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.
Showing posts with label Family Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Family Court. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Mediator says no contact, ever, because mum doesn't want it
An acquaintance separated from his partner before the baby was born.
He arrived at the hospital to see his new born child, accompanied by his sister. He was not aggressive. He is polite, soft-spoken and well-mannered.
The mum punched him in the face. The nurse was a witness. He has suffered mild whiplash since. He hasn't asked the nurse to be a witness, but feels it very unlikely she would testify anyway. The courts give mums plenty of lee-way regarding their behaviour around the time of birth.
This acquaintance went to a mediation session at the Family Court. His ex-partner was not present in the room (possibly not present at the mediation). The (female) mediator told him quite categorically that he could expect absolutely no contact with his new born daughter "because the mother doesn't want it."
This was not - say - over the next few weeks while the mother and baby bonded. This was EVER !
He found the mediator very patronising - let's say - 'matronising'.
This acquaintance was reasonably confident going in to the Family Court process and wasn't really looking for advice. He had confidence in a system which he believed was fair and based on common sense. He came out of that mediation session shell-shocked, and immediately began visiting solicitors and groups to get advice and help make sense of what appeared to him outrageous behaviour by the mediator.
It amazes me how many people say to me "but the Family Court has all changed hasn't it ? It is all fair and equal now, no ?"
The government has done a good job of sowing deceptive information in the media to make people think things have changed. As I have said previously, one senior Family Court official said to me that the changes were merely a "repackaged brief".
It because of the lack of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, and an unwillngness to enforce orders and impose appropriate penalties (but NOT by reducing access to the children except in extreme and chronic cases where they constitute child abuse) when the mother (or father) contravenes them, that people must continually return to the court system, with all the amplification of conflict and stress this entails.
The Family Court system in Australia is ethically and philosophically bankrupt. The government should be held accountable for the damage they have done and their failure to rectify the situation. But as we know, governments are rarely held accountable except in clear cases of breaking the law (even in cases of genocide, government officials can often get away with murder).
In a true democracy, a class action suit would be brought against the government, and fathers who had had their rights abused would be compensated, and the law would be changed to a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. But the Dads Movement is not sufficiently organised, and even if they were, the government would continue to control the agenda of the courts in such a way that it would not be able to even consider such a case.
Moreover, no one talks about the rights of parents. It is politically incorrect to do so. Such rhetoric is seen as neglecting the best interests of the child, as if they were somehow mutually exclusive.
Meanwhile, radical feminists like Elspeth McInnes continue to fearmonger. For example Elspeth was quoted in a newspaper article a few days ago as saying that 66% of cases before the Family Court system involve safety issues with the children. Does this include the plethora of cases involving false or grossly exaggerated claims of domestic violence for which a DVO has been handed down whether or not the matter has even been investigated ?
In the case mentioned above, I suggest it reflects a strategy by Family Court staff to fulfill their brief of minimising the number of cases that go to trial by intimidating one of the litigants - nearly always the father, with the objective that they become demoralised and compliant with the demands of the other party - ie the mother. The Dad is more likely to be a self-represented litigant and an easier target.
I suggest the mediator is taking advantage of the fact that the medition session is not recorded and that she cannot be quoted in court proceedings.
I suggest that all mediation sessions be recorded, and that the recordings can be quoted whenever any of the participants deem appropriate. The lack of transparency aids the ongoing injustice.
The mediator mentioned above should be taken to task. I suggest that if she display this type of behaviour again, she should be sacked. But it is almost certain that she continues to behave in this way.
He arrived at the hospital to see his new born child, accompanied by his sister. He was not aggressive. He is polite, soft-spoken and well-mannered.
The mum punched him in the face. The nurse was a witness. He has suffered mild whiplash since. He hasn't asked the nurse to be a witness, but feels it very unlikely she would testify anyway. The courts give mums plenty of lee-way regarding their behaviour around the time of birth.
This acquaintance went to a mediation session at the Family Court. His ex-partner was not present in the room (possibly not present at the mediation). The (female) mediator told him quite categorically that he could expect absolutely no contact with his new born daughter "because the mother doesn't want it."
This was not - say - over the next few weeks while the mother and baby bonded. This was EVER !
He found the mediator very patronising - let's say - 'matronising'.
This acquaintance was reasonably confident going in to the Family Court process and wasn't really looking for advice. He had confidence in a system which he believed was fair and based on common sense. He came out of that mediation session shell-shocked, and immediately began visiting solicitors and groups to get advice and help make sense of what appeared to him outrageous behaviour by the mediator.
It amazes me how many people say to me "but the Family Court has all changed hasn't it ? It is all fair and equal now, no ?"
The government has done a good job of sowing deceptive information in the media to make people think things have changed. As I have said previously, one senior Family Court official said to me that the changes were merely a "repackaged brief".
It because of the lack of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, and an unwillngness to enforce orders and impose appropriate penalties (but NOT by reducing access to the children except in extreme and chronic cases where they constitute child abuse) when the mother (or father) contravenes them, that people must continually return to the court system, with all the amplification of conflict and stress this entails.
The Family Court system in Australia is ethically and philosophically bankrupt. The government should be held accountable for the damage they have done and their failure to rectify the situation. But as we know, governments are rarely held accountable except in clear cases of breaking the law (even in cases of genocide, government officials can often get away with murder).
In a true democracy, a class action suit would be brought against the government, and fathers who had had their rights abused would be compensated, and the law would be changed to a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. But the Dads Movement is not sufficiently organised, and even if they were, the government would continue to control the agenda of the courts in such a way that it would not be able to even consider such a case.
Moreover, no one talks about the rights of parents. It is politically incorrect to do so. Such rhetoric is seen as neglecting the best interests of the child, as if they were somehow mutually exclusive.
Meanwhile, radical feminists like Elspeth McInnes continue to fearmonger. For example Elspeth was quoted in a newspaper article a few days ago as saying that 66% of cases before the Family Court system involve safety issues with the children. Does this include the plethora of cases involving false or grossly exaggerated claims of domestic violence for which a DVO has been handed down whether or not the matter has even been investigated ?
In the case mentioned above, I suggest it reflects a strategy by Family Court staff to fulfill their brief of minimising the number of cases that go to trial by intimidating one of the litigants - nearly always the father, with the objective that they become demoralised and compliant with the demands of the other party - ie the mother. The Dad is more likely to be a self-represented litigant and an easier target.
I suggest the mediator is taking advantage of the fact that the medition session is not recorded and that she cannot be quoted in court proceedings.
I suggest that all mediation sessions be recorded, and that the recordings can be quoted whenever any of the participants deem appropriate. The lack of transparency aids the ongoing injustice.
The mediator mentioned above should be taken to task. I suggest that if she display this type of behaviour again, she should be sacked. But it is almost certain that she continues to behave in this way.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Letter to the Chief Magistrate
Diana Bryant,
Chief Magistrate, Family Court of Australia
Dear Diana,
Regarding the ongoing saga of the Robertson children:
Once again the Family Court is reaping the impact of a misconceived and discriminatory policy.
Why did the Family Court permit the mother, Philippa Yelland, to relocate to another city ?
Why does the Family Court perpetrate parental alienation in this way ?
What is the Family Court going to do to resolve this situation it has created ?
I would appreciate a reply e-mail at least to acknowledge that you have personally received this message.
Many thanks,
Sincerely,
Geoff Holland
Chief Magistrate, Family Court of Australia
Dear Diana,
Regarding the ongoing saga of the Robertson children:
Once again the Family Court is reaping the impact of a misconceived and discriminatory policy.
Why did the Family Court permit the mother, Philippa Yelland, to relocate to another city ?
Why does the Family Court perpetrate parental alienation in this way ?
What is the Family Court going to do to resolve this situation it has created ?
I would appreciate a reply e-mail at least to acknowledge that you have personally received this message.
Many thanks,
Sincerely,
Geoff Holland
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Letter to Sydney Morning Herald responding to Adele Horan
letters@smh.com.au
Letter to the Sydney Morning Herald in response to two articles by Adele Horan published in the SMH on 12 May 2007:
No excuse to marginalise dads
In both the articles "Bold new path on domestic violence" 12 May 2007 and "Odds still stacked against the children" 12 May 2007, which link domestic violence to Family Court policy, the assumption is that men alone are the perpetrators of domestic violence and child abuse.
In fact the Australian Bureau of Statistics' recent Personal Safety Study found that men are perpetrators in about 70% of cases and women are perpetrators in about 30% of cases. With physical child abuse, the figure is similarly about 70% perpetrated by fathers and step-fathers, compared to 30% perpetrated by mothers and step-mothers. For child sexual abuse, the figure is about 94% perpetrated by fathers and step-fathers compared to about 6% perpetrated by mothers and step-mothers (though the ABS stipulates that this statistic has a relative standard error of 25-50% and should be used with caution).
The ABS study suggests that about 0.9% of the population has experienced child sexual abuse by a parent or step-parent (0.85% by fathers, 0.05% by mothers) , and about 6% of the population has experienced physical child abuse (4% by fathers, 2% by mothers).
It cannot be certain if these are the current trends as they are based on studies of past experiences of adults.
What the ABS Personal Safety Study does not do is distinguish between fathers and step-fathers. It is known from other studies that step-fathers are by far the greater perpetrators of child sexual abuse compared to natural fathers, and also more responsible for physical abuse. So there is a strong argument here that children are safer with the natural father than with the natural mother. Similarly, separated natural mothers are known to be more physically abusive toward their children than separated natural fathers.
The Child Protection Queensland 2005-06 Performance Report shows that women were responsible for 55.5% of substantiated child abuse cases across Queensland in 2005-06.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report showed that for 2005-06, Tasmanian children living with single mothers featured in 40 per cent of child-abuse and neglect cases.
Why do domestic violence campaigns never acknowledge domestic violence by women toward both their partners and their children ?
Yes we do indeed need better ways to distinguish the vast majority of fathers who are a great asset to their children and deserve a fair go!
Geoff Holland
Cairns, Qld
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bold-new-path-on-domestic-violence/2007/05/11/1178390559609.html
The Sydney Morning Herald
12 May 2007
Bold new path on domestic violence
By Adele Horin
Not all men who have been violent towards their wives are dangerous, and
they should not necessarily be denied the chance to have a good
relationship with their children, according to a groundbreaking study
commissioned by the federal Attorney-General's Department.
It urges the Family Court to take a more "nuanced" view of family violence
in decisions about where children live and how much time they spend with
parents, usually fathers, accused of violence.
The study, by a team of researchers at the Australian Institute of Family
Studies, says that "while family violence is never acceptable, not all acts
of violence and abuse are the same".
It says researchers in the past have rarely conceded "the possibility that
at least some of the violence may be situational, one-off, reciprocated, or
even at times initiated by women".
The findings have outraged domestic violence researchers who have battled
for decades to establish that all forms of male violence are unacceptable
and are a major factor in marriage breakdown.
The issue of what constitutes violence is critical to the family law
system. In making decisions about children, the courts are required to put
safety first. But under the new family law, enacted last July, they are
also required to put new emphasis on shared care arrangements.
The new study is based on 300 cases filed in the Family Court or the
Federal Magistrates Court in 2003 involving disputes over post-separation
parenting.
It found over half the cases involved allegations of domestic violence or
child abuse. Most of the alleged behaviour was at the severe end of the
spectrum.
The study was not designed to test "whether women lie", said the
co-researcher, Professor Lawrie Moloney. But overseas research indicated
that allegations of violence were more likely to be true than false.
But he said it was imperative to move beyond the picture of domestic
violence painted by Australian researchers in the past. This view was based
on extreme cases of women and children in refuges who had been subject to
coercive control by men.
The report says "some researchers have been more concerned with getting the
stories out there than with careful sampling or careful definitions".
It posits two forms of domestic violence - situational and "intimate
terrorism" - with only the latter being a serious threat to women's and
children's well-being.
It says the family court system should respond in different ways to
different types of violence, ranging from total exclusion of the
perpetrator from a child's life to "a recognition that the violence or
abuse was a single instance that is most unlikely to happen again."
Thea Brown, professor of social work at Monash University, who has
conducted three studies based on Family Court files, dismissed the analysis
as simplistic.
"This approach undermines the dangers for women and children in any kind of
domestic violence," she said. "A man who slaps his wife is likely to be
someone who has done it before."
The study endorses overseas research that classifies violence into the two
kinds.
Controlling violence, also known as intimate terrorism, is dangerous to
women and children, and its perpetrators are almost always men. It springs
from a man's desire to control his partner through the exercise of
physical, sexual and emotional violence, economic power, isolation, and the
manipulation and threatening of children, the study says.
Situational violence involves "fewer incidents of less severity that do not
result in significant injury. It is not seen as part of a larger pattern of
control and usually does not escalate." Some studies say women initiate
this violence in almost half the cases, and women also reciprocate.
The researchers found a dearth of corroborative or detailed evidence in the
case files to back up allegations of violence. As a result the research
found allegations of violence had no effect on most outcomes about child
contact with fathers.
Virginia Geddes, co-ordinator of the Domestic Violence and Incest Resource
Centre, said: "Women are not being heard or taken seriously enough, and a
lot of energy is going into trying to discredit their allegations."
Danny Blay, manager of No To Family Violence, a body for men's behaviour
change programs, said: "It is vital that women and children are believed
when they say they are scared of someone, and that men are challenged to
consider the impact of their behaviour."
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/5050-but-the-odds-are-still-stacked-against-the-children/2007/05/11/1178390549474.html
The Sydney Morning Herald
12 May 2007
Odds still stacked against the children
By Adele Horin
It is more critical than ever for the Family Court and the Federal
Magistrates Court to work out a better way to sort out good dads from the
bad. Good dads - and the children who love them - got a raw deal under the
old regime of fortnightly weekend access visits. But bad dads, it turns
out, have been treated too generously.
Too often in the recent past the courts have given violent and controlling
men too much unsupervised time with their children. Now that the new family
law that came into effect last year puts greater emphasis on shared
parental time - or 50/50 residence - children may be forced to spend even
more time with bad dads.
I say this in light of a new study of 300 cases filed in the Family Court
and Federal Magistrates Court in 2003 in which parenting matters were in
dispute. The study, funded by the federal Attorney-General's Department and
undertaken by researchers at the Australian Institute of Family Studies,
reveals that partner violence and/or child abuse is alleged in more than
half the cases; and the abuse alleged is judged "severe" in most cases.
This points to a level of domestic violence and child abuse (mainly
physical) in faltering Australian marriages that is even worse than
previously estimated.
But of great surprise is the finding that allegations of domestic violence
and child abuse make no difference to the outcome of cases unless strong
corroborative evidence is provided. Where the father is the alleged
perpetrator of violence, as is most common, the children are still highly
likely to be sent to his place for overnight visits - just as if he were a
good father. "Orders for overnight stays predominated … regardless of the
apparent severity or probative weight of evidence underpinning them," the
report says. The bad dads in general get just as much time with their
children as the good dads.
Caught in the conundrum of severing or curtailing children's relationships
with their fathers, or protecting children from potentially dangerous men,
the court has tended to opt for maintaining the relationship. It rarely,
for example, denies a father contact with his children - at most the
contact may be supervised.
But wait, I hear you say, these are allegations of violence. Don't women in
these circumstances lie to exact revenge on their ex-partner? The study,
based on case files, did not have the scope to determine the veracity of
the allegations. That would require cross-referencing with police files and
child protection agencies. But the researchers point to overseas studies
that show "false denials are more common than false allegations".
As one of the authors, Professor Lawrie Moloney, said: "If you had to put a
bet on a random set of allegations, you'd put your money on them being true."
In other words, some women do lie, but most don't. Yet most children with
abusive fathers are being shipped off to them for overnight visits. Even if
the children themselves have not been beaten, the evidence is now
overwhelming that men who are violent to their partners or ex-partners are
bad news for children. The Government has never funded research to follow
up how these children, in unsupervised overnight contact with allegedly
violent men, are faring.
The study, far from exhibiting an anti-male bias, is likely to enrage some
feminists because it raises the question: what is a violent man? It argues
not all violent men are alike - and not all are bad influences on their
children. It argues there are two forms of male violence - situational and
controlling - and only the latter is a real danger to children's welfare.
Situational violence is reactive, occasional and less serious, and is
likely to be reciprocated by women, or even initiated by them. Controlling
violence is when men rule by force, fear and a sense of entitlement; it is
continuing and has been called "intimate terrorism".
The authors argue different forms of violence require different responses -
from prohibiting a violent father's contact with his children to accepting
that a violent outburst is unlikely to happen again.
The Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court, however, have
understandably found it hard to discriminate. Every day courts hear a lot
of "noise" about family violence. But there is often too little
corroborative or detailed evidence provided, and as a researcher said:
"Some judges tend to throw up their hands." As well, lawyers are under
pressure to settle cases before they get to a judge, even when violence is
alleged. The default position is that children spend time with bad dads -
and that might be doing them damage.
The successful push for 50/50 care will change societal as well as legal
norms. For good dads and the children who love them, having more time
together may be a blessing. But there is urgent need for court officers to
get more help in assessing allegations of violence, and for more research.
Otherwise some children will have no reason to count their blessings.
- Allegations of family violence and child abuse in family law children's
proceedings: Lawrie Moloney, Bruce Smyth, Ruth Weston, Nicholas Richardson,
Lixia Qu, Matthew Gray.
Letter to the Sydney Morning Herald in response to two articles by Adele Horan published in the SMH on 12 May 2007:
No excuse to marginalise dads
In both the articles "Bold new path on domestic violence" 12 May 2007 and "Odds still stacked against the children" 12 May 2007, which link domestic violence to Family Court policy, the assumption is that men alone are the perpetrators of domestic violence and child abuse.
In fact the Australian Bureau of Statistics' recent Personal Safety Study found that men are perpetrators in about 70% of cases and women are perpetrators in about 30% of cases. With physical child abuse, the figure is similarly about 70% perpetrated by fathers and step-fathers, compared to 30% perpetrated by mothers and step-mothers. For child sexual abuse, the figure is about 94% perpetrated by fathers and step-fathers compared to about 6% perpetrated by mothers and step-mothers (though the ABS stipulates that this statistic has a relative standard error of 25-50% and should be used with caution).
The ABS study suggests that about 0.9% of the population has experienced child sexual abuse by a parent or step-parent (0.85% by fathers, 0.05% by mothers) , and about 6% of the population has experienced physical child abuse (4% by fathers, 2% by mothers).
It cannot be certain if these are the current trends as they are based on studies of past experiences of adults.
What the ABS Personal Safety Study does not do is distinguish between fathers and step-fathers. It is known from other studies that step-fathers are by far the greater perpetrators of child sexual abuse compared to natural fathers, and also more responsible for physical abuse. So there is a strong argument here that children are safer with the natural father than with the natural mother. Similarly, separated natural mothers are known to be more physically abusive toward their children than separated natural fathers.
The Child Protection Queensland 2005-06 Performance Report shows that women were responsible for 55.5% of substantiated child abuse cases across Queensland in 2005-06.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report showed that for 2005-06, Tasmanian children living with single mothers featured in 40 per cent of child-abuse and neglect cases.
Why do domestic violence campaigns never acknowledge domestic violence by women toward both their partners and their children ?
Yes we do indeed need better ways to distinguish the vast majority of fathers who are a great asset to their children and deserve a fair go!
Geoff Holland
Cairns, Qld
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bold-new-path-on-domestic-violence/2007/05/11/1178390559609.html
The Sydney Morning Herald
12 May 2007
Bold new path on domestic violence
By Adele Horin
Not all men who have been violent towards their wives are dangerous, and
they should not necessarily be denied the chance to have a good
relationship with their children, according to a groundbreaking study
commissioned by the federal Attorney-General's Department.
It urges the Family Court to take a more "nuanced" view of family violence
in decisions about where children live and how much time they spend with
parents, usually fathers, accused of violence.
The study, by a team of researchers at the Australian Institute of Family
Studies, says that "while family violence is never acceptable, not all acts
of violence and abuse are the same".
It says researchers in the past have rarely conceded "the possibility that
at least some of the violence may be situational, one-off, reciprocated, or
even at times initiated by women".
The findings have outraged domestic violence researchers who have battled
for decades to establish that all forms of male violence are unacceptable
and are a major factor in marriage breakdown.
The issue of what constitutes violence is critical to the family law
system. In making decisions about children, the courts are required to put
safety first. But under the new family law, enacted last July, they are
also required to put new emphasis on shared care arrangements.
The new study is based on 300 cases filed in the Family Court or the
Federal Magistrates Court in 2003 involving disputes over post-separation
parenting.
It found over half the cases involved allegations of domestic violence or
child abuse. Most of the alleged behaviour was at the severe end of the
spectrum.
The study was not designed to test "whether women lie", said the
co-researcher, Professor Lawrie Moloney. But overseas research indicated
that allegations of violence were more likely to be true than false.
But he said it was imperative to move beyond the picture of domestic
violence painted by Australian researchers in the past. This view was based
on extreme cases of women and children in refuges who had been subject to
coercive control by men.
The report says "some researchers have been more concerned with getting the
stories out there than with careful sampling or careful definitions".
It posits two forms of domestic violence - situational and "intimate
terrorism" - with only the latter being a serious threat to women's and
children's well-being.
It says the family court system should respond in different ways to
different types of violence, ranging from total exclusion of the
perpetrator from a child's life to "a recognition that the violence or
abuse was a single instance that is most unlikely to happen again."
Thea Brown, professor of social work at Monash University, who has
conducted three studies based on Family Court files, dismissed the analysis
as simplistic.
"This approach undermines the dangers for women and children in any kind of
domestic violence," she said. "A man who slaps his wife is likely to be
someone who has done it before."
The study endorses overseas research that classifies violence into the two
kinds.
Controlling violence, also known as intimate terrorism, is dangerous to
women and children, and its perpetrators are almost always men. It springs
from a man's desire to control his partner through the exercise of
physical, sexual and emotional violence, economic power, isolation, and the
manipulation and threatening of children, the study says.
Situational violence involves "fewer incidents of less severity that do not
result in significant injury. It is not seen as part of a larger pattern of
control and usually does not escalate." Some studies say women initiate
this violence in almost half the cases, and women also reciprocate.
The researchers found a dearth of corroborative or detailed evidence in the
case files to back up allegations of violence. As a result the research
found allegations of violence had no effect on most outcomes about child
contact with fathers.
Virginia Geddes, co-ordinator of the Domestic Violence and Incest Resource
Centre, said: "Women are not being heard or taken seriously enough, and a
lot of energy is going into trying to discredit their allegations."
Danny Blay, manager of No To Family Violence, a body for men's behaviour
change programs, said: "It is vital that women and children are believed
when they say they are scared of someone, and that men are challenged to
consider the impact of their behaviour."
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/5050-but-the-odds-are-still-stacked-against-the-children/2007/05/11/1178390549474.html
The Sydney Morning Herald
12 May 2007
Odds still stacked against the children
By Adele Horin
It is more critical than ever for the Family Court and the Federal
Magistrates Court to work out a better way to sort out good dads from the
bad. Good dads - and the children who love them - got a raw deal under the
old regime of fortnightly weekend access visits. But bad dads, it turns
out, have been treated too generously.
Too often in the recent past the courts have given violent and controlling
men too much unsupervised time with their children. Now that the new family
law that came into effect last year puts greater emphasis on shared
parental time - or 50/50 residence - children may be forced to spend even
more time with bad dads.
I say this in light of a new study of 300 cases filed in the Family Court
and Federal Magistrates Court in 2003 in which parenting matters were in
dispute. The study, funded by the federal Attorney-General's Department and
undertaken by researchers at the Australian Institute of Family Studies,
reveals that partner violence and/or child abuse is alleged in more than
half the cases; and the abuse alleged is judged "severe" in most cases.
This points to a level of domestic violence and child abuse (mainly
physical) in faltering Australian marriages that is even worse than
previously estimated.
But of great surprise is the finding that allegations of domestic violence
and child abuse make no difference to the outcome of cases unless strong
corroborative evidence is provided. Where the father is the alleged
perpetrator of violence, as is most common, the children are still highly
likely to be sent to his place for overnight visits - just as if he were a
good father. "Orders for overnight stays predominated … regardless of the
apparent severity or probative weight of evidence underpinning them," the
report says. The bad dads in general get just as much time with their
children as the good dads.
Caught in the conundrum of severing or curtailing children's relationships
with their fathers, or protecting children from potentially dangerous men,
the court has tended to opt for maintaining the relationship. It rarely,
for example, denies a father contact with his children - at most the
contact may be supervised.
But wait, I hear you say, these are allegations of violence. Don't women in
these circumstances lie to exact revenge on their ex-partner? The study,
based on case files, did not have the scope to determine the veracity of
the allegations. That would require cross-referencing with police files and
child protection agencies. But the researchers point to overseas studies
that show "false denials are more common than false allegations".
As one of the authors, Professor Lawrie Moloney, said: "If you had to put a
bet on a random set of allegations, you'd put your money on them being true."
In other words, some women do lie, but most don't. Yet most children with
abusive fathers are being shipped off to them for overnight visits. Even if
the children themselves have not been beaten, the evidence is now
overwhelming that men who are violent to their partners or ex-partners are
bad news for children. The Government has never funded research to follow
up how these children, in unsupervised overnight contact with allegedly
violent men, are faring.
The study, far from exhibiting an anti-male bias, is likely to enrage some
feminists because it raises the question: what is a violent man? It argues
not all violent men are alike - and not all are bad influences on their
children. It argues there are two forms of male violence - situational and
controlling - and only the latter is a real danger to children's welfare.
Situational violence is reactive, occasional and less serious, and is
likely to be reciprocated by women, or even initiated by them. Controlling
violence is when men rule by force, fear and a sense of entitlement; it is
continuing and has been called "intimate terrorism".
The authors argue different forms of violence require different responses -
from prohibiting a violent father's contact with his children to accepting
that a violent outburst is unlikely to happen again.
The Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court, however, have
understandably found it hard to discriminate. Every day courts hear a lot
of "noise" about family violence. But there is often too little
corroborative or detailed evidence provided, and as a researcher said:
"Some judges tend to throw up their hands." As well, lawyers are under
pressure to settle cases before they get to a judge, even when violence is
alleged. The default position is that children spend time with bad dads -
and that might be doing them damage.
The successful push for 50/50 care will change societal as well as legal
norms. For good dads and the children who love them, having more time
together may be a blessing. But there is urgent need for court officers to
get more help in assessing allegations of violence, and for more research.
Otherwise some children will have no reason to count their blessings.
- Allegations of family violence and child abuse in family law children's
proceedings: Lawrie Moloney, Bruce Smyth, Ruth Weston, Nicholas Richardson,
Lixia Qu, Matthew Gray.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
views of Justice John Faulks
Here are some quotes from the Family Court Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks:
"In conclusion, Judge Faulks made two final points: final orders are never final orders because the needs of a family when children are young will not be the same as when the children are older and so orders would need to be varied; he commented that the concept of equal shared parenting responsibility must not be confused with the notion of equal shared parenting time. He recounted an anecdote of a case of his in which a parent had requested equal parenting time; he suggested to the parent that he could have all the sleeping time to point out the absurdity and unfairness of the notion of equal parenting time. - Justice John Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia."
If Final Orders are never Final Orders because the needs of a family change as children grow older, how does Judge Faulks propose to allow parents to reapply without the risk of losing $10,000+ because it is decided the Applicant's case does conform to the narrow criteria of "a substantial change of circumstance " ?
Judge Faulks' comment about giving the father all the sleeping time is facetious and purile. How does his absurd suggestion in any way weaken the case for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. We did not think we had to specify roughyl equal daytime and equal night time because we assumed the Family Court judges have more intelligence than they apparently do.
I have heard Family Court officials sincerely ask "but how can you divide a week [with seven days] in two ?" It's worrying that these people are in such (inappropriate) positions of power.
___________________
Source:
Changes in Family Law and the Impact on Victims of Domestic Violence Forum
Thursday 8th December 2005
Meeting Room, Level 1
The Borgia Community Centre 531 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville 9:45am
Judge Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia
Title of presentation: “Recent Changes & Developments in the Family Law Court” - Overview of the Children Cases Program; the Child Responsive Pilot Program and other recent developments introduced into the Family Court.As reported in:
http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Newsletter_24.pdf (1.4MB)http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/Word%20Files/Newsletter_24.doc (700KB)
Australian Domestic & Family Violence ClearinghouseNewsletter 24 / Autumn 2006 / Pages 4-5
Feature: Report on Family Law Forum
Recent changes and developments in the Family CourtThe Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, the Honourable Justice John Faulks, provided a comprehensive overview of the Children’s Cases Program, the Child Responsive Pilot Program and other developments introduced into the Family Court.
He acknowledged the previous speakers’ concerns about the women’s stories but stated that he would hear an equal litany of opposing allegations from a group of men.
In discussing the jurisdiction of both the State courts and Federal courts over the care of children, he said that this often resulted in uneven responses to serious allegations of abuse of children. He briefly outlined the Magellan Project which seeks to address this issue, family matters involving serious cases of child abuse, involving a specific registrar, mediator, legal aid, a children’s representative and State/Territory departments of community services, the statutory bodies with the mandate for the welfare of children.
The Judge then went on to explain that the Children’s Cases Program (CCP) will have a legislative base under the Shared Parental Responsibility amendment bill. He described the CCP as a less adversarial process for determining family law matters. Rather than the parties deciding on what evidence to put before the court, the Family Court judge directs the proceedings by identifying the issues at hand, works out how to resolve those issues and then determines any matters that cannot be resolved.
Parties are able to have lawyers present but the rules of evidence are relaxed to allow the judge to make inquiries of the parties, as well as the children. The Program is being evaluated and findings are proving positive. The pilot CCP excluded matters involving allegations of violence and/or child abuse.
Justice Faulks outlined how Family Court counsellors will have a larger role to play under the Child Responsive Program, as part of the Family Court’s Family Violence Strategy. Matters reported to the counsellors, either by a party or by the children, will no longer be privileged information and will form part of the report to the presiding judge for determination on those matters.Justice Faulks explained one aspect of the Family Court’s Family Violence Strategy, currently being piloted in Brisbane with a view to developing guidelines about early intervention, screening, assessment and safety.
He stressed that there are currently no appropriate assessment and screening standards in place for the Family Court and thus the Court was falling short in its safety strategy. He added however that the Court had made a commitment to do something about it, though it was not currently achieving that end.
In conclusion, Judge Faulks made two final points: final orders are never final orders because the needs of a family when children are young will not be the same as when the children are older and so orders would need to be varied; he commented that the concept of equal shared parenting responsibility must not be confused with the notion of equal shared parenting time. He recounted an anecdote of a case of his in which a parent had requested equal parenting time; he suggested to the parent that he could have all the sleeping time to point out the absurdity and unfairness of the notion of equal parenting time.
=============================*
Deputy Chief Justice Justice Faulks
<Biography" eudora="autourl">http://www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/connect/www/home/about/the_courts_organisation/judges/court_org_judges_deputy_chief_justice>Biography
Biography of Deputy Chief Justice Faulks
Deputy Chief Justice Faulks was appointed as Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia on 25 June 2004. Prior to his appointment to the Family Court of Australia on 12 October 1994, Deputy Chief Justice Faulks was a Senior Partner of Phillips Fox, practising extensively in family law.
He was Chairman of the Family Law Council of Australia from 1992 to 1995, and a Member of the Council between 1990 and 1992.Deputy Chief Justice Faulks was President of the Law Council of Australia from 1987 to 1988, Vice President from 1986 to 1987, and Treasurer from 1984 to 1985.He was admitted as a Barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1969 and holds a Bachelor of Laws degree from the Australian National University.
"In conclusion, Judge Faulks made two final points: final orders are never final orders because the needs of a family when children are young will not be the same as when the children are older and so orders would need to be varied; he commented that the concept of equal shared parenting responsibility must not be confused with the notion of equal shared parenting time. He recounted an anecdote of a case of his in which a parent had requested equal parenting time; he suggested to the parent that he could have all the sleeping time to point out the absurdity and unfairness of the notion of equal parenting time. - Justice John Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia."
If Final Orders are never Final Orders because the needs of a family change as children grow older, how does Judge Faulks propose to allow parents to reapply without the risk of losing $10,000+ because it is decided the Applicant's case does conform to the narrow criteria of "a substantial change of circumstance " ?
Judge Faulks' comment about giving the father all the sleeping time is facetious and purile. How does his absurd suggestion in any way weaken the case for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. We did not think we had to specify roughyl equal daytime and equal night time because we assumed the Family Court judges have more intelligence than they apparently do.
I have heard Family Court officials sincerely ask "but how can you divide a week [with seven days] in two ?" It's worrying that these people are in such (inappropriate) positions of power.
___________________
Source:
Changes in Family Law and the Impact on Victims of Domestic Violence Forum
Thursday 8th December 2005
Meeting Room, Level 1
The Borgia Community Centre 531 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville 9:45am
Judge Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia
Title of presentation: “Recent Changes & Developments in the Family Law Court” - Overview of the Children Cases Program; the Child Responsive Pilot Program and other recent developments introduced into the Family Court.As reported in:
http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Newsletter_24.pdf (1.4MB)http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/Word%20Files/Newsletter_24.doc (700KB)
Australian Domestic & Family Violence ClearinghouseNewsletter 24 / Autumn 2006 / Pages 4-5
Feature: Report on Family Law Forum
Recent changes and developments in the Family CourtThe Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, the Honourable Justice John Faulks, provided a comprehensive overview of the Children’s Cases Program, the Child Responsive Pilot Program and other developments introduced into the Family Court.
He acknowledged the previous speakers’ concerns about the women’s stories but stated that he would hear an equal litany of opposing allegations from a group of men.
In discussing the jurisdiction of both the State courts and Federal courts over the care of children, he said that this often resulted in uneven responses to serious allegations of abuse of children. He briefly outlined the Magellan Project which seeks to address this issue, family matters involving serious cases of child abuse, involving a specific registrar, mediator, legal aid, a children’s representative and State/Territory departments of community services, the statutory bodies with the mandate for the welfare of children.
The Judge then went on to explain that the Children’s Cases Program (CCP) will have a legislative base under the Shared Parental Responsibility amendment bill. He described the CCP as a less adversarial process for determining family law matters. Rather than the parties deciding on what evidence to put before the court, the Family Court judge directs the proceedings by identifying the issues at hand, works out how to resolve those issues and then determines any matters that cannot be resolved.
Parties are able to have lawyers present but the rules of evidence are relaxed to allow the judge to make inquiries of the parties, as well as the children. The Program is being evaluated and findings are proving positive. The pilot CCP excluded matters involving allegations of violence and/or child abuse.
Justice Faulks outlined how Family Court counsellors will have a larger role to play under the Child Responsive Program, as part of the Family Court’s Family Violence Strategy. Matters reported to the counsellors, either by a party or by the children, will no longer be privileged information and will form part of the report to the presiding judge for determination on those matters.Justice Faulks explained one aspect of the Family Court’s Family Violence Strategy, currently being piloted in Brisbane with a view to developing guidelines about early intervention, screening, assessment and safety.
He stressed that there are currently no appropriate assessment and screening standards in place for the Family Court and thus the Court was falling short in its safety strategy. He added however that the Court had made a commitment to do something about it, though it was not currently achieving that end.
In conclusion, Judge Faulks made two final points: final orders are never final orders because the needs of a family when children are young will not be the same as when the children are older and so orders would need to be varied; he commented that the concept of equal shared parenting responsibility must not be confused with the notion of equal shared parenting time. He recounted an anecdote of a case of his in which a parent had requested equal parenting time; he suggested to the parent that he could have all the sleeping time to point out the absurdity and unfairness of the notion of equal parenting time.
=============================*
Deputy Chief Justice Justice Faulks
<Biography" eudora="autourl">http://www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/connect/www/home/about/the_courts_organisation/judges/court_org_judges_deputy_chief_justice>Biography
Biography of Deputy Chief Justice Faulks
Deputy Chief Justice Faulks was appointed as Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia on 25 June 2004. Prior to his appointment to the Family Court of Australia on 12 October 1994, Deputy Chief Justice Faulks was a Senior Partner of Phillips Fox, practising extensively in family law.
He was Chairman of the Family Law Council of Australia from 1992 to 1995, and a Member of the Council between 1990 and 1992.Deputy Chief Justice Faulks was President of the Law Council of Australia from 1987 to 1988, Vice President from 1986 to 1987, and Treasurer from 1984 to 1985.He was admitted as a Barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1969 and holds a Bachelor of Laws degree from the Australian National University.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Letter to The Age 03 May 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Article has been censored after five months
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.
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.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Obtaining a transcript or audio recording of a Hearing
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.
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.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Parental Alienation
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Residency outcomes following separation in Australia
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.
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
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
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
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
Monday, February 19, 2007
More on the Kangaroo Court and Child Support
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.
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
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.
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
“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.
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
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.
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
“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.
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"
“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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
