Dad's house is also likely to have a computer (students at the private Trinity Anglican School are issued with their own laptop which they take to school each day. I would bet my bottom dollar Jan's daughter attends TAS).

I said that if Jan was prepared to continue this dialogue (I want to prepare an information kit for Fedral Senators and Federal Members) we would be happy to relocate to the adjacent office for the time being (there is actually a walkway one metre higher separating us from these offices and out table located in the street).

Ironically we had just renewed our Police Permit (for the next six months) when we were approached by an officer from the Cairns City Council telling us they had received a complaint and we would have to shut down the stall.

I suspect the complainant was McDonnell's Solicitors who felt no need to even try to negotitate. Rob and I went immediately to Cairns City Council to discuss the matter with the relevant official.

She advised us to relocate on private property where the Council would have no jurisdiction. She offered all sorts of reasons to put us off - ie we were touting (but the touting legislation refers only to commercial businesses) and obstructing the footpath (which is five metres wide and has light pedestrain traffic).

Our modest petition table attended by only two people, was a held for only two hours once a week. But this has been deemed unacceptable by the Council bowing to the wishes of one person making a complaint.

I am seeking legal advice and I will be challenging this.

Obtaining a transcript or audio recording of a Hearing

2007-03-18T16:21:00.000-07:00

I have been communicating with the Family Court in Townsville.

The cost of receiving a complete transcript of my three-day "Final Hearing" in Feb 2005 would be about $3,000. So I requested an an audio copy on CD (ie without the need to transcribe).

Apparently an audio copy can be provided but one has to justify why they would like the copy. In my letter I said I was preparing an Appeal. The Registry Manager wrote back saying he was not satisfied with my reasons, but would allow me to listen to the recording only - at a cost of about $200.

He also said I could not even listen to the recording of when the judge handed down orders. Why not ? There may be some pertinent information here.

The court system is atrociously arbitrary and defensive.

There needs to be an independent monitoring agency to handle complaints and defend the rights of clients.

Blogs of different Dads in Australia

2007-02-25T23:13:00.000-08:00

BLOGS

I hope to encourage Dads in Australia to create and maintain blogs, and for us to nework these blogs.

My list so far:

Geoff H
http://equalparentingtime.blogspot.com/

Paul D
http://injurysupport.blogspot.com/

Simon H
http://mumsdadsandkidsagainstsolecust.blogspot.com/
http://thefamilycourtphenomenon.blogspot.com/

Steve H
http://parentalalienationischildabuse.blogspot.com/

Parental Alienation

2007-02-25T22:33:00.000-08:00

6. Parental Alienation

Approximately 150 children per year are either taken out of Australia to New Zealand, UK, US, Netherlands, and other countries (76 signatory countries in total) that are signatories to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, or taken from these countries to Australia.

It is not known how many other children are taken to or from Australia to or from other non-signatory countries each year.

Child Abductions
2005-06: 137 abductions, involving 75 applications for the return of children abducted from Australia, 62 for children abducted from another Hague Convention country into Australia.

Of the applications:
Total children returned: 55
Applications rejected: 9
Applications withdrawn: 15
Still pending: 58

Countries Involved 2005-06

New Zealand: 30 children abducted from NZ into Australia, 24 abducted to NZ
UK: 7 abducted into Australia, 18 abducted to UK
US: 7 abducted into Australia, 11 abducted to US
Netherlands: 3 abducted into Australia, 3 to Netherlands

Source: Attorney-General's Department
Cited in ‘Parents now more likely to flee with kids’ Liz Porter The Age (Melbourne) 09 July 2006
www.theage.com.au/news/national/parents-now-more-likely-to-flee-with-kids/2006/07/08/1152240539921.htm

Physical abuse of children

2007-02-25T22:32:00.000-08:00

5. Physical abuse of children

An average of 25 children were killed each year by their parents or step-parents in the period 01 July 1989 – 30 June 2002. The risk of death from a parent or step-parent is similar for boys and girls. In this period, fathers and step-fathers were responsible for 63% of all filicides according to the report Family Homicide in Australia. [However, the graph in Fig 2 of the report suggests that this figure is closer to 50%].

Mothers and step-mothers were slightly more responsible than fathers and step-fathers for killing their children for children under the age of 15yrs [eg 55% ?].

Family Homicide in Australia, Australian Institute of Criminology, Jenny Mouzos, Catherine Rushforth, 12-14 Feb 2003.

Child homicide rates 1989-1999 [note, all child homicide, no just filicide]
(rate per 100,000 relevant population)

male perp. female perpetrator
less than 1yr 2.8 2.55
1-4yrs 1.05 1.25
5-9yrs 0.55 0.52
10-14yrs 0.48 0.43
15-17yrs 1.7 1.1

Australian Institute of Criminology, 2000, Jenny Mouzos

Solved Child Homicides (under 18yrs) in 2001 in Canada

Total Family Child Homicides 43 62%
Total fathers 20 29%
Biological father 16 23%
Step-father 4 6%
Total mothers 17 25%
Biological mother 16 23%
Step-mother 1 1%
Other family 6 8%
Total non-family 26 38%

“Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2003” Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
Catalogue no. 85-224-XIE. Ministry of Industry, June 2003. Chapter 3 (Kathy Au Coin).

Even though more children live with their biological father than step-father, this data does not support the contention that children are more likely to be killed by their step-father than their biological father.

Here, the total number of filicides was the same for biological fathers and biological mothers.

Given that it is likely that a number of filicides by fathers follow family separation and prejudiced Orders by the Family Court system, when these filicides are treated separately (ie some of them may be preventable given a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time), mothers may generally be more likely to commit filicide. (It can also be argued that this is because they spend more time with their children).

Key observations of the Dewar Research 2004 which reviewed studies in

· A parent is the principal suspect/perpetrator in 50% to 70% of all family
child homicides

· Male parents are responsible for about two thirds of family child homicides
and female parents about one third

· Biological fathers are responsible for about 55% of murders of their own
offspring and biological mothers about 45%

· Mothers are responsible for the majority of infant deaths

· A substantial number of filicides occur following parental separation,
primarily by fathers: of these, a substantial proportion then commit suicide
and a further significant proportion require psychiatric services

· Male parents who kill their children are generally treated more harshly and
unsympathetically by the legal process than female parents: fathers are
more likely than mothers to be charged with murder than manslaughter,
and more fathers than mothers convicted of manslaughter are imprisoned;
convicted mothers are more likely than fathers to be hospitalised or treated
rather than imprisoned.

Child Homicide – Review of Statistics and Studies compiled by David J Yarwood on behalf of Dewar Research www.dewar4research.org June 2004

A study of family homicides in 1994 in British Columbia by the British Columbia Institute
Against Family Violence (BCIFV) found that about one third of filicides occurred following
parental separation. Filicide committed following parental separation was primarily committed by fathers or those acting in their place.

“Overview of Family Violence”. BC Institute Against Family Violence, Canada 2000. Chapter 4 Familial
Homicide.

In Australia data from the National Homicide Monitoring Program for the period July 1989
to December 1993 revealed that there were 126 children homicide victims under age 11 in
the period. Of the 123 children with known details, 43 (35%) died as a consequence of family separation and fathers were the killers. 17 of the 28 family dispute incidents resulting in the deaths of these 43 children
also involved the suicide of the father.

Strang, Heather. Children as Victims of Homicide. Australian Institute of Criminology. Trends
and issues in crime and criminal justice, No.53. Canberra, March 1996.

This suggests that about 11 children a year are murdered by fathers as a result of family separation. How many of these murders (and murder-suicides) could be avoided by a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time ?

Women’s groups may argue that lives of children saved by a policy of Presumption of Equal Parenting Time may be negated by an increase in children murdered by violent fathers who have been given greater access to their children as a result of the policy.

Violence of parents towards their children

In the United States in 2004 it is documented that children were killed twice as often by their mothers as by their fathers. There is no reason to believe this is not the pattern generally.
Table 4-5 Perpetrator Relationships of Fatalities in the United States, 2004Child Maltreatment 2004Child Fatalities Number % Mother Only 307 31.3Father Only 141 14.4Mother and Father 201 20.5Mother and Other 91 9.3
Father and Other 12 1.2
Female Partner of Parent 1 0.1Male Partner of Parent 32 3.3Other 84 8.4
Unknown or Missing 102 10.4
Total 981 98.9 (rounding)
Source:
CAF (Admin. for Children and Families)
Based on data from 32 States.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table4_5.htm
US Dept. of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families

There is an argument that because women on average spend more time with their children they are more likely to murder or accidentally kill their children. This study does not distinguish between murder and manslaughter, and it is unclear to what extent, if at all, it includes accidental death.

Sexual Abuse of Children

2007-02-25T22:30:00.001-08:00

4. Sexual abuse of children

Child sexual abuse is any act, by an adult, involving a child under the age of 15 years in sexual activity.

Women were more likely to have been sexually abused than men. Before the age of 15, 12% (956,600) of women had been sexually abused compared to 4.5% (337,400) of men.

(This does not give any idea of the ratio of perpetrators of sexual abuse).

Personal Safety Survey, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4906.0Main%20Features12005%20(Reissue)?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4906.0&issue=2005%20(Reissue)&num=&view=

Research overseas has estimated that 20% of sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by women according to psychologist Dr Rebecca Deering, of Melbourne's Deakin University, who studied the issue of sexual abuse as part of her PhD.

Deering says "People spoke about having told someone earlier on in their lives and having either been mocked and denied that it was anything serious, or disbelieved."

Source:
“Sex abuse by women 'ignored'” Janelle Miles The Australian 02 May 2006
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19002872-1702,00.html

Note that it is necessary to look at definitions of sexual abuse of children. A sexual relation with a teenager under the age of consent would be included in the statistics. The age of consent varies amongst countries, eg 14 yrs and 16 yrs. Consensual sexual relations between a girl (or boy) of 15 yrs and 10 months and a boy (or girl) of 16yrs and five months could be regarded as sexual abuse if it was brought to the notice of authorities.

However, since these factors would apply to both genders, one would expect that they would cancel out.

Another factor is the degree to which reported incidences of child sexual abuse by women are ignored and thus not included in statistics, and whether this is taken into account when making the 20% estimate.

Domestic Violence

2007-02-25T22:27:00.000-08:00

3. Domestic Violence

Rates of physical violence for people over 18 yrs in Australia

PSS 2005 NCSS 2005 GSS 2002
Males 10.4% 4.9% 10.9%
Females 4.7% 4.0% 7.2%
People 7.5% 4.4% 9.0%

PSS – Personal Safety Survey
NCSS – National Crime and Safety Survey
GSS – General Safety Survey

The differences are attributable to methodological and procedural factors, context effects (preceding questions influence
responses to subsequent questions) and question wording. For example, the 2005 PSS asked about the most recent incident of sexual assault and sexual threat and then respondents were instructed to exclude any incidents they had already reported when reporting any incidents of physical assault and physical threat, whereas the GSS only asked about physical assaults and threats. It is possible an incident that may have been reported as sexual assault in the PSS would have been included as a physical assault in the GSS.

Personal Safety Survey, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005, p28
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4906.0.55.0032005?OpenDocument

Women who in the last 12 months experienced:
2005 1996
violence 5.8% 7.1%
physical violence 4.7% 5.9%
sexual violence 1.6%
(both sexual and non-sexual physical violence 0.5%)
physical assault 3.1% 5.0%
threat or attempt of physical violence 2.1%
(both physical violence and threat/attempt 0.5%)
sexual assault 1.3%
threat or attempt of sexual assault 0.5%
(both sexual assault and threat/attempt 0.2%)

Men who in the last 12 months experienced:
violence 10.8%
physical violence 10.4%
sexual violence 0.6%
(both sexual and non-sexual physical violence 0.2%)
physical assault 6.5%
threat or attempt of physical assault 5.3%
(both physical violence and threat/attempt 1.4%)
sexual assault 0.6%
threat or attempt of sexual assault 0.1%
(both sexual assault and threat/attempt 0.1%)

Note: Violence = assault + threat and/or attempt at assault

People may have experienced violence more than once on the past 12 months, and so the incidence of violence would be higher.

Personal Safety Survey, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4906.0.55.0032005?OpenDocument

It appears the incidence of physical assault against women may have decreased by as much as 40% in the period 1996-2005. This is great news. How about the incidence of violence against men ?

Physical Assault

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.

This data could vary somewhat depending on statistics of gay relationships and partner violence within those relationships. It is said that partner violence is greatest between lesbian couples.

Also it is suggested that most partner violence involves both couples. However, the above data would contradict this assertion (ie even if there were no examples of women assaulting male partners without male partner retaliation, the above data would indicate about 55% of couples would consist of 55% of men assaulting women without retaliation from the female.

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.

There is likely to have been a greater proportion of women assaulted by unknown male perpetrators entering the home, than men assaulted by female perpetrators entering the home. This implies the ratio of men assaulting women in the home compared to women assaulting men would be closer than 33:67 (eg possibly 40:60 ?)

Of 40,400 of women who were assaulted by a female perpetrator, 25,300 (38%) occurred in a home and 15,100 (22.7%) occurred at licensed premises.

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

During the 12 months prior to the survey 1.6% (126,100) of women and 0.6% (46,700) of men experienced an incident of sexual violence.

Of the women who experienced sexual violence 81% (101,600) experienced an incident of sexual assault and 28% (34,900) experienced a threat of sexual assault.

22% (22,100) of women had experienced sexual assault by a stranger in the most recent incident, 21% (21,500) by a previous partner, 39% (39,700) by a family member or friend and 32% (32,500) by an other known person.

In the 12 months prior to the survey, 0.6% (42,300) of men reported experiencing sexual assault.
44% (18,500) had experienced sexual assault by a family member or friend in the most recent incident, 35% (14,900) by an other known person, and 33% (13,900) by a stranger

Since the age of 15, 5.5% (408,100) of men reported experiencing sexual violence compared to 19% (1,469,500) of women.

Since the age of 15, 0.9% (68,100) of men and 2.1% (160,100) of women experienced current partner violence. This implies a ratio of 29:71

10% (16,100) of women who had experienced violence by their current partner had a violence order issued against their current partner as a result of the violence. Of those women who had violence orders issued, 20% (3,200) reported that violence still occurred.

How many men take out violence orders ? How many of those are contravened ?

49% (111,700) of men and women who experienced violence by a current partner reported that they had children in their care at some time during the relationship. An estimated 27% (60,700) said that these children had witnessed the violence.

The proportion of women and men who experienced physical abuse before the age of 15 was 10% (779,500) and 9.4% (702,400) respectively.

Women were more likely to have been sexually abused than men. Before the age of 15, 12% (956,600) of women had been sexually abused compared to 4.5% (337,400) of men.

Personal Safety Survey, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4906.0Main%20Features12005%20(Reissue)?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4906.0&issue=2005%20(Reissue)&num=&view=

It is clear that female perpetration of domestic violence is not insignificant and likely to be about one third. The common myth is that when women do commit domestic violence, they are driven to it following chronic violence and psychological oppression etc. This myth needs to be tested, as does the rate of psychological and emotional violence perpetrated by both men and women and the relationship of this to physical violence.

Since female perpetration of domestic violence is significant - an estimated 33% - the Domestic Violence campaigns of 2005-06 produced by the Office for the Status of Women which portrays ALL perpetrators as men as ALL victims as women, is biased, sexist and discriminating against men.

Moreover it erodes the self-esteem of men and risks leading to an increase of violent behaviour by men ! Domestic violence has many forms and must be dealt with not as a blame game but a community problem where we can find creative solutions.

Scottish Study
The vast majority of incidents reported to the Scottish Police are recorded as incidents involving male perpetrators abusing female victims. As Table 2.1 reveals, the police data suggest that there was little change in the ratios of male to female victims and perpetrators in the last two years in question.

Table 2.1: Incidents of domestic abuse in terms of the sex of the victim and
Perpetrator

Victim / Perpetrator Percentage of all incidents of domestic abuse
1999 2000
Female / Male 92.3 92.1
Male / Female 7.0 7.2
Male / Male 0.4 0.4
Female / Female 0.3 0.3
TOTAL 100.0 100.0

Domestic Abuse Against Men in Scotland David Gadd, Stephen Farrall, Damian Dallimore
and Nancy Lombard, Department of Criminology, Keele University, Scottish Executive Central Research Unit
2002 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/green/dvam.pdf

It is often argued by men’s groups that data based on police reports give an inaccurate ratio of domestic violence between men and women, because men are more reluctant to report such incidents to police for a variety of reasons. Also they argue, women often make false claims in order to obtain a domestic violence restraining order, either to alienate a father from his children and/or to obtain an advantage in Family Court proceedings.

Suicide, homicide and the Family Court system

2007-02-25T22:26:00.000-08:00

2. Suicide, Homicide and the Family Court system and Child Support Agency in Australia

Male suicide rates in Australia each year.
Male suicide rates with a link to family separation each year.
Of these (2.) male suicide rates where the Family Court process was seen as a major factor in suicide each year.
Of these (2.) male suicide rates where the Child Support Agency was seen as a major factor in suicide each year.
Female suicide rates in Australia each year.
Female suicide rates with a link to family separation each year.
Of these (5.) female suicide rates where the Family Court process was seen as a major factor in suicide each year.
Of these (5.) female suicide rates where the Child Support Agency was seen as a major factor in suicide each year.

To date we know of only one small survey which has tried to gauge the extent of a link between male suicide and we are attempting to obtain results of this study. Considering the increasing rates of male suicide and the resolution of the National Forum on Men and Suicide in Sydney 02 May 2006 to stamp out male suicide by 2030 (The Australian, 04 May 2006 “Bid to stamp out male suicide by 2030” source AAP http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19014598-29277,00.html ) one would think that a study to gauge the relative importance of family separation and the influence of the Family Court system and the Child Support Agency in suicide rates (and homicide rates) would be a priority.

Male and Female Suicides in Australia
Note – these statistics have been estimated from a graph so they are accurate +/- 20.

Male % Female % Total
1994 1800 80.0 450 20.0 2250
1995 1875 79.3 490 20.7 2365
1996 1950 80.9 460 19.1 2410
1997 2120 77.9 600 22.1 2720
1998 2125 79.4 550 20.6 2675
1999 2000 80.2 495 19.8 2495
2000 1875 78.9 500 21.1 2375
2001 1950 79.3 510 20.7 2460
2002 1775 78.0 500 22.0 2275
2003 1750 78.0 495 22.0 2245
2004 1650 78.6 450 21.4 2100

Source:
Australian Bureau of Statistics
3309.0 - Suicides, Australia, 1994 to 2004
Latest ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 14/03/2006
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/7a5013a2773b6167ca2570a6008230c8!OpenDocument

The trend in suicide for both men and women is decreasing since a peak in the late nineties. Between 4-5 men suicide each day on average in Australia. It is difficult to imagine how many suicides have the Family Court system and/or the Child Support Agency as a significant factor. It could be as high as one suicide per day, or even higher.

Homicide rates in Australia each year.
Of these (1.) the number with a link to family separation.
Of these (2.) the total for males.
Of these (3.) the number with a causal link to the Family Court system.
Of these (3.) the number with a causal link to the Child Support Agency.
Of these (2.) the total for females.
Of these (6.) the number with a causal link to the Family Court system.
Of these (6.) the number with a causal link to the Child Support Agency.

Residency outcomes following separation in Australia

2007-02-25T22:23:00.000-08:00

1. Residency outcomes following separation in Australia

We seek to identify statistics which document

1. Number of incidences of separation in Australia for each year
2. Of these, (1.) the number of incidences of separation involving children
3. Of these, (2.) the percentage resolved without need to go to the Family Court system in
Australia.
4. Of these, (3.) the percentage with an Equal Residency outcome.
5. Of those that go to the Family Court system in Australia, the percentage where both parents
seek Equal Residency (or more).
6. Of those that go to the Family Court system in Australia, the percentage which result in
6.1 Equal Residency 182/3 nights
6.2 Shared Residency 146-219 nights but excluding Equal Residency 182/3
nights
6.3 Major Residency 220-255 nights for the father
6.4 Sole Residency 256+ nights for the father
6.5 Substantial Residency 110-145 nights for the father
6.6 Less Residency 0-109 nights for the father
7. Of those that go to the Family Court system in Australia, the percentage involving chronic domestic violence [and citing gender(s) of the perpetrator(s) ]
8. Of those that go to the Family Court system in Australia, the percentage involving physical or sexual abuse toward the child(ren) [and citing gender(s) of the perpetrator(s) ]

We have contacted both the Family Court of Australia and the Attorney General’s Dept. and neither has been able to provide these statistics. Considering that the Federal Government has promised better outcomes for children and fathers in the new system of Family Relationship Centres (FRCs), one would expect that such statistics would be fundamental in assessing one aspect of the success of the FRCs.

Trend away from ‘Joint Residence’ ?

Of all Family Court system cases which reach the stage of a Final Hearing and Final Orders, the frequency of handing down 'Joint Residence' had dropped from 5.1% in 1994-95 to 2.5% in 2000-01.

Source:
"Family Court of Australia, Residence and Contact orders - Any Application, For children by outcome 1994-95 to 2000-01"
www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/connect/www/home/about/business_administration/statistics/statistics_public_interest/

Here, 'Joint Residence' includes Equal Parenting but also all other variations of Joint Residence - and it offers no precise definition for this (presumably anything greater than every second weekend contact). The frequency of handing down Equal Parenting, or Equal Residency is likely to be a small fraction of 2.5% !

We have not been able to obtain any more recent statistics.

Family Court outcomes.

In FY2002-03
number of consent applications 11,607
number of applications for Final Orders 16,695
number of parenting and other matters 1,115

Applications for Final Orders by Primary Issue FY 2002-03
Children and financial issues 12.2%
Children's issues 53.6%
Financial issues 28.5%
Procedural issues 1.0%

Survival Pattern of Applications FY 2000-01
Applications initiated 100%
Case conference / directions hearing 90%
Mediation / conciliation events 58%
Pre-hearing conference 36%
Trial preparation 21%
Trial hearing commenced 13%
Case heard to judgment 6%

Source:
"Submission of Family Court of Australia, Part B Statistical Analysis and Part C Full Court Analysis, Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, Inquiry Into Joint Custody Arrangements in the Event of Separation." Family Court of Australia, 16 Oct 2003
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/resources/file/eb000240ff79dc9/iijca2.pdf

We presume the Family Court is suggesting that only 6% of all applications for Final Orders - eg approx 16,695 - went to a Final Hearing where Final Orders were handed down. That is, about 1000 cases a year go to the Final Hearing where Final Orders were handed down.

The argument that only 6% go to a Final Hearing is used frequently by opponents of Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, suggesting that these are mostly the hardcore cases involving violent and abusive men.

But this report states that "Family Violence Events" were a ‘moderate’ or ‘high importance’ factor taken into consideration in only 24.2% of Final Hearing cases.

The report concludes:

"Despite criticisms that the Court is biased towards mothers and against fathers when residence of children is an issue, that data show that parents themselves are more likely to agree that the primary carer after separation should be the mother than is the Court to order such an outcome. This suggests that the reasons for the so-called 'mother preference' is societal rather than specific to the Court - or the Family Law Act.

The frequency with which allegations of child abuse are not only alleged but are considered by judges to be relevant to children's best interests also indicate how perilous are the lives of many parents whose parenting arrangements come before the Court".

The logic of the author is flawed because they apparently have not considered such factors as:

1. fathers may surrender to unfair access terms because they are advised or otherwise know their chances of achieving a better outcome in the Family Court are minimal, and cannot justify or afford to spend more on legal fees.
2. cases that are not voluntarily agreed on are more likely to be cases where fathers want Equal Residency and so we should expect a far higher incidence of Equal Residency outcomes in the Family Court if it were not biased.

The implication of the last paragraph is that all the perpetrators of child abuse are male (because of its juxtaposition with criticism of bias against fathers). Of the cases where family violence events where of moderate or high importance (24.2% of Final Hearings) it is not specified how many involve violence or sexual abuse against the children, (and of these, what percentage was perpetrated by mothers and what percentage by fathers), and how many related to violence between the parents, and of these, perpetrated by the man, the woman or both.

Incidence of separation (marriage and de facto)

Divorces involving children
Of the total number of divorces each year, the number of divorces involving children under the age of 18 has decreased slightly from 52.4% in 1994 to 49.8% in 2004.

No. of divorces No. of children
involving children involved in these divorces.
1984 26,274 50,713
1994 25,316 47,537
1999 28,331 53,444
2000 26,295 49,612
2001 28,345 53,396
2002 26,820 50,509
2003 26,637 49,850
2004 26,289 46,260

Source:
Australian Bureau of Statistics
“Divorces, Australia” (cat. no. 3307.0.55.001)
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyTopic/F356DBB7EA7A96EECA256F10007B6B1A?OpenDocument

The divorce rate obviously does not include the rate of separation of de facto couples.

Dads' Data

2007-02-25T22:18:00.000-08:00

I am going to post six sections of the document Dads' Data in the next six posts.

The document is a work in progress.

Geoff

Dads’ Data
Men’s Data Research Group

This booklet has been compiled to provide hard statistics and quality studies relating to the issue of reform of the Family Court system in Australia, and the establishment of a policy of Rebuttable Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.

It is a document in progress and will be updated as new statistics and studies are made available to us.

Edition 4 26 Feb 2007

1. Residency outcomes following separation in Australia
2. Suicide, Homicide and the Family Court system…
3. Domestic violence
4. Sexual abuse of children
5. Physical abuse of children
6. Parental alienation

More on the Kangaroo Court and Child Support

2007-02-19T04:08:00.000-08:00

Forget about Child Support
I believe one of the reasons my ex-partner wishes me to have minimal time with my son is simply as a punishment, an act of malice. I believe a further reason is that the more contact I have with my son, the less Child Support I am required to pay her. Worse, if we had Equal Residency, which I was seeking, my ex-partner may have to pay me Child Support (due to her higher income).

I do not wish to receive any Child Support from my ex-partner (unlike my ex-partner, who has complained I am not giving enough to her). I would like to sign a Parenting Agreement stating that if we had Equal Residency, neither of us would seek Child Support from the other. However, as my ex-partner knows, such a condition would not be recognised by the Family Court. So I have no way to guarantee my ex-partner that I would not claim Child Support (as she is currently doing), whereupon I would be able to remove one of the barriers to her agreeing to Equal Residency. This is another example of the counter–productive nature of Family Court policy.

Kangaroo Court
My ex-partner was advised by her solicitor as early as October 2002 that she would most likely gain 70% of the assets if she went to Court. She won 68% of the assets. After an immense amount of time was spent by both parties producing documents demonstrating financial contributions to the relationship and including, for example, supermarket dockets from four years prior, and unstamped bank deposit slips, and after simply ignoring much of that documentation and giving an unjustified discretionary ‘global assessment’ it seems that the final outcome was in fact a virtual foregone conclusion. It appears that this was a Kangaroo Court.

Given that the mother was working fulltime and was on call some evenings and weekends while the father was available to look after the child fulltime if necessary; given that the father already had sole custody of the child’s half-sister, and given that the Child Psychologist had presented a three stage plan of increased contact with the father (to six days and four nights a fortnight) on the basis of a positive Family Report, it seems as though the judge reluctantly conceded the Child Psychologist’s recommendations.

Had I not had these exceptional circumstances in my favour I feel sure the judge would have ordered the standard second weekend contact, plus the cynical three hours contact after school one day a week which judges now add in the face of mounting evidence of the damage to children from being alienated from a parent (and despite the evidence that children respond better to block contact, not fragmented contact).

How can you split a week ?
To my constant amazement, I was asked by Family Court officials on a number of occasions – how did I think Equal Residency could work since my son was too young to be away from a parent (read ‘mother’) for a whole week. And how can you divide a week in half ? (there being an odd number of days in a week).

Well couples do this all the time, the most obvious plan being that you alternate four days (father) and three days (mother), and then three days (father) and four (mother).

You are left with the feeling that the culture of the Family Court is unimaginative, devoid of lateral thinking, and with an inability to think outside the square.

Do you actually believe the Family Court amplifies conflict?
During the Final Hearing I argued that it would be better to have Final Orders that could give finality to the Family Court process rather than orders which would require us, the parents, to return to the Court two years later, because the adversarial Family Court process amplifies conflict, and we need to resolve conflict. Justice Carmody was unable to fathom this argument. “Do you mean to say that if two people come to the Family Court and there is no conflict between them then the court will create conflict ?” he asked. I responded “If two people come to the Family Court it usually means that there is already conflict between them. But the way the Family Court operates means that solicitors will search for ammunition, and that there will be more accusations and counter-accusations as a result”. It seemed he just could not comprehend what was blatantly obvious to me from my own experience of the Family Court system. It is structured in ways which amplify and generate conflict.

This obvious fact is extremely serious because one of the most important factors in a child’s life is some sort of reconciliation, forgiveness, cooperation and harmony between the separated parents to heal the huge rift of divided loyalties and love the child has for both parents. The dynamics of the Family Court system together with the Family Law Industry tend to amplify conflict and can produce resentment meaning there is never any sort of reconciliation between the parents leaving many children emotionally scarred for life.

The new Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) are an admission and recognition that the current adversarial system is fundamentally flawed. But the FRCs will not work because the Family Court’s quirky policies and gender-biased laws have not changed.

Afterword
It has been said that men often have trouble letting go of issues after divorce, and they harbour resentment for years even to the point of obsession, unable to move on. My detailed account above could be interpreted in this light.

I therefore hasten to assure the reader that though I am extremely disappointed with the Family Court system and the Family Law industry, and though I have become a committed activist as a result of my experience (which I know is not nearly as unjust and outrageous as other cases I have come to learn about), I have indeed moved on. I am very happy with my life, and I have a relatively positive engagement with my ex-partner with regards to our son, (who thankfully has been protected from much of the pain of the separation and anguish of the Family Court process).

In the same way that any political activist must fight for justice and a more enlightened system - for years if not decades, I too must keep arguing my case along with thousands of other activists here in Australia. So please consider this before reducing and relegating my account to some negative male stereotype.

Geoff.

sloppy judgment

2007-02-19T04:06:00.000-08:00

The judgment of Justice Carmody
In his Contact Orders, Justice Carmody followed the recommendations of the Family Court Child Psychologist. He was only going to make orders until the beginning of 2007 which would have meant both the father (me) and the mother would be posturing for the next two years preparing for the next round in the Court. The judge had given me some excerpts from the Family Law Act to read during the lunch break. One part of the Act is a recommendation - when making orders, consider orders which minimise the need to return to Court. I pointed this out to the judge. Justice Carmody seemed irritated. However, in his Final Orders he put in a fourth contact stage beginning in 2007 and continuing indefinitely.

I pointed out to the judge that while stages one to three were progressively increasing contact, his stage four would reduce contact and that there was no apparent logic in this. Justice Carmody responded that when a child starts school, both parents have less time. I responded that even taking this into account, the child would have less percentage contact with the father. The judge replied irritably “well I'm not going to change it now !” Easy for him to dismiss but his sloppy decisions can have a major impact on our lives and relationships for the next decade or more.

We were handed a copy of the Orders for perusal. Eddy Lago, solicitor for the mother, approached the father after about five minutes saying, 'Well we're finished. Are you finished ? We should go back in.' He was obviously pressuring me to agree. However, I took my time reading over the Orders.

I noticed that the judge had deviated from the recommendations of the Child Psychologist by ordering pick up at 7.30pm rather than 7.30am. The judge, again irritable, remarked that that was just a 'typo.' 'Typo' it might have been, but had I not pointed it out at that moment it most likely would have become irrevocable.

Child Psychologist lacks courage

2007-02-19T04:03:00.000-08:00

“I expect by then you two will be able to sort things out yourselves”.
The Family Report was based on meetings of the Family Court Child Psychologist, Marilyn Venus, and the mother, and then the father. My 14yr old daughter was also required for an interview, though the child's maternal grandmother who was looking after my son most of the time while the mother was working, was not required to be interviewed.

The Child Psychologist sat in the corner of a small room observing and taking notes while my son and I 'interacted'. Similarly this took place with the mother. This is such an unnatural situation in which to ‘objectively’ observe ‘typical behaviour’ between a child and a parent, and yet so much hangs in the balance with this half hour 'observation'. One can easily walk along a plank located one metre above the ground, but suspend the same plank between two buildings 100m above the ground and the result is quite different.

Nevertheless, the interviews and observations went smoothly. In the Family Report, the Child Psychologist Marilyn Venus recommended a three stage increase in contact with the father. Marilyn Venus said to me following the release of the report “I didn't go all the way to Equal Residency because I felt I'd intervened enough, and I thought that by the time he [our son] goes to school, I expect you two will be able to sort things out for yourselves.” What a huge ill-founded assumption this was considering the mother was willing to fabricate sexual abuse allegations amongst other blatant untruths in her Affidavits to minimise my contact with my son.

It also puts all the onus on me to achieve reconciliation. Why ?

I asked the Child Psychologist why the Family Court granted Equal Residency in so few cases. She said “You have no idea of some of the fathers we have come through here.” “Are so many of them so terrible ?” I asked. “Oh no, most of them are very good fathers” she responded. “So why is Equal Residency granted in less than 5% of cases ?” I continued. The Family Court Child Psychologist, Marilyn Venus, did not respond. She looked at her notes, shuffled her papers and changed the subject.

More Kangaroo Court stuff

2007-02-19T04:01:00.000-08:00

Awarding costs against the Respondent
Justice Carmody ordered the Respondent (ie me) to pay $5,000 towards the legal fees of the Applicant. This was despite the fact that:

1. I had made written offers for settlement and the mother had made none.

2. Residency orders were closer to what I had sought than what the mother had sought.

3. that generally Respondents do not have to pay legal fees of the Applicant.

Eddy Lago, solicitor for the Applicant had argued that I, the Respondent, had drawn things out so the two-day Final Hearing was longer than it needed to be. I pointed out that cross-examination of the father (me) by the mother's barrister was significantly longer than my cross-examination of the mother.

I rang up to find about the procedure for appealing against these costs. I was told that I would need transcripts of the Final Hearing which would cost me about $3,000 ! I was also told by the Family Court in Brisbane that a board of Family Court judges would hear the Appeal and that “Appeals are rarely successful because the judge’s decision is usually discretionary, and other judges do not like to overturn discretionary decisions.”

Sort it out yourself
In my Orders Sought I asked that pick-ups and drop-offs of the child be reciprocated - ie each parent do their own pick-ups such that drop-offs are eliminated. Justice Carmody didn't see this as a reasonable request and ordered that the father do all pick-ups and drop-offs.

I asked that the mother use the child's surname as described on his birth certificate (the father's surname) rather than changing it to her own, to avoid confusion as to which name our son would be listed under at school, with Medicare etc etc. Justice Carmody suggested that this was one issue that in the new spirit of cooperation, the father and mother could resolve amongst themselves. One year later this issue has not been resolved. Surely the Court is there to make decisions when no agreement can be reached by the parties.

An easy obvious fair general policy solution would be for boys to take the surname of their father and girls to take the surname of their mother.

Intimidation by the barrister

2007-02-19T03:59:00.000-08:00

“WHEN I STAND YOU SIT !”
During the Final Hearing I was not reacting quickly enough - that is immediately resuming my seat the moment the mother's barrister, Josephine Willis, stood up and interjected. After a couple of reminders, Josephine Willis turned to the me, and at a distance of approximately 50cm, shouted loudly in my face “WHEN I STAND YOU SIT ! YOU GOT THAT ?! WHEN I STAND YOU SIT !” I was speechless and I did not respond. Rather I later approached the barrister Josephine Willis and calmly explained that as I had never been in court before, much less self-represented, I would try to remember as best I could, but that I may forget again.

It was obvious that the behaviour of the barrister Josephine Willis was deliberately provocative, and was a form intimidation. It was like the provocative behaviour of the solicitor Eddy Lago. Justice Carmody witnessed this aggressive outburst but said nothing.

The truth is that it would not be unreasonable for a person to respond aggressively to such an outburst. Such provocative behaviour by solicitors and barristers (particularly toward self-representing litigants) should be condemned by the Court, rather than be accepted as a fair tactic.

Solicitor Eddy Lago was also present at the Final Hearing. During the barrister’s cross examination of me, he sat staring at me with a piercing look as if to say “how could you have done this ?” More psychological intimidation. Finally I remarked “What is this Eddy ? Is it a staring contest ?” He gave a half smile, turned his eyes away momentarily before resuming his piercing stare.

There were other examples of psychological intimidation which I will not go into here. Perhaps one should just shrug this off as courtroom theatrics? I say psychological intimidation is regarded as a form of Domestic Violence, and it should not be tolerated when solicitors and barristers do it also.

"In the Child's Best Interests"

2007-02-19T03:57:00.009-08:00

“In the Child’s Best Interests”
Even though the mother works fulltime and is on call some nights and weekends, and even though the father was available to care for the child any time and all the time, and even though the child had a sibling at the father's home, it was deemed in the child's best interest to locate the child with the mother.

One of the justifications of the Family Court giving sole residency to mothers has been that the father is working full time and the mother is available to look after the child. Here we see the double standard of the Family Court and the bias against fathers in action.

2007-02-19T03:57:00.007-08:00

“In the Child’s Best Interests”
Even though the mother works fulltime and is on call some nights and weekends, and even though the father was available to care for the child any time and all the time, and even though the child had a sibling at the father's home, it was deemed in the child's best interest to locate the child with the mother.

One of the justifications of the Family Court giving sole residency to mothers has been that the father is working full time and the mother is available to look after the child. Here we see the double standard of the Family Court and the bias against fathers in action.

2007-02-19T03:57:00.005-08:00

2007-02-19T03:57:00.003-08:00

2007-02-19T03:57:00.001-08:00

Allegations of sexual abuse

2007-02-19T03:55:00.000-08:00

Allegations of sexual abuse
The Affidavits of the my ex-partner and her mother contained allegations (strong insinuations) of sexual abuse by me toward my son. The insinuated allegations are false. Having such false allegations made against you is extremely distressing.

In my case I was very lucky to be able to demonstrate they were false. I imagine in many other cases fathers are not so fortunate. This is not to say that real cases of child abuse do not occur (by both mothers and fathers). However, we just tend to ignore the problem of mothers making false allegations with impunity.

My ex-partner agreed, during my cross-examination of her, that her allegations were very serious. I then asked why she had not raised these serious matters during her interview with the Child Psychologist who was writing the Family Report. She replied that she didn’t have enough time. I held up a copy of the Family Report which showed that the interview had lasted 1hr 45 mins. I would have pressured her to admit that she had fabricated the allegations except I was concerned the judge might think I was bullying her as it was already plain to everybody by her blushing and body language etc that she had lied, and in fact committed perjury. When the maternal grandmother later, in a rambling incoherent response to a question, began talking about sticking pencils up the bottom, the judge, thankfully, demanded that she only speak to what was in her Affidavit.

The judge, however, made no comment to my ex-partner for having committed perjury – not even a slap on the wrist.

I must say here that I am grateful that the Child Psychologist, Marilyn Venus, (a committed feminist), had obviously not prompted my ex-partner during the Family Report interview, or asked leading questions such as “have you ever been concerned about the father’s behaviour toward the child ?” I imagine the Child Psychologist had read the Affidavits prior to the interview. It shows that there does exist some level of integrity sometimes.

At this point I should also say that staff at the office counter of the Family Court (Cairns) were always friendly, patient, and made an effort to be helpful.

Kangaroo Court and judge's 'discretion'

2007-02-19T03:54:00.000-08:00

Final Hearing – father “inexperienced”
Justice Carmody comes across as reasonable and even-handed. He gave the impression that he made allowances for the fact that I was self-representing.

However, Justice Carmody made some bizarre statements and unreasonable judgments.

He stated that the I was inexperienced as a father ! - even though I had actively brought up a 14 year old daughter and currently had fulltime care, and, as was reflected in the Family Report, she is a positive, thriving, well-adjusted teenager. In fact, I had much more experience than the mother !

“Global assessment”
In the property settlement he took into consideration dubious evidence of shopping grocery bills paid by the mother, and a scrappy and barely legible notebook of supposed expenses. He did not tally the items where a major arithmetical mistake had been made, and accepted as evidence a bank deposit slip which had been filled in but which had not been stamped or separated from the butt. It was obvious my ex-partner was desperately trying to demonstrate that she had contributed as much as I had (changing her story in the process which was evident from previous statements) which she obviously hadn’t. He ignored completely that over $5,000 had been received by the mother in Family Tax Allowances to which both parents were entitled, and that this amount should be taken into consideration when calculating who had spent what. Because I hadn’t kept shopping grocery bills from four years prior, it was assumed I hadn't bought any !

The judge did not take into his calculations my ex-partner’s superannuation because it was concluded that “it would be a long time before she would benefit from it”. I wonder if the same sort of reasoning would have been followed had the superannuation belonged to the father.

Justice Carmody awarded 68% of assets to the mother even though she had contributed only 24%. He said “This is a global assessment and I am not required to, and will not provide a breakdown for this figure.” Not even a justification for this decision was given.

False Domestic Violence Order

2007-02-19T03:52:00.002-08:00

Playing the DVO card
Having failed to get a DVO against me when my ex-partner attacked me the first time round, she succeeded in getting a DVO against me the second time, strategically just two weeks before the Final Hearing.

The incident occurred on Christmas Eve 2004 (my son was now 3yrs old). I had care of my son on Christmas Eve and I was scheduled to return my son to his mother at 6.30pm. In the afternoon I attended a Christmas party with my son (the first Christmas or New Year celebration with him since the separation in 2002). It was a big party and my son was having a lot of fun with his/our friends (big and small). There was lots of gourmet food, a dad dressed as Santa, a Christmas tree and lots of presents to open. At 8.15pm my ex-partner rang telling me I was late and demanded I return our son immediately. I told her I would be there in half an hour (ie 8.45pm), given that I would have to locate my son in the party, say goodbye to people and drive over there. At 8.30pm my ex-partner appeared, grabbed my son and began walking away. My first reaction was to walk the other way, but then I felt the need to say goodbye to my son, particularly as I was going away for two weeks.

I caught up with her and stood in front of her saying I wanted to hug my son goodbye. She attempted to go around me. I put my arms around my son to give him a hug. My ex-partner screamed for her boyfriend (6’ 3” – same height as the solicitor !) who came and grabbed me by the shirt ripping the sleeve. They walked toward the gate and I walked with them trying to talk to my son. The boyfriend said “You had better not hit me or I will take you to court.” I wasn’t threatening him in any way and thought his comment odd. I said “I am not going to hit you Gary though nothing would give me greater pleasure.” At that moment, (away from the party) he gave me a clip on the head (open palm). Surprised I said “you hit me you bastard !”. I went to give him a similar (open palm) clip on the head. He blocked it and punched me in the mouth. I retreated to the house and saw in the mirror that I had a bleeding lip.

I went away for two weeks. When I returned I was served with a summons to appear in court on a charge of Domestic Violence. No police officer had asked me what had happened. The matter had not been investigated before charges were laid. I understand this is standard practice.

I visited the Cairns Regional Domestic Violence Centre where Amanda, the executive officer there, having heard my account of the incident, advised me to “Accept the charges without admission of guilt”. She added “The charges have been brought by the Queensland Police. No one has ever won when the charges have been brought by the police.”

I was told by Amanda and others – “Don’t worry about DVO charges. They are very common and not necessarily regarded as serious.” But they should be regarded as serious shouldn’t they ? Was this just another ploy to get me to submit to and streamline a DVO production line prone to costly congestion ?

Another women’s activist argued “well [the DVO charges] stopped the violence didn’t they ?” This logic is disconcerting. If the ends justifies the means and who actually perpetrated the violence, or whether there was in fact any violence, doesn’t really matter, why not lay the DVO charges on just the women instead of just the men ? – or at least both parties…

Some weeks later I was in the court waiting room with four other men and a woman. The woman was the last to arrive. An advisor, presumably from a women’s support organisation, approached the woman and asked if she required assistance, which she did and they disappeared into another room. In the courtroom, my ex-partner also had an advisor. No such services were available to me or any of the other men.

I accepted the charges without admission of guilt. On hindsight I thoroughly regret this decision. I feel I was intimidated into doing so. I wrote the judge an eight page letter, to which she responded that I needed to approach my local MP as there was nothing she could do [about distinguishing false DVOs from legitimate ones].

How is it that I was charged with Domestic Violence because I was two hours late returning my son from a Christmas Eve party ? I had not hit anyone, I had not even threatened anyone or used abusive language (other than the mild instances described above) – yet I was hit and had my shirt ripped ? How is it that charges can be laid without even interviewing the accused beforehand ?

Interim Orders

2007-02-19T03:52:00.001-08:00

Interim Orders
At the third conciliation conference in late 2003, I asked the Deputy Registrar why I was not able to see my son on weekends, especially since he has a half-sister who was at school during week days, (and who is absent during school holidays when she visited her mother), and since my ex-partner did not allow me to have my son for overnight contact. The Deputy Registrar put this question to my ex-partner. She responded “Because I work! and weekends is the only time I can see him.” Remembering something from a previous conciliation conference the Deputy Registrar asked her “But don't you also have Thursdays off?” My ex-partner replied “Yes, but that's when I have to do my shopping !” Irritated with her response, the Deputy Registrar slammed his book closed and turned to me saying “you should seek Interim Orders.”

This was the first I had heard of “Interim Orders”.

So I spent many many hours preparing an application for Interim Orders. When the matter was finally heard the judge ruled “Because the Final Hearing is imminent, we will not change the current pattern of contact.” The judge described the Final Hearing as ‘imminent’ even though he could not set a date. The Final Hearing occurred 12 months later.

Solicitor provocation and generating income

2007-02-19T03:50:00.000-08:00

Serving documents on the solicitor
As a self-representing litigant, I went to the offices of the solicitor for the mother, Eddy Lago, to serve papers and attain a signature in the box marked 'Solicitor's signature.' The receptionist notified the solicitor that I had documents to serve, then turned to me saying “He'll be right down”. I waited 30 minutes, then ducked outside to put more money in the parking metre. When I returned, I went upstairs to the office of Eddy Lago and informed the secretary outside his office that I just needed a signature and I’d be off. She informed Eddie Lago and then told me I had to wait downstairs. I told the secretary that I would wait outside his door until I received the necessary signature. The solicitor Eddy Lago came out and shouted at me to wait downstairs. I repeated that I only needed a signature and I’d be off, and until I received the signature I’d remain exactly where I was. The solicitor went back inside his office, then reappeared about 15 minutes later saying that he'd rung the police. I told him that I wasn’t concerned about the police – that I just needed the signature and I’d be gone.

I waited for another 15 minutes outside the office of Eddy Lago, meaning I had waited one hour in total. Eddie Lago then reappeared from his office. “Come downstairs with me” he said. I went with him downstairs where I expected he would sign the Proof of Delivery form in the box marked “Solicitor’s signature”. However, solicitor Eddie Lago told me once again that the police were just about to arrive and that I had no right to abuse his staff. I responded that I had not abused any of his staff members and just required a signature, (noting to myself that the police were taking their time in arriving).

Eddy Lago then informed me that he was not required to sign the box, and that the receptionist at the front desk could do it. I told him that a lot of trouble could have been avoided had he said this in the first place.

The solicitor went upstairs and I went to the receptionist at the front counter and asked if she could sign the Proof of Delivery “signature of Solicitor” box. The receptionist knew nothing of this and rang upstairs for solicitor Eddy Lago who returned to the foyer. The solicitor Eddy Lago, about 6'3" in height, then proceeded to stand over me and shout at me telling me to leave the premises, and that he owned these premises. I told him (again) in a calm voice that I just needed a signature and I would be gone. The Office Manager appeared and asked what was going on. I explained that I just needed a signature and asked if he was able to sign. He said no. I took his name as a witness of delivery and left. I believe the solicitor Eddy Lago was again deliberately trying to provoke me so that I would take at swing at him (or some other imprudent response), and use it against me.

The solicitor, Eddy Lago, wrote an Affidavit which he submitted to the Family Court for the Final Hearing. In it he falsely describes how I was abusive to his staff.

Solicitor Eddy Lago arranges a meeting
The solicitor Eddy Lago arranged a meeting between me, himself, and my ex-partner to get me to affirm claims by my ex-partner of bills she had paid during our relationship. We examined supermarket dockets and other minor expenses totalling about $400. The meeting ran for four hours and would have cost my ex-partner about $1000 in solicitor’s fees.

False DVOs and solicitor provocation

2007-02-19T03:47:00.000-08:00

“We were just about to send out a car to pick you up”
In June 2003 I went to pick up my toddler son on my day of contact (informal agreement made in the Family Court). My ex-partner said she wanted me to come an hour later in future. I agreed saying I would return our son an hour later. My ex-partner replied that our son must return at the regular time. My ex-partner was unilaterally changing the amount of time I would spend with my son. Even so, I suggested as a compromise - ok how about half an hour later ? My ex-partner began yelling at me – “No I can't trust you, you’re not having him” and attempted to take him from my arms. I said “No, it is my day to have him” and I turned and began walking to my van about six metres away. My ex-partner began pulling at my shirt and scratching my arms. I fended her off using my palm on her forehead, but she persisted. She was between me and my van. I gave my ex-partner a single barefoot kick to the shins. My ex-partner jumped back and yelled that she was going to take out a restraining order against me.

At home, still shaking from the incident, I rang the Domestic Violence Hotline. They advised me to make a report at the local police station. When I arrived the police officer said to me “Good thing you came in because we were just about to send out a car to pick you up.”

I felt like I was the perpetrator of the violence though I knew I wasn’t. The main difference in our stories was that she said that I kicked her in the groin (rather than the shin) and she fell to the ground. Naturally, she had no grazes or any marks as her version was untrue. On the otherhand, I had significant bloody scratch marks on both my upper arms.

At this point I should have taken out a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) against my ex-partner. However, I was unfamiliar with what a DVO was. Secondly, I was being made to feel like the guilty party. Thirdly, in retrospect, taking out a DVO against my ex-partner would have worked in her favour because, as I was told in the second ‘conciliation conference’ – any signs of conflict between the parents means that Equal Residency cannot be granted.

This is one of the many ludicrous aspects of Family Court policy. This policy gives an incentive for the mother to create conflict. And it happens !

The police officer never asked me if I would like to take out a DVO against my ex-partner. He suggested instead we all have a meeting, which we did. Asked why she attacked me, my ex-partner said that I was running on wet grass with our son in my arms and that she was afraid I would slip over with him. The police officer concluded from this that I must have been running up the street (which my ex-partner agreed I was not doing). He said the story didn’t make sense because I was only a few metres from the van and there would have been no space in which to run. He said there were no grounds for a DVO to be taken out against me.

At that meeting I asked my ex-partner to detail the agreement of shared care we had reached at the Family Court a couple of weeks previously. The police officer noted it down. When my ex-partner unilaterally reduced access from three days a week to two the following week, I rang the police officer. He told me to see my solicitor as there was nothing he could do about it.

Here is another ludicrous policy of the Family Court: Residency is often based on precedent – Who has been caring for the child mostly up to this point? My ex-partner would likely have been briefed on this by her solicitor. It is likely my ex-partner was reducing my access in order to achieve a better outcome in the Final Hearing. I could have kept my son for an extra day while he was in my care but this would have created huge conflict and my son would have suffered. Residency outcomes should not be based on precedent as this policy is geared to cause conflict.

“He said it with a smile on his face”
At the second “conciliation conference”, I presented a written account of the incident where my ex-partner attempted to snatch our son from my arms and deeply scratched my upper arms, as I knew the incident would be raised.

I had no solicitor as I had decided to represent myself. *

The Deputy Registrar, Gilbert Victoire, criticised me for producing this account of events. Why ? - I do not understand to this day. He criticised me for other things such as taking my son to the police station. (As it turned out, had I not taken him to the police station he would have been with me anyway when the police car arrived to arrest me on the strength of my ex-partner’s complaint lodged by telephone…)

I believe the agenda of the Deputy Registrar was to minimise the number of cases that go to Final Hearing and that his strategy was to lean on and intimidate the weakest party. Since my ex-partner had her solicitor with her, he decided to lean on (read ‘bully’) me.

I also produced a letter from a former partner (14 years together) who stated that in all that time, I had never hit her, nor even pushed her - ie I had never been violent in any way. Eddy Lago, solicitor for the mother then said to me “How did you get that out of her ? Did you beat her up as well ?” Speechless, I turned to the Deputy Registrar, Gilbert Victoire, to see if he was going to respond to this blatant provocation. The Deputy Registrar Gilbert Victoire turned to me saying “He said it with a smile on his face” as if somehow that made it all quite acceptable.

The presumption that if there has been any violence, the male must have been the perpetrator and the female the victim, is all too prevalent in our society and it is very frustrating if you have taken care to avoid violence (the single barefoot kick to the shins was the only act of violence – though in self defence – in two relationships spanning 20 years), yet you have been the target of violence by female partners (including deep scratches, and slaps and punches to the face).

* My previous Legal Aid solicitor, Wendy Lehmann, in the first conciliation conference gathered around an office table, seemed more intent on pressuring me into submission than advocating on my behalf. (Some months later I overheard her complaining to a colleague about having to take on Legal Aid work). Solicitor Wendy Lehmann would not put forward my offer to the other party, merely present me with their position. When I put my offer forward myself to get a process of negotiation and compromise going, I was told I was out of order – only the solicitor could speak!)

How solicitors escalate conflict

2007-02-19T03:42:00.000-08:00

Family Court system of Australia is a social disaster

(I have decided to break up my first post into smaller manageable sections)

The devil is in the detail
In this account of my experience with the Family Court system in Australia, I have tried to keep to the point and be as brief as possible. Unfortunately, to give a clear picture of some of the many failures of the current system, it is necessary to describe incidents in detail. In my view, if one is not prepared to examine cases in detail, there is no point attempting to understand the problems.

Family Court - two years of anguish and escalation. Why not three months ?
After my separation and subsequent divorce, the Family Court process took two years to complete – two years of anguish which saw the relationship between myself and my ex-partner degenerate from a time when we would still hug each other, make jokes, and offer cups of tea, to one of bitter arguments and physical violence. I believe the Family Court system and Family Law industry is partly responsible for this escalation of conflict.

If nothing else, the length of a case in the Family Court is a major flaw of the system as it is bound to exacerbate the tensions and anguish. Why can’t a case be completed in three months or less ? Presumably this would be “in the child’s best interests.”

“My solicitor says I can get 70% and I want 70%”
In October 2002 I organised to meet with my ex-partner at the Dispute Resolution Centre. By my ex-partner's own account, she had contributed 45% of the assets (I maintained it was 24%). The mediators put it to her “So you would be happy with 45% ?” My ex-partner replied “No, my solicitor says I can get 70%, and I want 70%.”

This was the first of many examples of how the solicitor had managed to ‘up the ante’.

In the Family Court process there were three ‘conciliation conferences’. Solicitor for my ex-partner, Eddy Lago (Cairns), undermined chances for reconciliation at two of these three sessions. In the first session, my position was that my ex-partner had contributed 24% of the assets. Solicitor Eddy Lago, acting on behalf of my ex-partner, wanted 70%. In the spirit of negotiation I offered 35% (and was prepared to go to 50%). The solicitor facetiously responded “Ok, we want 90%” - thus swiftly and effectively ending any prospect of a negotiated settlement.

(Solicitor Eddy Lago asked me straight after that meeting what my bottom line was and I told him 50%).

My ex-partner ended up winning 68% of the assets at the Final Hearing, however 40% of this, it is estimated, was spent on the solicitor's and barrister's fees, implying that she received about 41% of the assets.

Sssh ! - parental alienation in progress

2007-02-19T03:39:00.000-08:00

I would like to make a link to a friend of mine's blogspot http://parentalalienationischildabuse.blogspot.com/

It appears that his ex-partner is actively alienating him from his son.

Her solicitor - as one might expect - appears to be aggravating the situation.