Their wise verdicts
"Family Court judges would like to keep themselves employed in the business of deciding whether a father should have 37% residency of their child following family separation, or 48% residency, or 25% residency, or 42% residency, or 34.5% residency, or maybe even 50% residency, or 56.3% residency.
"They wish to continue dragging couples through their inflammatory and expensive judicial system for two years so that at the end they can hand down their wise verdicts.
"The only thing I can see is the foolishness of judges and Attorneys General, and the mercenary interests of the Family Law industry."
Geoff Holland, May 2007
Showing posts with label Family Court judges irrelevant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Family Court judges irrelevant. Show all posts
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Better make it a four-year trial
Thought for the day:
Family Court judges need to decide how fit a father is to be a parent after marriage separation (where the parents cannot agree). The Family Court cannot allow a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time because we cannot trust men to be competent and worthy fathers.
Similarly, in a marriage where there has been no separation, but where the mother, for whatever reason, has died, the Family Court judges need to conduct a two-year trial to test whether the father is competent and worthy enough to look after the children.
But actually, since the father would be looking after the children full-time and not half-time, we'd better make it a four-year trial.
Most Family Court judges would agree that after a death of the mother, the best judgement would be for the father to care for the children every second weekend. Ok, let's throw in Wednesday afternoons also, and half of all school holidays.
Absurd ? Of course it is.
It is similarly absurd that Family Court judges intervene in marriage separations where there is no evidence of child abuse. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would happily make most of them largely irrelevant.
We do not need Family Court judges to decide how competent and worthy a father is following a death of the mother. Similarly we do not need Family Court judges to decide how competent and worthy a father is following marriage separation.
As always, in any situation, evidence of child abuse is grounds for state intervention.
Family Court judges need to decide how fit a father is to be a parent after marriage separation (where the parents cannot agree). The Family Court cannot allow a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time because we cannot trust men to be competent and worthy fathers.
Similarly, in a marriage where there has been no separation, but where the mother, for whatever reason, has died, the Family Court judges need to conduct a two-year trial to test whether the father is competent and worthy enough to look after the children.
But actually, since the father would be looking after the children full-time and not half-time, we'd better make it a four-year trial.
Most Family Court judges would agree that after a death of the mother, the best judgement would be for the father to care for the children every second weekend. Ok, let's throw in Wednesday afternoons also, and half of all school holidays.
Absurd ? Of course it is.
It is similarly absurd that Family Court judges intervene in marriage separations where there is no evidence of child abuse. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would happily make most of them largely irrelevant.
We do not need Family Court judges to decide how competent and worthy a father is following a death of the mother. Similarly we do not need Family Court judges to decide how competent and worthy a father is following marriage separation.
As always, in any situation, evidence of child abuse is grounds for state intervention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
