The 'r' word
There was some point in the 20th Century when custody of Children following divorce switched from the Father to the Mother. We should revisit that history and understand how it happened.
In Japan only recently did the law switch from favouring the Father to favouring the Mother.
In many countries including Lebanon, the Father is still favoured for child custody.
There was no catastrophe when Fathers had custody of the Children. Still, I believe allowing both Parents to participate fully in a Child's life is preferable to marginalising either of them.
I am, of course, an advocate for the Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
I believe that this is a natural right - to have full access to one's own child ('full access' means 'half access' in the case of separated parents). This natural right can only be taken away in circumstances of abuse (or negotiated where there are obvious practical problems such as living in different cities).
If there are problems with parenting in society, focus on resolving the problems ! Don't sweep the problems under the carpet by reducing access ! This achieves nothing.
To me the situation is prima facie - I shouldn't even have to argue it. We live in a society based on civil rights and this is one of them. Parenting is a civil right which has been taken away from Dads (and sometimes Mums). Dads have been hoodwinked.
It is akin to people being against, or being indecisive about, poorly educated black people having a right to vote. Or simply - universal suffrage (eg women getting the vote). In my view there is no difference.
We should be indignant. We should be outraged.
But it is politically incorrect to talk about 'rights'. We must only talk about 'the best interests of the Child'. A recent article in The Age finishes by saying "Someone has to keep an eye out for the interests of the child." Of course we should. But this sentiment has become gratuitous. It has been used for decades by the Family Court system and the Radical Feminists to keep Children and Dads apart. The sentiment is being facetiously and politically manipulated.
There is only one men's group I know which will openly talk about men's rights. All the others keep well away from this explosive word 'rights'.
Here are a couple of recent quotes by a (male) feminist which indicates how the Domestic Violence campaigns are a feminist strategy (the fear factor) being used to block the movement for increased involvement of Dads in their Children's lives following family separation:
"Recent politicking from Men's Rights groups and amendments to Family Law legislation are two examples of an apparent backlash against feminism".
Shane Hopkinson, (male) Sociology, Central Queensland University
Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006 p4
The Fathers Rights Agenda
In many respoects there is a false controversy being created in the media and, it would seem, in the minds of my students, which I think is an important marker of the extent to which the backlash politics is gaining ground. It is driven by a Fathers' Rights anti-feminism which has seen the government sponsor such groups as Lone Fathers Association to the tune of $100,000 over 2 years (Summers 2003:98), and who have thus been able to promote the idea that violence is not gendered and/or that the 'issue' of domestic violence is really the product of a 'feminist industry' that exaggerates the extent of family violence and unfairly blames it all on men.
While professing a concern for male victims of violence and showing a willingness to exploit men's pain and suffering at the end of relationships, Fathers' Rights groups have been able to generate considerable sympathy and have been able to get the ear of government. Unfortunately their real agenda is a re-assertion of traditional male prerogatives over women and children. Aside from the idea of gender symmetry in family violence they have promoted the idea that children need fathers above all else and this is gradually displacing the issue of child safety as the key issue in court determinations of custody and access. Further they seek to discredit female victims by alleging that women:
1. fabricate false allegations of child abuse to deny men access to their children (in fact, cases of abuse only appear in a small number of hearings); and
2. stategically and punitively use Apprehended Violence Orders or Domestic Violence Orders as a bargaining tool in Court rather than out of any genuine fear of violence."
Shane Hopkinson, (male) Sociology, Central Queensland University
Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006
Yes - only one men's organisation that I know of that dares to speak about 'men's rights' (funny how 'men's rights' has an ominous resonance, and 'women's rights' conjures up images of morality and justice. How did 'men's rights' become a dirty word ?)
However, this organisation is run by a woman (who censors my postings and has removed me from the list though I have done nothing provocative - until this e-mail at least. I am simply speaking up). Another men's group has warned me not to represent them otherwise I will face police prosecution. Bizarre as I have never attempted to represent them ! How can the movement be so immature ?
Two prominent men's groups who receive government funding are not working for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time in my view. One says we have missed the boat, the other says we already got a good deal. (They nominally agree with the policy of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time but they do not appear to be actively lobbying for it).
I don't want to fragment the Dad's Movement, but rather to argue that Presumption of Equal Parenting Time is not a radical extreme position, but the obvious and central goal.
Yes, Dad's have been hoodwinked. We have been led to believe that:
1. men are less worthy Parents than women,
2. equal parenting is too destabilising for Children,
3. a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will put Children at greater risk of abuse.
All three of these myths are false.
The authorities know it. They are attempting to appease us by modifying the Family Court system culture somewhat. But we do not want appeasement. We wish our natural rights as fathers to be recognised and acted upon.
One prominent feminist has stated that if Dads want equal parenting we have to earn it. I suppose she would nominate herself to be on the judging panel for each and every Dad.
The Feminist Movement is a formidable opposition. Worse, the Labor Party will probably win the next election (we must vote for supportive Independents, and Family First - as long as Family First can make their support for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time a little more explicit). This will not be an easy or short term campaign, but we will win in the end.
This e-mail is provocative - it is intended to be. Some Dads groups may recommend we walk softly and come in from the back door. I say we enter from the front door. But we must be well-dressed, well presented, calm, happy, and well-reasoned. Yes, it is a Public Relations competition.
Some people will label me an extremist - perhaps a 'radical masculinist'. But I promote:
1. peace, non-violence, conflict resolution, mediation, reconciliation, and respect
2. discussion and debate
3. equal rights, equity and reciprocation.
The feminist position is a radical one founded on deceit (98% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men). My experience is that Radical Feminists are generally not willing to engage in debate.
The position of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time is a reasonable and moderate one.
But we won't make much further progress until Dads start waking up to the situation. We need to organise, and we need to be independent of government funding.
Of course I welcome women to be a part of the movement for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, and a number of women have already made fantastic contributions.
Also, I believe the majority of feminists, judging by opinion polls and my own experience with petition tables in the street, is that most feminists support a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. Unfortunately the Executive is not listening to their Constituency. In fact you could probably define Radical Feminism, as distinct from mainstream Feminism, by their view on a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. You are either for it, against, or undecided. There is no compromise position.
Each of us needs to be active on a regular basis. Integrate it into your weekly schedule.
And we need to be actively waking up other Dads to the ongoing injustice of the Family Court system, as well as the benefits of Children spending more time with their Dads.
Cheers, Geoff
(PS with no intentions of running for office or seeking government funding. So please pardon the grandstanding, but some of us have to do it).
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
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.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Biased mediators in the Family Court
A single Dad I know told me about his experience with the Family Court mediator.
He was summoned in first to talk to the mediator. The conversation lasted about five minutes. Then he was ushered out and the Mum was summoned in. The Dad waited outside for approximately 45 minutes.
Then the Dad was summoned in again. The female mediator said to him: "Look, this is what we have decided..."
The Dad objected to the manner of decision-making. His objections were ignored. He walked out.
He was summoned in first to talk to the mediator. The conversation lasted about five minutes. Then he was ushered out and the Mum was summoned in. The Dad waited outside for approximately 45 minutes.
Then the Dad was summoned in again. The female mediator said to him: "Look, this is what we have decided..."
The Dad objected to the manner of decision-making. His objections were ignored. He walked out.
Family Court reforms
An article from the Age and my letter to the editor, which to my knowledge was not published. Do editors feel they have a community responsibility to publish the least number of letters concerning Equal Parenting and reform of the Family Court issues ?
The Age 26 April 2007
Taking some of the pain out of family breakdowns
THE Family Court has had a short but tumultuous history. Since its inception as part of the 1975 Family Law Act — initiated by Labor attorney-general Lionel Murphy with the aim of allowing failed marriages to end with dignity and minimum expense — the court has indeed simplified divorce proceedings, but it has also witnessed battles between parents, lawyers and judges, often with tragic consequences.
It has been described, with reason, as the most dangerous and violent court in the country. The most extreme clashes have resulted in death and serious injury. In the 1980s, Family Court judge David Opas was shot dead when he answered his doorbell; Pearl Watson, the wife of a second judge, died when a bomb exploded on her doorstep; and Judge Richard Gee was hurt in a bombing. Indeed, there have been numerous cases resulting in death or injury in violent episodes outside family courts around Australia.
While these incidents are tragic and deplorable, it is not surprising that the personal and financial devastation that so often follows the dissolution of a marriage has had such consequences — especially when drawn-out legal negotiations have left numerous fathers feeling abandoned by the courts and mothers struggling to raise their children with inadequate support from their former partners. But in recent months the Family Court has undergone radical changes in its processes and the results have been encouraging. As The Age reports today, the spirit of the Murphy reforms may finally have been embraced.
The formality of a trial, dominated by lawyers whose approach often exacerbated tensions between the parties, has been replaced by a conference in which the judge has a conversation with the parents and allows each to speak directly of his or her experiences, attitudes to parenting and hopes for the future. Even its straightforward title — the less adversarial trial — indicates the fact that the traditional British "adversarial" system has been replaced with a European-style inquisitorial system in which the laws of evidence are less stringent. The focus of the judge's inquiry is on the children and the arrangements that will best meet their needs.
This process is the subject of Finding a Better Way, a report to be launched tomorrow by Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant. Written by La Trobe University academic Jennifer McIntosh, it is a study of the effects of the process on children and parents who participated in trials of the new system in 2004 and 2005. The results are encouraging. Children whose parents were divorced under the new system emerged happier than children whose cases were processed in the traditional way; their parents argued less and were more likely to have co-operative arrangements for sharing the children than other parents. Dr McIntosh concluded that the new system "demonstrated a greater capacity to respond to and safeguard the psychological vulnerabilities of the co-parental relationship, post separations than the traditional, adversarial process". In general, parents have also been positive about the new approach: whereas 70 per cent of parents involved in the previous approach felt the process had a negative effect on them as parents, just 28 per cent of those in the new process felt this way.
This does not mean an end to disputes about custody and child support — there remains much to be done to ensure that all parents meet their responsibilities in these matters — but the Family Court has taken a huge step towards civilising what was too often a demeaning process for all involved. The great strength of the new system is that for the first time the law insists that the interests of the child be paramount and that both parents have, as far as possible, equal rights and responsibilities. The system is not perfect — for example, there are legitimate concerns about ditching the rules of evidence (particularly the abolition of the ban on hearsay) — but with goodwill, strong support systems and careful adjudication, children will be the real beneficiaries of these changes. As one QC said: "Someone has to keep an eye out for the interests of the child."
_____________________________________________
The Age Letters to the Editor 26 Apr 2007
Judges must also get out of the way
Finally ! It has taken 30 years for the Family Court system to acknowledge what Dads have been arguing all along - that their adversarial system is grossly inappropriate ("Taking some of the pain..." 26 Apr 07). In fact, by amplifying conflict they have been damaging children and acting contrary to the child's best interests.
However, they still don’t get it ! While the Family Court now admits that trials have been “dominated by lawyers whose approach often exacerbated tensions between the parties”, they still do not see that judges also need to get out of the way.
The new Family Relationship Centres are the way to go, but until they are mandatory, until they have authority, transparency and accountability, and until they are based on a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, they are not going to be able to keep separating partners out of court.
A judge has no right to decide how much access a child has to each parent when the parents are together. Assuming there is no child abuse - by far the majority of cases - what gives judges the right to make arbitrary judgments on access just because the parents have separated ?
Geoff Holland
Cairns, Qld
The Age 26 April 2007
Taking some of the pain out of family breakdowns
THE Family Court has had a short but tumultuous history. Since its inception as part of the 1975 Family Law Act — initiated by Labor attorney-general Lionel Murphy with the aim of allowing failed marriages to end with dignity and minimum expense — the court has indeed simplified divorce proceedings, but it has also witnessed battles between parents, lawyers and judges, often with tragic consequences.
It has been described, with reason, as the most dangerous and violent court in the country. The most extreme clashes have resulted in death and serious injury. In the 1980s, Family Court judge David Opas was shot dead when he answered his doorbell; Pearl Watson, the wife of a second judge, died when a bomb exploded on her doorstep; and Judge Richard Gee was hurt in a bombing. Indeed, there have been numerous cases resulting in death or injury in violent episodes outside family courts around Australia.
While these incidents are tragic and deplorable, it is not surprising that the personal and financial devastation that so often follows the dissolution of a marriage has had such consequences — especially when drawn-out legal negotiations have left numerous fathers feeling abandoned by the courts and mothers struggling to raise their children with inadequate support from their former partners. But in recent months the Family Court has undergone radical changes in its processes and the results have been encouraging. As The Age reports today, the spirit of the Murphy reforms may finally have been embraced.
The formality of a trial, dominated by lawyers whose approach often exacerbated tensions between the parties, has been replaced by a conference in which the judge has a conversation with the parents and allows each to speak directly of his or her experiences, attitudes to parenting and hopes for the future. Even its straightforward title — the less adversarial trial — indicates the fact that the traditional British "adversarial" system has been replaced with a European-style inquisitorial system in which the laws of evidence are less stringent. The focus of the judge's inquiry is on the children and the arrangements that will best meet their needs.
This process is the subject of Finding a Better Way, a report to be launched tomorrow by Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant. Written by La Trobe University academic Jennifer McIntosh, it is a study of the effects of the process on children and parents who participated in trials of the new system in 2004 and 2005. The results are encouraging. Children whose parents were divorced under the new system emerged happier than children whose cases were processed in the traditional way; their parents argued less and were more likely to have co-operative arrangements for sharing the children than other parents. Dr McIntosh concluded that the new system "demonstrated a greater capacity to respond to and safeguard the psychological vulnerabilities of the co-parental relationship, post separations than the traditional, adversarial process". In general, parents have also been positive about the new approach: whereas 70 per cent of parents involved in the previous approach felt the process had a negative effect on them as parents, just 28 per cent of those in the new process felt this way.
This does not mean an end to disputes about custody and child support — there remains much to be done to ensure that all parents meet their responsibilities in these matters — but the Family Court has taken a huge step towards civilising what was too often a demeaning process for all involved. The great strength of the new system is that for the first time the law insists that the interests of the child be paramount and that both parents have, as far as possible, equal rights and responsibilities. The system is not perfect — for example, there are legitimate concerns about ditching the rules of evidence (particularly the abolition of the ban on hearsay) — but with goodwill, strong support systems and careful adjudication, children will be the real beneficiaries of these changes. As one QC said: "Someone has to keep an eye out for the interests of the child."
_____________________________________________
The Age Letters to the Editor 26 Apr 2007
Judges must also get out of the way
Finally ! It has taken 30 years for the Family Court system to acknowledge what Dads have been arguing all along - that their adversarial system is grossly inappropriate ("Taking some of the pain..." 26 Apr 07). In fact, by amplifying conflict they have been damaging children and acting contrary to the child's best interests.
However, they still don’t get it ! While the Family Court now admits that trials have been “dominated by lawyers whose approach often exacerbated tensions between the parties”, they still do not see that judges also need to get out of the way.
The new Family Relationship Centres are the way to go, but until they are mandatory, until they have authority, transparency and accountability, and until they are based on a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, they are not going to be able to keep separating partners out of court.
A judge has no right to decide how much access a child has to each parent when the parents are together. Assuming there is no child abuse - by far the majority of cases - what gives judges the right to make arbitrary judgments on access just because the parents have separated ?
Geoff Holland
Cairns, Qld
Letters to Desley Boyle, Qld Minister for Child Safety
From: Geoff Holland Sent: Friday, 27 April 2007 11:50 PMTo: Cairns Electorate OfficeSubject: Qld Govt Domestic Violence campaign
Desley Boyle
Minister for Child Safety
Dear Desley,
I would like to congratulate you on your recent comments about child abuse, to the effect that women's role in child abuse has been largely overlooked while the focus has been on men's role in child abuse.
I therefore forward a letter to you (please see below) that recently came my way, for your consideration.
I am not out to villify women. Nor am I attempting to diminish the urgency and seriousness of Domestic Violence (though indicators tentatively suggest a general trend for the better).
However, there is a clear distortion of the reality concerning Domestic Violence in society, and the Queensland Govt. must share some responsibility for this in funding the recent Domestic Violence campaign which shows that all victims of Domestic Violence are women and all perpetrators are men.
The campaign is a blame game. Men are to blame for Domestic Violence. This only serves to heighten fear and to reduce men's self-esteem. Reducing self-esteem in the long run is a sure fire way to get the worst behaviour from people. The whole approach is fundamentally flawed. Domestic Violence must be seen as a Community Problem !
There are many forms of Domestic Violence - men against women, women against men, women and men against each other (the most common form), women against women, men against men, men against children, women against children, children against children, children against parents etc. Why single out one form of Domestic Violence, and in a discriminatory way ?
A friend of mine recently complained to the Advertising Standards Board regarding the latest State Govt. Domestic Violence campaign. They wrote back stating that their client, the Qld Dept. of Communities, had based the advertisements (women 100% victims, men 100% perpetrators) on a study by Access Economics which demonstrated that the figures were in fact 98% which was close enough to 100%. This is absurd ! This is deceiptful ! I know the Access Economics Report. They were obliged to publish a corrigenum. Also, they never conducted the study, they merely drew from a study which was commissioned by Brisbane City Council and was hopelessly flawed. Why use an obscure study anyway ? Why not use the ABS Personal Safety Study ?
Just over two years ago I was advised to accept a Domestic Violence Order without admission of guilt. This was the advice from the Cairns Regional Domestic Violence Centre since they said it would be impossible for me to overturn the charge (though I had not physically assaulted anybody, nor threatened to, not even verbally abused anybody - it was a total sham in the context of a Family Court case). The case was never investigated. The police never asked me what happened (or rather, what didn't happen). I regret following the advice of the Cairns Regional Domestic Violence Centre. Following the hearing I wrote an eight page letter to the judge. She refered me to my State member. I believe I contacted you at the time.
I could continue ad nauseum. Suffice to say, I hope you have enough critical awareness to reevaluate the situation for yourself, and enough courage to advocate a different policy direction should you feel the status quo is seriously flawed and counterproductive.
Desley, I would appreciate at least a brief acknowledgement from you that you have personally received this e-mail.
Many Thanks,
Regards,
Geoff Holland
In the interests of a fair and GENUINE approach to the issues of Domestic Violence in both Australia and internationally, and in response to the Government Task Force dealing with DV in women and children it is undeniably essential that the matter be considered at its true face value.
The ABS Personal Safety Survey 2005 (PSS), http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4906.02005%20(Reissue)?OpenDocument, provides some disturbing accuracy in its statistics regarding the occurence of DV across a variety of populations of which I Mr Andresen has made you well aware.
The http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/eureka/Eureka_95/domviol.html "Men also hit by domestic violence", shows clearly that Men make up almost one-third of all domestic violence cases that result in hospitalisation, according to a Monash University study. The study looked at 53,320 cases of "partner-inflicted injuries" at the emergency departments of four Melbourne hospitals and one regional Victorian public hospital. And according to the report, Domestic Violence: Patterns and Indicators, social and cultural factors such as men's reluctance to report their abuse indicate the rate may be even higher. While women are injured more often than men, men who are assaulted by their female partners sustain more serious injuries and spend more time in hospital. The report indicates that men were lacerated or punctured by knives far more frequently than women, especially to the head and arms,"
It should be noted at this time that patients with Acquired Brain Injury resulting in permanent institutional care are only recorded as DV victims if they are women. It is considered politically uncomfortable to place this diagnosis on the greater proportion of these victims who are male victims of violent female partners. These men are simply labelled "assualt victims" and are not protected from visits from their assailants as are female DV victims in the same care facility just as they are not compensated for the loss of their lives.
However, the report found that up to 70 per cent of domestic violence victims went undetected by hospital emergency departments in Victoria. And only 11 per cent of those detected were referred on to an appropriate domestic violence service.
Such reports as the Monash University study are not uncommon as researchers initiate Genuine Efforts to ascertain the impact of this social issue across all demographics with no underlying group skewing the outcomes and results to meet a personal or group agenda. All such reports indicate the concern that men consistently underreport themselves as Domestic Violence victims. Health care providers, Family and Community workers, Religious Groups, Shelters, Housing services, Police forces and Law Courts are notoriously ineffective in identifying Domestic Violence as a whole, but this situation is worsened by notably deficient education on the matter and distortion of information on DV sources, victims and related victims (particularly significant others and children).
The Domino effect of this mishandling becomes more and more evident the the depreciation of societal values, increasing DV rates, Street violence, drug use, suicide rates, mental illness and crimes of emotion that we see today.
Whilst I understand that the subject is an emotionally and societally uncomfortable one, it is nonetheless very real. Whilst the true data on DV raises some very disturbing trends and and acceptance of the facts raises by default the moral and ethical obligation to take action in a potentially politically inflammatory vessel, the failure to do so fails an enourmous proportion of the voting population and even more future voters.
Please remember that, as a country of 2.2 children per couple, there are a great deal many more children affected than there are either male of female victims. Why are they blatantly neglected?
Why does a man calling the police as a DV victim get brushed off, even arrested, told "slap her one and wise her up", or referred to "anger management counselling"?
Why does a man removing his children from such a situation get branded and treated as a kidnapper?
Why does a man calling a shelter for he and his children get turned away and referred to "anger management counselling"?
Why does a man presenting in family court seeking the custody and therefore safety of his children from a violent mother get ignored, his children placed in the custody of their violent mother, and behold the father is then referred to "anger management counselling"?
Why does a man presenting at a religious shelter suffer immediate separation from his children, traumatised by their violent mother, to be placed in the care of a woman, "as a father is not able to nurture!!", and then the father referred to "anger management counselling"?
Why is a man calling VAWA treated with contempt and provided with, lo and behold, provided with a referral to anger management counselling.
Why is a man presenting to a trained psychologist (at his own expense of course) for support and coping strategies, informed that he must "learn to manage his anger".
Why do housing services refuse to provide emergency housing to men and their children fleeing a violent situation?
and further
Why do women have the highly funded VAWA, television advertising, health centres, CYWHS, shelters, Women focussed support services in SAPOL, Family Court, Religious groups, housing services?
Why does a woman contacting police as a DV victim get immediate attention, protection and is not required to provide any evidence of DV although her partner may be in the same home, injured from her beating.
Why does a woman running from a DV partner receive full supports from Centrelink, Housing Services, Police, Courts?
Why does a woman attending a shelter receive this care, or get referred on to other shelters/safe houses where places are limited?
Why does a woman in family court (where over 70% of DV claims by women are known to be falisified), succeed in alienating her chidlren from a loving and supportive father, despite the provision of substantial and irrefutable evidence of her unprovoked violence?
Why does a womea presenting at a shelter after leaving the family home remain with her children in her care? Why is she instructed to claim DV even where she emphatically denies its existance so that the shelter can obtain funding for her placement?
Why is a woman calling VAWA or other DV services treated with respect, consideration and care and provided with all available references, supports and services?
Why is a woman attending counselling services provided an ongoing outlet, at taxpayers expense? (and if necessary guidance in falsifying DV claims to maintain child custody and alienate a father)???
Why is a woman able to obtain emergency housing for herself and her children, trust housing, financial support and guidance, and why is she advised to claim DV in order to expidite the process?
And then:
Why does Violence Against Women exist? Why not Violence Against Humans, Violence against People, Violence against Population, Violence against Children? Why this grossly irresponsible discrimination? Why this blatant determination to support an exacerbate a dysfunctional mien and service?
Mrs Keryn Eden
Clinical Nurse Specialist
Mobile: 0416 028 497
Desley Boyle,
Qld Minister for Child Safety
Thankyou Desley, I appreciate your interest. I hope you have an opportunity to suggest a more enlightened approach to reducing Domestic Violence in the community in the future.
Perhaps we could have a balanced campaign - for example one which depicted a female public figure (eg singer, sports personality) speaking to women to refrain from violence, and a similar male public figure speaking to men to refrain from violence ?
Perhaps we could look at how children suffer both directly and indirectly from Domestic Violence ?
Since verbal abuse and psychological violence are grounds for a Domestic Violence Order (rightly so - provided allegations can be substantiated), then we should perhaps also look at non-physical forms of violence in future Domestic Violence campaigns.
I think that we should also acknowledge that things have improved - eg give some statistics - but then remind ourselves that we have a long way to go before we become a truly non-violent society... The message should always, in my view, contain a positive element (eg at least show families that have been able to work through and overcome Domestic Violence). The Qld State and Federal Domestic Violence Campaigns that I have seen have been 100% negative. I believe it shows a lack of understanding of human psychology and how best to influence behaviour patterns. (Yes, the same can be said for speed-driving and anti-smoking campaigns).
Perhaps you are able to forward these suggestions to relevant people in the Dept of Community Services ?
Thanks again,
Regards,
Geoff Holland
From: Cairns Electorate Office
To: Geoff Holland
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: RE: Qld Govt Domestic Violence campaign
Geoff, thank you for y our letter. I agree we have a long way to go to get a fairer system wherein any violence, and most particularly in the home, is not acceptable. Regards, Desley.
Desley Boyle MP Member for Cairns Ph 4051-2868 / Fax 4051-6760
Desley Boyle
Minister for Child Safety
Dear Desley,
I would like to congratulate you on your recent comments about child abuse, to the effect that women's role in child abuse has been largely overlooked while the focus has been on men's role in child abuse.
I therefore forward a letter to you (please see below) that recently came my way, for your consideration.
I am not out to villify women. Nor am I attempting to diminish the urgency and seriousness of Domestic Violence (though indicators tentatively suggest a general trend for the better).
However, there is a clear distortion of the reality concerning Domestic Violence in society, and the Queensland Govt. must share some responsibility for this in funding the recent Domestic Violence campaign which shows that all victims of Domestic Violence are women and all perpetrators are men.
The campaign is a blame game. Men are to blame for Domestic Violence. This only serves to heighten fear and to reduce men's self-esteem. Reducing self-esteem in the long run is a sure fire way to get the worst behaviour from people. The whole approach is fundamentally flawed. Domestic Violence must be seen as a Community Problem !
There are many forms of Domestic Violence - men against women, women against men, women and men against each other (the most common form), women against women, men against men, men against children, women against children, children against children, children against parents etc. Why single out one form of Domestic Violence, and in a discriminatory way ?
A friend of mine recently complained to the Advertising Standards Board regarding the latest State Govt. Domestic Violence campaign. They wrote back stating that their client, the Qld Dept. of Communities, had based the advertisements (women 100% victims, men 100% perpetrators) on a study by Access Economics which demonstrated that the figures were in fact 98% which was close enough to 100%. This is absurd ! This is deceiptful ! I know the Access Economics Report. They were obliged to publish a corrigenum. Also, they never conducted the study, they merely drew from a study which was commissioned by Brisbane City Council and was hopelessly flawed. Why use an obscure study anyway ? Why not use the ABS Personal Safety Study ?
Just over two years ago I was advised to accept a Domestic Violence Order without admission of guilt. This was the advice from the Cairns Regional Domestic Violence Centre since they said it would be impossible for me to overturn the charge (though I had not physically assaulted anybody, nor threatened to, not even verbally abused anybody - it was a total sham in the context of a Family Court case). The case was never investigated. The police never asked me what happened (or rather, what didn't happen). I regret following the advice of the Cairns Regional Domestic Violence Centre. Following the hearing I wrote an eight page letter to the judge. She refered me to my State member. I believe I contacted you at the time.
I could continue ad nauseum. Suffice to say, I hope you have enough critical awareness to reevaluate the situation for yourself, and enough courage to advocate a different policy direction should you feel the status quo is seriously flawed and counterproductive.
Desley, I would appreciate at least a brief acknowledgement from you that you have personally received this e-mail.
Many Thanks,
Regards,
Geoff Holland
In the interests of a fair and GENUINE approach to the issues of Domestic Violence in both Australia and internationally, and in response to the Government Task Force dealing with DV in women and children it is undeniably essential that the matter be considered at its true face value.
The ABS Personal Safety Survey 2005 (PSS), http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4906.02005%20(Reissue)?OpenDocument, provides some disturbing accuracy in its statistics regarding the occurence of DV across a variety of populations of which I Mr Andresen has made you well aware.
The http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/eureka/Eureka_95/domviol.html "Men also hit by domestic violence", shows clearly that Men make up almost one-third of all domestic violence cases that result in hospitalisation, according to a Monash University study. The study looked at 53,320 cases of "partner-inflicted injuries" at the emergency departments of four Melbourne hospitals and one regional Victorian public hospital. And according to the report, Domestic Violence: Patterns and Indicators, social and cultural factors such as men's reluctance to report their abuse indicate the rate may be even higher. While women are injured more often than men, men who are assaulted by their female partners sustain more serious injuries and spend more time in hospital. The report indicates that men were lacerated or punctured by knives far more frequently than women, especially to the head and arms,"
It should be noted at this time that patients with Acquired Brain Injury resulting in permanent institutional care are only recorded as DV victims if they are women. It is considered politically uncomfortable to place this diagnosis on the greater proportion of these victims who are male victims of violent female partners. These men are simply labelled "assualt victims" and are not protected from visits from their assailants as are female DV victims in the same care facility just as they are not compensated for the loss of their lives.
However, the report found that up to 70 per cent of domestic violence victims went undetected by hospital emergency departments in Victoria. And only 11 per cent of those detected were referred on to an appropriate domestic violence service.
Such reports as the Monash University study are not uncommon as researchers initiate Genuine Efforts to ascertain the impact of this social issue across all demographics with no underlying group skewing the outcomes and results to meet a personal or group agenda. All such reports indicate the concern that men consistently underreport themselves as Domestic Violence victims. Health care providers, Family and Community workers, Religious Groups, Shelters, Housing services, Police forces and Law Courts are notoriously ineffective in identifying Domestic Violence as a whole, but this situation is worsened by notably deficient education on the matter and distortion of information on DV sources, victims and related victims (particularly significant others and children).
The Domino effect of this mishandling becomes more and more evident the the depreciation of societal values, increasing DV rates, Street violence, drug use, suicide rates, mental illness and crimes of emotion that we see today.
Whilst I understand that the subject is an emotionally and societally uncomfortable one, it is nonetheless very real. Whilst the true data on DV raises some very disturbing trends and and acceptance of the facts raises by default the moral and ethical obligation to take action in a potentially politically inflammatory vessel, the failure to do so fails an enourmous proportion of the voting population and even more future voters.
Please remember that, as a country of 2.2 children per couple, there are a great deal many more children affected than there are either male of female victims. Why are they blatantly neglected?
Why does a man calling the police as a DV victim get brushed off, even arrested, told "slap her one and wise her up", or referred to "anger management counselling"?
Why does a man removing his children from such a situation get branded and treated as a kidnapper?
Why does a man calling a shelter for he and his children get turned away and referred to "anger management counselling"?
Why does a man presenting in family court seeking the custody and therefore safety of his children from a violent mother get ignored, his children placed in the custody of their violent mother, and behold the father is then referred to "anger management counselling"?
Why does a man presenting at a religious shelter suffer immediate separation from his children, traumatised by their violent mother, to be placed in the care of a woman, "as a father is not able to nurture!!", and then the father referred to "anger management counselling"?
Why is a man calling VAWA treated with contempt and provided with, lo and behold, provided with a referral to anger management counselling.
Why is a man presenting to a trained psychologist (at his own expense of course) for support and coping strategies, informed that he must "learn to manage his anger".
Why do housing services refuse to provide emergency housing to men and their children fleeing a violent situation?
and further
Why do women have the highly funded VAWA, television advertising, health centres, CYWHS, shelters, Women focussed support services in SAPOL, Family Court, Religious groups, housing services?
Why does a woman contacting police as a DV victim get immediate attention, protection and is not required to provide any evidence of DV although her partner may be in the same home, injured from her beating.
Why does a woman running from a DV partner receive full supports from Centrelink, Housing Services, Police, Courts?
Why does a woman attending a shelter receive this care, or get referred on to other shelters/safe houses where places are limited?
Why does a woman in family court (where over 70% of DV claims by women are known to be falisified), succeed in alienating her chidlren from a loving and supportive father, despite the provision of substantial and irrefutable evidence of her unprovoked violence?
Why does a womea presenting at a shelter after leaving the family home remain with her children in her care? Why is she instructed to claim DV even where she emphatically denies its existance so that the shelter can obtain funding for her placement?
Why is a woman calling VAWA or other DV services treated with respect, consideration and care and provided with all available references, supports and services?
Why is a woman attending counselling services provided an ongoing outlet, at taxpayers expense? (and if necessary guidance in falsifying DV claims to maintain child custody and alienate a father)???
Why is a woman able to obtain emergency housing for herself and her children, trust housing, financial support and guidance, and why is she advised to claim DV in order to expidite the process?
And then:
Why does Violence Against Women exist? Why not Violence Against Humans, Violence against People, Violence against Population, Violence against Children? Why this grossly irresponsible discrimination? Why this blatant determination to support an exacerbate a dysfunctional mien and service?
Mrs Keryn Eden
Clinical Nurse Specialist
Mobile: 0416 028 497
Desley Boyle,
Qld Minister for Child Safety
Thankyou Desley, I appreciate your interest. I hope you have an opportunity to suggest a more enlightened approach to reducing Domestic Violence in the community in the future.
Perhaps we could have a balanced campaign - for example one which depicted a female public figure (eg singer, sports personality) speaking to women to refrain from violence, and a similar male public figure speaking to men to refrain from violence ?
Perhaps we could look at how children suffer both directly and indirectly from Domestic Violence ?
Since verbal abuse and psychological violence are grounds for a Domestic Violence Order (rightly so - provided allegations can be substantiated), then we should perhaps also look at non-physical forms of violence in future Domestic Violence campaigns.
I think that we should also acknowledge that things have improved - eg give some statistics - but then remind ourselves that we have a long way to go before we become a truly non-violent society... The message should always, in my view, contain a positive element (eg at least show families that have been able to work through and overcome Domestic Violence). The Qld State and Federal Domestic Violence Campaigns that I have seen have been 100% negative. I believe it shows a lack of understanding of human psychology and how best to influence behaviour patterns. (Yes, the same can be said for speed-driving and anti-smoking campaigns).
Perhaps you are able to forward these suggestions to relevant people in the Dept of Community Services ?
Thanks again,
Regards,
Geoff Holland
From: Cairns Electorate Office
To: Geoff Holland
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: RE: Qld Govt Domestic Violence campaign
Geoff, thank you for y our letter. I agree we have a long way to go to get a fairer system wherein any violence, and most particularly in the home, is not acceptable. Regards, Desley.
Desley Boyle MP Member for Cairns Ph 4051-2868 / Fax 4051-6760
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
Attempt to silence our modest protest
Rob and I have been holding a weekly stall for about three months now. The stall consists of a fold-up table and two fold-up chairs. We have a petition for people to sign supporting a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
About three weeks ago, Seantor Jan McLucas came out of her office to ask us to relocate as people might confuse our campaign with her own policies (God forbid !). I explained to Jan that we were here because we were located ouotside the Family Court, but that we might consider moving six metres further along (outside the offices of a law firm which carries out Family Law cases).
The next day I went to visit Jan. She was good enought to see me without an appointment. I explained to her that we were not targeting the Family Court so much as Federal members and Federal Senators (such as herself) as they are the law-makers, and they need to introduce a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
We talked about the issues. Jan mentioned her own case where she has custody of her daughter. Her daughter plays piano and it would be impractical to have mid-week contact woth her Dad. She also used the computer - she couldn't lug this between homes.
I pointed out that in such a case, the Dad may be willing to buy a keyboard. Also, the Dad's house is also likely to have a computer (students at the private Trinity Anglican School are issued with their own laptop which they take to school each day. I would bet my bottom dollar Jan's daughter attends TAS).
I said that if Jan was prepared to continue this dialogue (I want to prepare an information kit for Fedral Senators and Federal Members) we would be happy to relocate to the adjacent office for the time being (there is actually a walkway one metre higher separating us from these offices and out table located in the street).
Ironically we had just renewed our Police Permit (for the next six months) when we were approached by an officer from the Cairns City Council telling us they had received a complaint and we would have to shut down the stall.
I suspect the complainant was McDonnell's Solicitors who felt no need to even try to negotitate. Rob and I went immediately to Cairns City Council to discuss the matter with the relevant official.
She advised us to relocate on private property where the Council would have no jurisdiction. She offered all sorts of reasons to put us off - ie we were touting (but the touting legislation refers only to commercial businesses) and obstructing the footpath (which is five metres wide and has light pedestrain traffic).
Our modest petition table attended by only two people, was a held for only two hours once a week. But this has been deemed unacceptable by the Council bowing to the wishes of one person making a complaint.
I am seeking legal advice and I will be challenging this.
About three weeks ago, Seantor Jan McLucas came out of her office to ask us to relocate as people might confuse our campaign with her own policies (God forbid !). I explained to Jan that we were here because we were located ouotside the Family Court, but that we might consider moving six metres further along (outside the offices of a law firm which carries out Family Law cases).
The next day I went to visit Jan. She was good enought to see me without an appointment. I explained to her that we were not targeting the Family Court so much as Federal members and Federal Senators (such as herself) as they are the law-makers, and they need to introduce a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
We talked about the issues. Jan mentioned her own case where she has custody of her daughter. Her daughter plays piano and it would be impractical to have mid-week contact woth her Dad. She also used the computer - she couldn't lug this between homes.
I pointed out that in such a case, the Dad may be willing to buy a keyboard. Also, the Dad's house is also likely to have a computer (students at the private Trinity Anglican School are issued with their own laptop which they take to school each day. I would bet my bottom dollar Jan's daughter attends TAS).
I said that if Jan was prepared to continue this dialogue (I want to prepare an information kit for Fedral Senators and Federal Members) we would be happy to relocate to the adjacent office for the time being (there is actually a walkway one metre higher separating us from these offices and out table located in the street).
Ironically we had just renewed our Police Permit (for the next six months) when we were approached by an officer from the Cairns City Council telling us they had received a complaint and we would have to shut down the stall.
I suspect the complainant was McDonnell's Solicitors who felt no need to even try to negotitate. Rob and I went immediately to Cairns City Council to discuss the matter with the relevant official.
She advised us to relocate on private property where the Council would have no jurisdiction. She offered all sorts of reasons to put us off - ie we were touting (but the touting legislation refers only to commercial businesses) and obstructing the footpath (which is five metres wide and has light pedestrain traffic).
Our modest petition table attended by only two people, was a held for only two hours once a week. But this has been deemed unacceptable by the Council bowing to the wishes of one person making a complaint.
I am seeking legal advice and I will be challenging this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
