My letter to The Age:
Polygraphs to fast-track
So child abuse claims (Oct 19) are being fast-tracked by the (dinosaur) Family Court system ? I don't call a six-month wait "fast". We are talking about child abuse here. And in many cases we are also talking about parental alienation.
A judge anonymously admits cutting contact between the child and accused parent damages their relationship. Why didn't this judge speak up earlier, and why don't they have the courage to identify themselves ?
In my experience, that only 1-2% of claims are deliberately false is hard to believe. Maybe there is a large percentage of "mistakenly false" ?
Why not offer polygraph testing for those accused so the matter can be potentially dealt with in a matter of days, not months !
Geoff Holland
Cairns
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/child-abuse-claims-get-fairer-look/2007/10/18/1192300954597.html
The Age (Melbourne)
19 October 2007
Child abuse claims get fairer look
By Karen Kissane
The Family Court's new system for dealing with claims of physical or sexual abuse of children is faster and fairer than the previous one but still needs improvement, according to research released today by the court and the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Previously, such cases often took more than 12 months, and it was up to the parent making the allegations to try to prove the case. Often the court's decisions were made in a "factual vacuum" because no independent investigation was made into the claims and judges simply had to decide which parent to believe, the research reported.
But a new system introduced in most parts of Australia from 2003 has led to most cases being decided in just over six months.
Decisions are also better-informed because child-protection agencies now investigate and assess the claims, according to the report Co-operation and Co-ordination: An evaluation of the Family Court of Australia's Magellan case-management model.
The report's author, AIFS researcher Dr Daryl Higgins, said yesterday that protective services now reported to the court on their investigation within six weeks of the allegations being filed. This gave both parents an early sense of the strength of the evidence.
He said the Magellan system was a world-first in terms of the way the court and protective services worked together. This was needed because "it's the court's job to decide parenting matters, not conduct investigations".
Disputes involving child abuse claims are estimated to make up only 2 to 6 per cent of Family Court cases overall but about 23 per cent of hotly contested cases. Earlier research found that allegations considered to be deliberately false were not common (1 to 2 per cent).
This study compared 80 families who went through the new system with 80 families under the old system. The largest group of alleged perpetrators in both was fathers (65 per cent of the new group and 59 per cent of the old), followed by mothers (19 per cent of the new and 26 per cent of the old).
A judge quoted anonymously in the report said that under the old system, cases had always taken a long time to get to hearing and judges had had to err on the side of caution in the meantime, restricting the accused parent's relationship with the child. "The interruption to the relationship … would go on for many, many months or years … In many cases it was found that those allegations were without basis, and the families were left trying to restore a relationship … that had probably been damaged."
The report said earlier research had found that many professionals believed that child-abuse allegations made during family breakdown were not to be taken seriously because they were just another weapon manufactured for use in the marital dispute. Dr Higgins said his study found no such attitude among those working with the Magellan system. His report recommended more training on the system for court staff, lawyers, protective services workers and police, and that the system's approach be applied more consistently.
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/
http://www.aifs.gov.au/http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/magellan/index.html
Cooperation and coordination: An evaluation of the Family Court ofAustralia's Magellan case-management modelBy Daryl Higgins (author)Full Report (1.5MB PDF)http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/magellan/magellan.pdf
Showing posts with label parental alienation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parental alienation. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
An example of using DVOs for parental alienation
I am posting an account of one Dad about a DVO charge against him, which had no justification in the first place, and which he is struggling to have removed.
If anybody thinks that women do not regularly use false accusations of domestic violence to have DVO charges laid against the Dad to minimise the child's contact with the father, then they are either naive or in denial.
"I do not know this for a fact, but I have been told by some people here in Western Australia not to make a report to the police about being abused by your wife. If you do the police will remove me (the victim) and I will be prevented from going back home. This is because they believe the children are still far safer with the abusive woman/mother than they would be with the father.
"This was a question I had asked some people before my ex went and got the restraining order out on me. Apparently Western Australia has a more draconian set of Domestic Violence laws than the rest of the country. This is a problem we all have to suffer when we have politicians in positions of great power with gender-biased agendas.
"So, I followed the advice and did nothing, but my ex-partner went and made a report against me ! and I ended up DVO.
"On the 30th of this month (July), I am in court for the very first time since the order was taken out against me 18 months ago, with an application to cancel the DVO.
"I do not feel confident, but I just cannot see how they can keep this order against me when the ex has not one shred of evidence against me that I have committed any acts of domestic violence against her or our children.
"Obviously I will be on my own in court and I am facing a female magistrate who apparently has a reputation for giving women what they want and caning men.
"I will try to not believe that until she has behaved that way toward me, because I normally do not judge a person until I have met them myself, and I see no reason to change now.
"So, I am going to be pointing out the fact that my ex-partner has no proof, and that the children are suffering terribly, because of her use of the DVO to control and silence me".PG
If anybody thinks that women do not regularly use false accusations of domestic violence to have DVO charges laid against the Dad to minimise the child's contact with the father, then they are either naive or in denial.
"I do not know this for a fact, but I have been told by some people here in Western Australia not to make a report to the police about being abused by your wife. If you do the police will remove me (the victim) and I will be prevented from going back home. This is because they believe the children are still far safer with the abusive woman/mother than they would be with the father.
"This was a question I had asked some people before my ex went and got the restraining order out on me. Apparently Western Australia has a more draconian set of Domestic Violence laws than the rest of the country. This is a problem we all have to suffer when we have politicians in positions of great power with gender-biased agendas.
"So, I followed the advice and did nothing, but my ex-partner went and made a report against me ! and I ended up DVO.
"On the 30th of this month (July), I am in court for the very first time since the order was taken out against me 18 months ago, with an application to cancel the DVO.
"I do not feel confident, but I just cannot see how they can keep this order against me when the ex has not one shred of evidence against me that I have committed any acts of domestic violence against her or our children.
"Obviously I will be on my own in court and I am facing a female magistrate who apparently has a reputation for giving women what they want and caning men.
"I will try to not believe that until she has behaved that way toward me, because I normally do not judge a person until I have met them myself, and I see no reason to change now.
"So, I am going to be pointing out the fact that my ex-partner has no proof, and that the children are suffering terribly, because of her use of the DVO to control and silence me".PG
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Jail term for mum halved
Family Court policy seems to fluctuate wildly - one minute giving the children contact with the dad, the next taking it away again for no apparent reason.
How can the Family Court justify giving the children only six hours a months contact with their dad ?
Why did the Court do this ? Because the mum cannot handle allowing the children contact with their dad ?
The Family Court system believes they are acting in the child's best interests by pandering to mums. But they send the wrong signal (it's ok to behave inappropriately) and create more conflict in the longterm.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22052211-5001021,00.html
The Daily Telegraph
11 July 2007
Jailed mum would do it all again
By Janet Fife-Yeomans
A mother who went to jail in a tug-of-love row with her ex-partner was quickly reunited with her son and daughter after her release from prison.
As she hugged her young children yesterday, the mother - who made legal history - told The Daily Telegraph that she would do it all again.
"It would but it's not easy," the woman, who cannot be identified, said.
"I'm just giving them as much love as I can."
She was jailed in March by the Federal Magistrates' Court after refusing to allow her ex-partner access to their children, a boy, 8, and girl, 6.
She was already on a good behaviour bond for defying court orders when Magistrate Michael Jarrett, sitting in Lismore, took the rare step of jailing her for four months.
In May, the Full Bench of the Family Court, made up of three judges, halved her four-month sentence and released her immediately from jail.Lawyers expect the judgment, yet to be published, to set fresh guidelines, raising the bar for the jailing of parents who contravene court orders.
In jail for two months, the mother received support from fellow inmates, who praised her for being "gutsy" in standing up for her children and baked her a 31st birthday cake.
Yesterday she revealed how she got through with prayer and believing she had done the right thing."
It was very rough," she said of the first night in a cell, with her children ordered by the court to live with their father."
Our families are the most important assets our country has and we need to keep them together. They had never lived with their father since we separated."
Refused Legal Aid, the woman organised an appeal from her cell with financial help from family.
She said her children were "extremely confused" after the court ordered the father to return the children to their mother the day after she got out of jail."
"What can I say? They've had a really hard time of it ...," she said.
"Our children are precious but they are treated like slabs of meat by the courts in many cases and it's very sad."
Steven Tester, the solicitor for the woman's ex-partner, said the children had "a ball" living with their father.
Court orders have now restricted the father's access to six hours a month.
How can the Family Court justify giving the children only six hours a months contact with their dad ?
Why did the Court do this ? Because the mum cannot handle allowing the children contact with their dad ?
The Family Court system believes they are acting in the child's best interests by pandering to mums. But they send the wrong signal (it's ok to behave inappropriately) and create more conflict in the longterm.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22052211-5001021,00.html
The Daily Telegraph
11 July 2007
Jailed mum would do it all again
By Janet Fife-Yeomans
A mother who went to jail in a tug-of-love row with her ex-partner was quickly reunited with her son and daughter after her release from prison.
As she hugged her young children yesterday, the mother - who made legal history - told The Daily Telegraph that she would do it all again.
"It would but it's not easy," the woman, who cannot be identified, said.
"I'm just giving them as much love as I can."
She was jailed in March by the Federal Magistrates' Court after refusing to allow her ex-partner access to their children, a boy, 8, and girl, 6.
She was already on a good behaviour bond for defying court orders when Magistrate Michael Jarrett, sitting in Lismore, took the rare step of jailing her for four months.
In May, the Full Bench of the Family Court, made up of three judges, halved her four-month sentence and released her immediately from jail.Lawyers expect the judgment, yet to be published, to set fresh guidelines, raising the bar for the jailing of parents who contravene court orders.
In jail for two months, the mother received support from fellow inmates, who praised her for being "gutsy" in standing up for her children and baked her a 31st birthday cake.
Yesterday she revealed how she got through with prayer and believing she had done the right thing."
It was very rough," she said of the first night in a cell, with her children ordered by the court to live with their father."
Our families are the most important assets our country has and we need to keep them together. They had never lived with their father since we separated."
Refused Legal Aid, the woman organised an appeal from her cell with financial help from family.
She said her children were "extremely confused" after the court ordered the father to return the children to their mother the day after she got out of jail."
"What can I say? They've had a really hard time of it ...," she said.
"Our children are precious but they are treated like slabs of meat by the courts in many cases and it's very sad."
Steven Tester, the solicitor for the woman's ex-partner, said the children had "a ball" living with their father.
Court orders have now restricted the father's access to six hours a month.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Robertson children and parental alienation
Is it my imagination ? The children all appear much happier in photos together with the father, and rather glum when with the mother.
Noticed how the "Robertson children" have now become the "Yelland-Robertson children" ? Wait a little longer and they will become the "Yelland children."
My ex-partner changed our son's birth certificate without my permission. The Registry of BMD told me a single parent could do that. But when I said ok, as a single parent I would like to change it back they said "oh no, you can't do that" and they started back-peddling...
When I asked Justice Tim Carmody for our son to be refered to by the name on his birth certificate (before my ex-partner unilaterally changed it) to avoid confusion with school, medicare etc etc. he said "Well that is one matter you two can now solve by yourselves in the new spirit of cooperation".
Idiot.
Later on in the article we switch once again. They are now the "Robertson-Yelland children" ! What is the name on their birth certificates for Pete's sake ?!
In case you think I am sexist on this issue, I suggest an easy and obvious formula that would avoid a lot of conflict over this issue. Of course the Family Court system has got its head so far up its arse (please forgive my profanities) that it cannot see its way clear to simple obvious solutions.
(Of course it is continuing conflict, not solutions, that keeps business in the black for the Family Court Industry...)
Solution:
1. Forget about wives taking the surname of the husband.
2. Daughters take the surname of the mother; sons take the surname of the father.
I thought Dr Millikin, the "cult-buster" (and media-spin artist) actually introduced the family to the "Family" (Children of God) ???
"Though the children's father, Murray Robertson, said on Thursday that the sect The Family "are wonderful Christian people" and that he was "very close to them", Dr Millikan said The Family had no role in the custody dispute, in which Mr Robertson disappeared with the children for six weeks after failing to return them from an access visit".
Some obvious spin and twist here. It was Millikan who first raised the slur (Murray Robertson's involvement with a "cult") ! Now it is presented as though Murray Robertson initiated the discussion on the Family.
"As for future contact arrangements, Ms Yelland says she has not decided yet what might happen."
What can I say ? Evidence of the cause of the whole problem ? A behaviour pattern we are all fighting to have recognised, to have changed ?
There is a general case for forced negotiation and forced mediation because some people (including egocentric controlling mothers) just don't get it.
The Federal Government sets up the Family Relationship Centres, but
until the FRCs have some authority,
until attendance is mandatory,
until we have equal rights (oh, there goes that 'r' word again. Darn, I'm forgetting about the children...),
until there are penalties (Community Service) for unreasonable behaviour,
until the FRCs are made transparent and accountable,
- we don't have a solution.
In this article Murray Robertson is being framed by media-savvy David Millikin (Philippa Yelland's lover ?) as a 'deadbeat dad'.
I thought Murray Robertson was on sickness benefit ? No mention here of his (possible) sickness. See www.injurysupport.blogspot.com to understand what can happen to a dad if they get sick in this society.
'Earlier in the week a neighbour, Alex Pervushin, said Ms Yelland had cleaned the house out after the disappearance and that "most of the furniture and his things and the kids' things, it all went into an industrial skip bin". '
Philippa Yelland responds:
"Heavens above, maybe there was a kids' T-shirt which had been used as a rag [that was thrown out] but I don't know."
Kids things also went into the industrial skip ? Erasing history ? Maybe she can erase the children's memory also.
With all his research into cults, David might have a few tricks in this regard.
(Remember Bokkie's quote 'this is exactly the same in a way us running away as when mummy took us to Brisbane except no one is telling anyone any lies'. Courier Mail 04 May 2007)
In my case, in the period shortly after separation, we had our possessions stored in a container. I made the suggestion of having two padlocks on the container - one each. If we wanted access, both of us would attend. It worked well for a month or so. I don't know what happened that would have caused a change to this system, but one day I arrived to find my padlock sawn off, all shared possessions gone, and my possessions left out in the rain...
Regarding to the case of the Robertson child vis a vis their mother Philippa Yelland:
1. Philippa's relocation to Brisbane
2. the "lies" as perceived by Bokkie
3. throwing out children's possessions from father's home
4. 'deadbeat dad' spin to the media
- it points to a clear pattern of parental alienation in my view. Parental alienation is very damaging to children. The Family Court will most likely not address this. They do not in reality function in the 'best interests of the child.'
Philippa Yelland needs to relocate back to the Blue Mountains (or otherwise negotiated with Murray Robertson), and needs to attend a parenting course highlighting the damage created by parental alienation. If Philippa's behaviour pattern persists, she must be penalised (Community Service).
I do not recommend reducing Philippa's access to the children to less than 50%, which is what should now be implemented. However, if parental alienation becomes extreme, this of course would constitute child abuse, and would be grounds for having restricted access.
Cheers, Geoff
www.equalparentingtime.blogspot.com
R O L L I N G T H U N D E R R E V I E W !!!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:34 PM
Subject: 'Safely' back to normal
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/tug-of-love-the-children-in-the-middle/2007/05/04/1177788400621.html
Reunited … Ms Yelland and her children yesterday.
Photo: Jon Reid
Tug of love: the children in the middle
Lisa Pryor and Les Kennedy May 5, 2007
AFTER weeks in the wilds of Tasmania with their father, the three Yelland-Robertson children spent last night in Sydney with their mother, at the inner west home of David Millikan, the Uniting Church minister, cult expert, television producer and family friend who has shepherded Philippa Yelland through the ordeal of tracking down her family.
Bokkie, 10, Matilda, 9, and Barney, 7, were yesterday afternoon recovering from a flurry of airports, television cameras and reporters.
"They're sort of slowly collapsing," Dr Millikan said. "I think they're going to sleep for about 20 hours."
Ms Yelland expects her children will return to school in Brisbane next week. She is not pressing them about the details of their time in Tasmania. She is looking forward to returning to an ordinary suburban life.
"Let's have some boredom and normality."
A Today Tonight television crew visited the Balmain home yesterday to interview Ms Yelland. The current affairs show secured the story through Dr Millikan, who is an "occasional producer with Channel Seven". Ms Yelland was not paid for the story, he said.
Though Dr Millikan is best known as a cult expert, he was quick to point out he was helping the family as a friend and not as a "cultbuster".
Ms Yelland said she had been friends with Dr Millikan for years and he accompanied her because she needed "another pair of hands".
"I happen to know Philippa and Murray from some years back," Dr Millikan said.
Though the children's father, Murray Robertson, said on Thursday that the sect The Family "are wonderful Christian people" and that he was "very close to them", Dr Millikan said The Family had no role in the custody dispute, in which Mr Robertson disappeared with the children for six weeks after failing to return them from an access visit.
Some years ago the Robertson-Yelland family had some "passing contact" with the religious organisation but that was all.
"They never joined, they never gave money. I think they maybe even established the odd friendship but that was distant," Dr Millikan said.
"The Family called me up today really angry. They said 'we have not anything to do with [the situation]'."
The children arrived in Sydney at lunchtime yesterday. "I'm tired," Matilda said in a frail exhausted voice as her mother ushered her and her siblings through the Virgin Blue terminal.
As his children were spending the evening in Sydney, it was believed that Mr Robertson had sought refuge with Quakers in Launceston.
As for future contact arrangements, Ms Yelland says she has not decided yet what might happen.
Dr Millikan said: "He has maintained the kids wanted to be with him and so forth but it's a very difficult situation.
"During the course of their marriage, I think they were married for over 10 years, he was never able to sustain regular employment so she was the one who maintained the financial viability of the family."
She was the one who purchased the property in Hazelbrook where Mr Robertson lived before his disappearance.
Earlier in the week a neighbour, Alex Pervushin, said Ms Yelland had cleaned the house out after the disappearance and that "most of the furniture and his things and the kids' things, it all went into an industrial skip bin".
Ms Yelland said there were five adults working for five hours to clear the house and she does not remember exactly what was thrown out. "Heavens above, maybe there was a kids' T-shirt which had been used as a rag [that was thrown out] but I don't know."
She said the house would be sold.
Noticed how the "Robertson children" have now become the "Yelland-Robertson children" ? Wait a little longer and they will become the "Yelland children."
My ex-partner changed our son's birth certificate without my permission. The Registry of BMD told me a single parent could do that. But when I said ok, as a single parent I would like to change it back they said "oh no, you can't do that" and they started back-peddling...
When I asked Justice Tim Carmody for our son to be refered to by the name on his birth certificate (before my ex-partner unilaterally changed it) to avoid confusion with school, medicare etc etc. he said "Well that is one matter you two can now solve by yourselves in the new spirit of cooperation".
Idiot.
Later on in the article we switch once again. They are now the "Robertson-Yelland children" ! What is the name on their birth certificates for Pete's sake ?!
In case you think I am sexist on this issue, I suggest an easy and obvious formula that would avoid a lot of conflict over this issue. Of course the Family Court system has got its head so far up its arse (please forgive my profanities) that it cannot see its way clear to simple obvious solutions.
(Of course it is continuing conflict, not solutions, that keeps business in the black for the Family Court Industry...)
Solution:
1. Forget about wives taking the surname of the husband.
2. Daughters take the surname of the mother; sons take the surname of the father.
I thought Dr Millikin, the "cult-buster" (and media-spin artist) actually introduced the family to the "Family" (Children of God) ???
"Though the children's father, Murray Robertson, said on Thursday that the sect The Family "are wonderful Christian people" and that he was "very close to them", Dr Millikan said The Family had no role in the custody dispute, in which Mr Robertson disappeared with the children for six weeks after failing to return them from an access visit".
Some obvious spin and twist here. It was Millikan who first raised the slur (Murray Robertson's involvement with a "cult") ! Now it is presented as though Murray Robertson initiated the discussion on the Family.
"As for future contact arrangements, Ms Yelland says she has not decided yet what might happen."
What can I say ? Evidence of the cause of the whole problem ? A behaviour pattern we are all fighting to have recognised, to have changed ?
There is a general case for forced negotiation and forced mediation because some people (including egocentric controlling mothers) just don't get it.
The Federal Government sets up the Family Relationship Centres, but
until the FRCs have some authority,
until attendance is mandatory,
until we have equal rights (oh, there goes that 'r' word again. Darn, I'm forgetting about the children...),
until there are penalties (Community Service) for unreasonable behaviour,
until the FRCs are made transparent and accountable,
- we don't have a solution.
In this article Murray Robertson is being framed by media-savvy David Millikin (Philippa Yelland's lover ?) as a 'deadbeat dad'.
I thought Murray Robertson was on sickness benefit ? No mention here of his (possible) sickness. See www.injurysupport.blogspot.com to understand what can happen to a dad if they get sick in this society.
'Earlier in the week a neighbour, Alex Pervushin, said Ms Yelland had cleaned the house out after the disappearance and that "most of the furniture and his things and the kids' things, it all went into an industrial skip bin". '
Philippa Yelland responds:
"Heavens above, maybe there was a kids' T-shirt which had been used as a rag [that was thrown out] but I don't know."
Kids things also went into the industrial skip ? Erasing history ? Maybe she can erase the children's memory also.
With all his research into cults, David might have a few tricks in this regard.
(Remember Bokkie's quote 'this is exactly the same in a way us running away as when mummy took us to Brisbane except no one is telling anyone any lies'. Courier Mail 04 May 2007)
In my case, in the period shortly after separation, we had our possessions stored in a container. I made the suggestion of having two padlocks on the container - one each. If we wanted access, both of us would attend. It worked well for a month or so. I don't know what happened that would have caused a change to this system, but one day I arrived to find my padlock sawn off, all shared possessions gone, and my possessions left out in the rain...
Regarding to the case of the Robertson child vis a vis their mother Philippa Yelland:
1. Philippa's relocation to Brisbane
2. the "lies" as perceived by Bokkie
3. throwing out children's possessions from father's home
4. 'deadbeat dad' spin to the media
- it points to a clear pattern of parental alienation in my view. Parental alienation is very damaging to children. The Family Court will most likely not address this. They do not in reality function in the 'best interests of the child.'
Philippa Yelland needs to relocate back to the Blue Mountains (or otherwise negotiated with Murray Robertson), and needs to attend a parenting course highlighting the damage created by parental alienation. If Philippa's behaviour pattern persists, she must be penalised (Community Service).
I do not recommend reducing Philippa's access to the children to less than 50%, which is what should now be implemented. However, if parental alienation becomes extreme, this of course would constitute child abuse, and would be grounds for having restricted access.
Cheers, Geoff
www.equalparentingtime.blogspot.com
R O L L I N G T H U N D E R R E V I E W !!!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:34 PM
Subject: 'Safely' back to normal
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/tug-of-love-the-children-in-the-middle/2007/05/04/1177788400621.html
Reunited … Ms Yelland and her children yesterday.
Photo: Jon Reid
Tug of love: the children in the middle
Lisa Pryor and Les Kennedy May 5, 2007
AFTER weeks in the wilds of Tasmania with their father, the three Yelland-Robertson children spent last night in Sydney with their mother, at the inner west home of David Millikan, the Uniting Church minister, cult expert, television producer and family friend who has shepherded Philippa Yelland through the ordeal of tracking down her family.
Bokkie, 10, Matilda, 9, and Barney, 7, were yesterday afternoon recovering from a flurry of airports, television cameras and reporters.
"They're sort of slowly collapsing," Dr Millikan said. "I think they're going to sleep for about 20 hours."
Ms Yelland expects her children will return to school in Brisbane next week. She is not pressing them about the details of their time in Tasmania. She is looking forward to returning to an ordinary suburban life.
"Let's have some boredom and normality."
A Today Tonight television crew visited the Balmain home yesterday to interview Ms Yelland. The current affairs show secured the story through Dr Millikan, who is an "occasional producer with Channel Seven". Ms Yelland was not paid for the story, he said.
Though Dr Millikan is best known as a cult expert, he was quick to point out he was helping the family as a friend and not as a "cultbuster".
Ms Yelland said she had been friends with Dr Millikan for years and he accompanied her because she needed "another pair of hands".
"I happen to know Philippa and Murray from some years back," Dr Millikan said.
Though the children's father, Murray Robertson, said on Thursday that the sect The Family "are wonderful Christian people" and that he was "very close to them", Dr Millikan said The Family had no role in the custody dispute, in which Mr Robertson disappeared with the children for six weeks after failing to return them from an access visit.
Some years ago the Robertson-Yelland family had some "passing contact" with the religious organisation but that was all.
"They never joined, they never gave money. I think they maybe even established the odd friendship but that was distant," Dr Millikan said.
"The Family called me up today really angry. They said 'we have not anything to do with [the situation]'."
The children arrived in Sydney at lunchtime yesterday. "I'm tired," Matilda said in a frail exhausted voice as her mother ushered her and her siblings through the Virgin Blue terminal.
As his children were spending the evening in Sydney, it was believed that Mr Robertson had sought refuge with Quakers in Launceston.
As for future contact arrangements, Ms Yelland says she has not decided yet what might happen.
Dr Millikan said: "He has maintained the kids wanted to be with him and so forth but it's a very difficult situation.
"During the course of their marriage, I think they were married for over 10 years, he was never able to sustain regular employment so she was the one who maintained the financial viability of the family."
She was the one who purchased the property in Hazelbrook where Mr Robertson lived before his disappearance.
Earlier in the week a neighbour, Alex Pervushin, said Ms Yelland had cleaned the house out after the disappearance and that "most of the furniture and his things and the kids' things, it all went into an industrial skip bin".
Ms Yelland said there were five adults working for five hours to clear the house and she does not remember exactly what was thrown out. "Heavens above, maybe there was a kids' T-shirt which had been used as a rag [that was thrown out] but I don't know."
She said the house would be sold.
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
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
Sssh ! - parental alienation in progress
I would like to make a link to a friend of mine's blogspot http://parentalalienationischildabuse.blogspot.com/
It appears that his ex-partner is actively alienating him from his son.
Her solicitor - as one might expect - appears to be aggravating the situation.
It appears that his ex-partner is actively alienating him from his son.
Her solicitor - as one might expect - appears to be aggravating the situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
