My Message to FM Kate Hughes
(reproduced here by request of the author)
My Message to Federal Magistrate Kate Hughes
-She is discraceful! PLEASE READ
Federal Magistrate Kate Hughes,
It is with sincere consternation and fear for the future of our children and our society that I find myself writing to you.
I have for the first and hopefully last time, had the regrettable experience of being an observer and participant in the Australian Family Law System, namely the Melbourne Federal Magistrates Court.I have been supporting my friend through this horrible process for almost twelve months now, and as I am not directly involved in the matter I believe I have been able to observe with a reasonable and objective eye.
You cannot be acting in the best interests of the child if you do not also incorporate and consider the father's right to be a father, be a parent to the child in conjunction with the child's inalienable right to be fathered, to build a meaningful and sustainable relationship with his paternal parent.
It is neither acceptable nor logical to alienate one from the other.
It is incumbent upon you to be realistic, not tokenistic when considering the best interests of a child.every kind of meaningful or important relationship that exists in the human realm requires significant and on-going interaction to take place.it takes time and that time is essential.
Judges dictating one or two days a week for father-child interaction are simply ignorant, ill-informed, out-of touch, retrogressive and in part at least, are responsible for the adverse effects it inevitably imposes on the child. Research clearly shows that judgments of this kind directly impact on suicide rates, alienation of child to father and contribute to school delinquency, drug abuse and emotional problems.
The best interests of the child are not met if Judges and courts continue to deliver judgments that clearly disadvantage the child, the father and their relationship.a relationship that will significantly impact upon and shape the future of the child. This is undeniable injustice and should not be tolerated by our society. It is an act of gender discrimination in part, conducted in a maternally biased and farcical courtroom. It shows a fundamental ignorance of true justice, the child's best interests and the significance and value of the father-child relationship.
Ms Hughes, in your deliberation of the [name withheld] Contravention hearing you have blatantly delivered injustice to the child and his father.In delivering your judgment you relied heavily and unfairly upon the Affidavit and oral testimony of the wife and her witness. You gave minimal credence to the husband's evidence in his oral testimony and Affidavits and you did not adequately consider pertinent issues of the child's bi-racial heritage.
One does not require a law degree to conclude from the written and oral evidence brought before you that the mother's actions were intentionally provocative, controlling in the extreme and simply misleading. Her actions directly contributed to the events that unfolded on the [date withheld] 2006, to which your decision was based upon.
Ms Hughes, you display an appalling lack of insight and understanding of the evidence that was presented to you.
In your judgment you site as "controlling behaviour", the father returning a pair of shoes to the mother that the child did not want to wear. Your judgment and pertaining comments rely purely upon assumption. And your assumption is incorrect.
Your lack of insight and understanding in this instance is simply astounding.
If you knew the child and his character or gave appropriate credence to the father's testimony in court, you would not find this controlling at all. The fact is that the child often makes it clear when he does not want to wear particular shoes. He clearly and assertively says "No shoes papa. Shoes off, papa. Shoes off" or "No shoes [name withheld]. Shoes off.shoes off please" and he will attempt to remove them himself. Furthermore, if you have children you would know that this is common behaviour for a two and half year old child.
In relation to this you reminded the father, Mr [the father], that the child is only two and not linguistically capable of negotiating the language required to make it clear that he did not want to wear those particular shoes.the child was over two and a half at the time and you should know that a child of that age is perfectly capable of using such language.
In your deliberation you have failed to adequately consider the impact on the father of the wife's on-going irresponsible and self-indulgent parenting.
It is glaringly obvious that there is a shared-responsibility for the events that took place on [date withheld] 2006 at [place withheld]. What you fail to comprehend and acknowledge is the fact that the mother's display of anger is passive in nature and is directly linked to her dissatisfaction with the marriage and relationship breakdown, whereas the father has long moved on from the relationship, his anger is not expressed passively and is directly linked to his genuine concerns about the health and well-being of his son.
You sight(sic) the father as verbally abusive towards to the mother's friend who came along to handover, but fail to give equal weight to the harassing behaviour which the mother's friend inflicted upon the father.
There is an obvious gender bias in your views and findings.
I have discussed this matter and your judgment with colleagues, academics, law professionals and lay persons. The overwhelming consensus is that the decision you have handed-down in this instance epitomizes all that is faulty and unjust in the family law system. We all agree that your decision is precisely representative of the many ill-considered and paternally discriminatory judgments that clearly adversely effect father-child relationships.
Many of my colleagues and friends including myself are separated and share the care of our children equally. We all concur that there is no justice to be found in the family court system, and as such, we have all, in our wisdom chosen not to make use of this unbalanced, uncaring, unintelligent, unsatisfactory and sub-standard system. The realty is that there is very little public confidence.
Chief Justice Murray Gleeson in an address on "The State of the Judicature" (Law Institute Journal, December, 1999 p. 67at 71) stated:
The courts and the judiciary realise that there must be public confidence in the courts or the legitimacy of the courts is challenged. In a speech by the Chief Justice of Australia to the Australian Bar Association Conference in New York, the Chief Justice commented:
I truly believe that you, Ms Hughes have been mistakenly appointed to the position of federal magistrate. I now professionally and publicly call for your resignation.the delivery of such injustice cannot be tolerated by those whom you serve, the Australian people.
This injustice forced upon both father and son is an affront to the collective intelligence of our society.
You have unfairly and unjustly penalized the child and his father. Depriving the child of meaningful and acceptable contact with his father is disgraceful to say the least. The child has been used to a twenty-four hour period of contact, weekly with his father, interim orders made by Federal Magistrate Phipps in 2005. You have reduced this essential father-son interaction time to a six-hour period. This is unquestionably detrimental to the child's emotional welfare and development. Moreover, you have not appropriately or passably considered pertinent cultural issues that are inextricably part of this child's life. Your ignorance of these issues of culture, ethnicity and race are simply staggering.
Furthermore, the change over venue you chose is excessively distant from the father's home. The driving time from Williamstown to Narre Warren is more than one hour. When you consider the driving time involved, effectively the child now only has four hours a week to spend with his father. This is disgusting and intolerable. I truly hope that you will have the same situation imposed on you and your children (assuming you have them) during your lifetime. Only through experiencing such an unwarranted and intolerable situation yourself, will you properly understand the reality and true consequences of it.
Your decision is in no way considerate of the best interests of this child.
In the face of serious allegations of sexual abuse of his son while in the mother's care (raised by [the father]) you chose not to address this matter, one which clearly requires immediate attention. Instead, you chose to set the next hearing for September, which leaves this matter unaddressed for an obviously unacceptable length of time. Your decision and handling of this matter has left the child in a potentially unsafe and harmful situation. Had the situation been reversed and there were allegations of sexual abuse of the child while in the father's care, I have no doubt that appropriate actions would have been facilitated expediently.Ms Hughes, I understand that you have a duty of care to this child. You have acted without due care, diligence and attention; you have not acted in the best interests of this child. Your actions have placed this child at further risk. Your actions are reprehensible and you must be held accountable for such negligence and incompetence.
We, the Australian public must be provided with an accountable and transparent method of recourse when inexcusable judgments such as this are imposed.
The court appointed Child Advocate:
The court appointed Child Advocate has also played a contemptuous and dubious role in this process. The Child Advocate, represented in court by Mr Holte, is motivated by personal interest and certainly does not show that he acts in the best interests of the child. He is clearly not acting impartially. It was obvious from the outset that Mr Holte was disenchanted and uncomfortable with the fact that the father was self-representing. Some of the behaviour I observed Mr Holte display towards the father was condescending, juvenile and unprofessional at best.
An official letter of complaint compiled and lodged by Mr Aschendorff, in regard to Mr Holte's unprofessional conduct, has conspicuously affected the attitude and stance of the Child Advocate. Again, it is clear that personal agendas have taken precedence over the best interests of the child in this process. If this procedure is to be seen as fair, just, impartial and transparent, it is imperative that the court appoint another child advocate, one who is capable of fulfilling the role honourably and impartially.
Ms Hughes, your deliberations and actions have unduly penalized a young father and caused damage to the long-standing and mutually essential relationship between father and child. In court on the final day of the contravention hearing you relied wholly on Mr Holte's assertion that the [name withheld] Contact Centre was only 20-30 minutes drive from the father's home in [place withheld]. This is simply a false statement. The drive time from the father's home to the Contact Centre is more than one hour, one way. If traffic is heavy it takes over one and a half hours, one way.
[father'sname withheld] right under the law to receive a fair and just hearing has certainly been denied. I am aware that Mr Aschendorff intends on appealing your decision and I unequivocally support him. It is however truly unfortunate that he must engage in this process in search of real justice. It is an unnecessary strain on him and his child.
Your judgment in regard to the wife having a reasonable excuse for breaching [name withheld] interim contact orders and suspending contact with the father, are fundamentally flawed. Again, you did not fairly nor sufficiently take into account the long-term and on-going actions of the wife. It is clear in Affidavit and oral testimony that the wife's actions were calculated, intentionally malicious and a deliberate attempt to distract from issues she did not want to address, namely issues of child safety, welfare and emotional well-being.
Clearly, the husband's underlying stress and anger stems from the wife's choice to ignore the father's concerns of suspected sexual abuse of the child by the wife's brother-in-law. I observed the child cry and scream almost every week when it was time to return to his mother. This took place for over thirty weeks. Surely you have a duty of care to the child to adequately consider and give weight to the fact that a two and a half year old child becomes so overtly distressed when he realises he has to go home with his mother. There is obviously something untoward occurring in this situation. This fact warrants serious and immediate attention. You have failed the child once again.
The farcical conduct that I observed this court engage in blatantly sacrifices the investigation and acquisition of the truth, and instead, indulges in legal competition and the pursuit of personal agendas. How can this possibly create an environment where the child's best interests are paramount? It simply is not possible.
Both the system and you Ms Hughes, as the deliverer of judgments, have dismally failed this young child.
Yours Truly, [name withheld]
My Message to Federal Magistrate Kate Hughes
-She is discraceful! PLEASE READ
Federal Magistrate Kate Hughes,
It is with sincere consternation and fear for the future of our children and our society that I find myself writing to you.
I have for the first and hopefully last time, had the regrettable experience of being an observer and participant in the Australian Family Law System, namely the Melbourne Federal Magistrates Court.I have been supporting my friend through this horrible process for almost twelve months now, and as I am not directly involved in the matter I believe I have been able to observe with a reasonable and objective eye.
You cannot be acting in the best interests of the child if you do not also incorporate and consider the father's right to be a father, be a parent to the child in conjunction with the child's inalienable right to be fathered, to build a meaningful and sustainable relationship with his paternal parent.
It is neither acceptable nor logical to alienate one from the other.
It is incumbent upon you to be realistic, not tokenistic when considering the best interests of a child.every kind of meaningful or important relationship that exists in the human realm requires significant and on-going interaction to take place.it takes time and that time is essential.
Judges dictating one or two days a week for father-child interaction are simply ignorant, ill-informed, out-of touch, retrogressive and in part at least, are responsible for the adverse effects it inevitably imposes on the child. Research clearly shows that judgments of this kind directly impact on suicide rates, alienation of child to father and contribute to school delinquency, drug abuse and emotional problems.
The best interests of the child are not met if Judges and courts continue to deliver judgments that clearly disadvantage the child, the father and their relationship.a relationship that will significantly impact upon and shape the future of the child. This is undeniable injustice and should not be tolerated by our society. It is an act of gender discrimination in part, conducted in a maternally biased and farcical courtroom. It shows a fundamental ignorance of true justice, the child's best interests and the significance and value of the father-child relationship.
Ms Hughes, in your deliberation of the [name withheld] Contravention hearing you have blatantly delivered injustice to the child and his father.In delivering your judgment you relied heavily and unfairly upon the Affidavit and oral testimony of the wife and her witness. You gave minimal credence to the husband's evidence in his oral testimony and Affidavits and you did not adequately consider pertinent issues of the child's bi-racial heritage.
One does not require a law degree to conclude from the written and oral evidence brought before you that the mother's actions were intentionally provocative, controlling in the extreme and simply misleading. Her actions directly contributed to the events that unfolded on the [date withheld] 2006, to which your decision was based upon.
Ms Hughes, you display an appalling lack of insight and understanding of the evidence that was presented to you.
In your judgment you site as "controlling behaviour", the father returning a pair of shoes to the mother that the child did not want to wear. Your judgment and pertaining comments rely purely upon assumption. And your assumption is incorrect.
Your lack of insight and understanding in this instance is simply astounding.
If you knew the child and his character or gave appropriate credence to the father's testimony in court, you would not find this controlling at all. The fact is that the child often makes it clear when he does not want to wear particular shoes. He clearly and assertively says "No shoes papa. Shoes off, papa. Shoes off" or "No shoes [name withheld]. Shoes off.shoes off please" and he will attempt to remove them himself. Furthermore, if you have children you would know that this is common behaviour for a two and half year old child.
In relation to this you reminded the father, Mr [the father], that the child is only two and not linguistically capable of negotiating the language required to make it clear that he did not want to wear those particular shoes.the child was over two and a half at the time and you should know that a child of that age is perfectly capable of using such language.
In your deliberation you have failed to adequately consider the impact on the father of the wife's on-going irresponsible and self-indulgent parenting.
It is glaringly obvious that there is a shared-responsibility for the events that took place on [date withheld] 2006 at [place withheld]. What you fail to comprehend and acknowledge is the fact that the mother's display of anger is passive in nature and is directly linked to her dissatisfaction with the marriage and relationship breakdown, whereas the father has long moved on from the relationship, his anger is not expressed passively and is directly linked to his genuine concerns about the health and well-being of his son.
You sight(sic) the father as verbally abusive towards to the mother's friend who came along to handover, but fail to give equal weight to the harassing behaviour which the mother's friend inflicted upon the father.
There is an obvious gender bias in your views and findings.
I have discussed this matter and your judgment with colleagues, academics, law professionals and lay persons. The overwhelming consensus is that the decision you have handed-down in this instance epitomizes all that is faulty and unjust in the family law system. We all agree that your decision is precisely representative of the many ill-considered and paternally discriminatory judgments that clearly adversely effect father-child relationships.
Many of my colleagues and friends including myself are separated and share the care of our children equally. We all concur that there is no justice to be found in the family court system, and as such, we have all, in our wisdom chosen not to make use of this unbalanced, uncaring, unintelligent, unsatisfactory and sub-standard system. The realty is that there is very little public confidence.
Chief Justice Murray Gleeson in an address on "The State of the Judicature" (Law Institute Journal, December, 1999 p. 67at 71) stated:
"The most important measure of the performance of the court system is the extent to which the public have confidence in its independence, integrity and impartiality".
The courts and the judiciary realise that there must be public confidence in the courts or the legitimacy of the courts is challenged. In a speech by the Chief Justice of Australia to the Australian Bar Association Conference in New York, the Chief Justice commented:
”There is now a broader concept of accountability recognised by the judiciary. That is, in order to maintain public confidence in the courts, the judiciary and court administrators have to be responsive to criticism where that criticism is justified.”
I truly believe that you, Ms Hughes have been mistakenly appointed to the position of federal magistrate. I now professionally and publicly call for your resignation.the delivery of such injustice cannot be tolerated by those whom you serve, the Australian people.
This injustice forced upon both father and son is an affront to the collective intelligence of our society.
You have unfairly and unjustly penalized the child and his father. Depriving the child of meaningful and acceptable contact with his father is disgraceful to say the least. The child has been used to a twenty-four hour period of contact, weekly with his father, interim orders made by Federal Magistrate Phipps in 2005. You have reduced this essential father-son interaction time to a six-hour period. This is unquestionably detrimental to the child's emotional welfare and development. Moreover, you have not appropriately or passably considered pertinent cultural issues that are inextricably part of this child's life. Your ignorance of these issues of culture, ethnicity and race are simply staggering.
Furthermore, the change over venue you chose is excessively distant from the father's home. The driving time from Williamstown to Narre Warren is more than one hour. When you consider the driving time involved, effectively the child now only has four hours a week to spend with his father. This is disgusting and intolerable. I truly hope that you will have the same situation imposed on you and your children (assuming you have them) during your lifetime. Only through experiencing such an unwarranted and intolerable situation yourself, will you properly understand the reality and true consequences of it.
Your decision is in no way considerate of the best interests of this child.
In the face of serious allegations of sexual abuse of his son while in the mother's care (raised by [the father]) you chose not to address this matter, one which clearly requires immediate attention. Instead, you chose to set the next hearing for September, which leaves this matter unaddressed for an obviously unacceptable length of time. Your decision and handling of this matter has left the child in a potentially unsafe and harmful situation. Had the situation been reversed and there were allegations of sexual abuse of the child while in the father's care, I have no doubt that appropriate actions would have been facilitated expediently.Ms Hughes, I understand that you have a duty of care to this child. You have acted without due care, diligence and attention; you have not acted in the best interests of this child. Your actions have placed this child at further risk. Your actions are reprehensible and you must be held accountable for such negligence and incompetence.
We, the Australian public must be provided with an accountable and transparent method of recourse when inexcusable judgments such as this are imposed.
The court appointed Child Advocate:
The court appointed Child Advocate has also played a contemptuous and dubious role in this process. The Child Advocate, represented in court by Mr Holte, is motivated by personal interest and certainly does not show that he acts in the best interests of the child. He is clearly not acting impartially. It was obvious from the outset that Mr Holte was disenchanted and uncomfortable with the fact that the father was self-representing. Some of the behaviour I observed Mr Holte display towards the father was condescending, juvenile and unprofessional at best.
An official letter of complaint compiled and lodged by Mr Aschendorff, in regard to Mr Holte's unprofessional conduct, has conspicuously affected the attitude and stance of the Child Advocate. Again, it is clear that personal agendas have taken precedence over the best interests of the child in this process. If this procedure is to be seen as fair, just, impartial and transparent, it is imperative that the court appoint another child advocate, one who is capable of fulfilling the role honourably and impartially.
Ms Hughes, your deliberations and actions have unduly penalized a young father and caused damage to the long-standing and mutually essential relationship between father and child. In court on the final day of the contravention hearing you relied wholly on Mr Holte's assertion that the [name withheld] Contact Centre was only 20-30 minutes drive from the father's home in [place withheld]. This is simply a false statement. The drive time from the father's home to the Contact Centre is more than one hour, one way. If traffic is heavy it takes over one and a half hours, one way.
[father'sname withheld] right under the law to receive a fair and just hearing has certainly been denied. I am aware that Mr Aschendorff intends on appealing your decision and I unequivocally support him. It is however truly unfortunate that he must engage in this process in search of real justice. It is an unnecessary strain on him and his child.
Your judgment in regard to the wife having a reasonable excuse for breaching [name withheld] interim contact orders and suspending contact with the father, are fundamentally flawed. Again, you did not fairly nor sufficiently take into account the long-term and on-going actions of the wife. It is clear in Affidavit and oral testimony that the wife's actions were calculated, intentionally malicious and a deliberate attempt to distract from issues she did not want to address, namely issues of child safety, welfare and emotional well-being.
Clearly, the husband's underlying stress and anger stems from the wife's choice to ignore the father's concerns of suspected sexual abuse of the child by the wife's brother-in-law. I observed the child cry and scream almost every week when it was time to return to his mother. This took place for over thirty weeks. Surely you have a duty of care to the child to adequately consider and give weight to the fact that a two and a half year old child becomes so overtly distressed when he realises he has to go home with his mother. There is obviously something untoward occurring in this situation. This fact warrants serious and immediate attention. You have failed the child once again.
The farcical conduct that I observed this court engage in blatantly sacrifices the investigation and acquisition of the truth, and instead, indulges in legal competition and the pursuit of personal agendas. How can this possibly create an environment where the child's best interests are paramount? It simply is not possible.
Both the system and you Ms Hughes, as the deliverer of judgments, have dismally failed this young child.
Yours Truly, [name withheld]
posted by Unknown at
2:02 PM
Social bookmark this
27 Comments:
what is case name here at AustLii
I would like to read the case to see if complainer "has a case"
By
Anonymous, at 2:35 PM
I'll be happy to contact the source and pass on the information, but I need you to send me an email.
My email address is on my profile attached to this blog.
Paul
By
Unknown, at 8:34 PM
I'd have preferred to publish all the details, but I was requested to publish this letter with the exceptions.
I know the power of any publication and try to do it responsibly. I keep track of where and how I obtained the material.
I contacted my source for this letter, and if you'll send me an email I'll pass the contact details on to you.
(It may help that the name of the litigant was included in the article, -- apparently a mistake -- "Mr Aschendorff" and that case was heard in Williamstown, if you'd like to look up the case independently.)
I can see we have a mismatch of terms though. Whether I'm an idiot or not is moot; but I am hardly a "redneck" by my understanding of the term.
To my understanding, the courts I have experienced seem more like what I would expect from a "redneck" or hillbilly area -- running on arrogance and ignorance, replete with blind prejudice, and highly politicized. -- Very much like the system in the American South before the Civil Rights Movement.
Am I pounding a drum here? Yes. And I hope the beat is taken up by hundreds, if not tens of thousands, across Australia.
I am beating a drum on principles and conflicts within the law and implementation; and the principles which need to be explored and put into play.
Crazy as it may sound, I'd like to see Australia become an example for the whole friggin world on how to handle these issues. In the irony of reality, the same weaknesses which have allowed such abuse in the Australian system allow it the opportunity to build an exemplary system more easily.
I'd like to be as proud of my adopted (adapted?) country as I am of my own -- if for different reasons.
Another sad irony is that most of the angry, frustrated men and women want the same thing. And this is their country...
By
Unknown, at 12:25 PM
Most of the reason more details are not available from the men and women who suffer these indignities is they simply do not trust the legal system.
I don't know how many times I've heard a fearful father cite the infamous s 120. Most have no idea that there are other sections that may apply.
The men and women who would speak out are terrified of their own legal system, in plain english.
That this man was willing to request this letter be published is a brave act in the current climate of intimidation -- which effectively eliminates the principle of free speech.
Many times I have spotted news articles which clearly identified participants and personalities which seem to be in breach of the s 12x wording, but there is no fear because it is a woman who is publicizing the information.
Any law has two sides: the word and the spirit. Whatever the wording, when the implementation is contrary to the apparent spirit of the legislation, the spirit of the law is sullied.
By
Unknown, at 12:31 PM
in fact you DO have a fear of being sued for defamation [like I would if I were the magistrate] because you have made all manner of claims about her with not one fact regarding what she may have done - the very least was to simply list HERE the Reasons for Judgment and perhaps then suggest Grounds for Appeal to specifically say where in your view she fucked up
Then if bloke was excited by your submissions he could have simply appealed the matter ie to FCA
as I say it is no wonder the govt just laughs at blokes who use Robinson Caruso [newby] testosterone to change the world based on seeing lawyers at play in one fuckin case
By
Anonymous, at 1:54 PM
As the letter indicates, it is reproduced here at the request of the author. If the magistrate, or anyone who provides an email, wishes to get in contact with the author that can be easily done.
The letter has been received and recorded in the court. It is part of the public record already.
As I read this letter, it is a complaint directly to the magistrate involved.
At least this letter was acknowledged by the court. A similar letter about a different case to the local magistrates' court was never acknowledged; although I sent a copy of it went to both Rob Hulls and Philip Ruddock -- and both their offices recorded and acknowledged it in accordance with the law.
I have no idea what you mean by "Robinson Caruso [newbie] testosterone". Please explain.
By
Unknown, at 9:31 PM
I can't follow what you're talking about frankly. Outside of calling names, would you like to say what you mean in whole sentences and clearly?
Just for example, I have no "service" to offer. This blog is just my opinion.
I have gone to the site and looked it over. There isn't anything that looks professional or serious there.
By
Unknown, at 9:35 PM
well mate there is a current shit fight between AG, FMS and FCA if you read the papers, and AG [who pays the judges and hangers on] wants to ideally get rid of the lot in this farsicle Fam Law process you have observed just once, cept you blamed the judge and not the lawyers
as part of the deal the AG is actually USING the ratbag element in the so called mens groups to stir the shit between the courts and is leaking stuff to them [eg the Rimmer FM stuff]
In this case DOTA has gone beyond that and has found your blog and posted your bitch to dota, but has also started the new forum called Wall of Shame where your case is only case [cept its not a case at all]
I am not sure if they got your permission but in effect you too have become part of the payola between the AG and dota/mra/DIDS etc etc [cept dota keeps your share]
but your big problem is outside of that shitfight and with possible defamation eg see the Marsden case vs Ch 7 - like 14 million dollars mate for calling Marsden [RIP] a pedophile family lawyer, which he was
so essentially mate IMHO keep right out of what you dont understand because you are being used as a pawn by this evil industry
By
Anonymous, at 10:46 AM
You know what? I'm in it.
I didn't want to do anything more than recover from surjery and go to work.
And this prejudiced system took my home and all my possessions.
It's laughable that someone would want to sue me. There isn't anything to take. They already awarded it on perjury to my ex.
She played the system for fools.
I didn't want this fight.
When I heard a police prosecutor -- without any investigation or proof -- reading into the record that the abuse I suffered for two years at the hands of an abusive woman was what I had done, I didn't have a choice.
There isn't much to me, but what there is is not going anywhere.
If you want to play conspiracy games, try someone else.
Sheesh, I don't even recognize some of the acronyms in your post.
By
Unknown, at 11:33 AM
Let me put it to you this way.
If they want to beat me down, they can. I'll break. I'm not that strong physically, mentally, and certainly not financially.
They can send thugs over to beat me, and I'll go down.
But as long as there is life in me I'll stand back up.
It's that simple.
What happened to me should not happen to anyone. Period.
By
Unknown, at 11:41 AM
so how does Hughes FM fit into your problem mate?
seems you are complaining about a police prosecutor, which is STATE matter and nothing to do with FEDERAL matter of fam law
By
Anonymous, at 2:08 PM
I found the brainwashing and prejudice systemic. The police prosecutor was only the last in a long line who assumed what had never been proven. In fact, it had never even been addressed in the court.
In addition to the police prosecutor there were:
-- two Legal Aide lawyers
-- the Victorian Legal Aid office, and especially the supervising lawyer
-- a 000 operator
-- nearly every police officer treated me like a criminal, except those who bothered to talk to me
-- the magistrate I faced
-- the clerks at the county office
-- the bailiffs
-- all social services persons
If the police prosecutor had taken my guilty plea on the charges that were before the court -- that I had written a blog and emails -- I would have dropped the issue and written it all off as just a horrible experience.
The blog was a legitimate diary of the abuse I had suffered. I was facing charges of 'harassment' for producing it as a means of getting my side of the story to someone.
The emails were my attempts to get my ex to act in a decent manner, since we had already negotiated a reasonable settlement months before, in writing. She had pursued the Intervention Orders and court action only to extort a better settlement.
In fact, when the police came to remove me from the house, the reason they helped me move a few things to a friend's place hurriedly was that they saw the settlement email on my screen. They had been called after my ex started the final negotiations on the settlement.
If the purpose of the Intervention Orders was to allow people to settle their differences reasonably, it had succeeded. The conveyancer had papers in hand from an agent for a buyer at a price that was more than fair under the circumstances -- and (apparently to me and anyone who read the exchanges ) agreed upon by all involved.
Despite all the abuse and intimidation that was reported and recorded by my ex towards me, the police prosecutor decided to enter into the record as plea that I had been "increasingly abusive over two years" -- exactly what I had suffered.
It took a few days, then I decided that was intolerable, and wrote letters to the court, then federal and state A/G's stating what had happened in that court, and the reality of the situation.
When I was dismissed by all of those offices, I decided to add my voice to those seeking to change this prejudiced, ignorant, and brutal system.
The problem is systemic, generational discrimination deeply ingrained in the social and legal system. It is costing lives daily.
By
Unknown, at 6:25 PM
To be more fair to the police prosecutor, he also read into the record from the header to the blog that I had begun the writing in the hope that it "would help others going through similar situations", and that no officials seemed interested in the whole truth.
In addition, he read into the record that I considered what my ex had done an insult to Australian womanhood, and indeed the human race itself.
But there was no reason to put into the record what was never proven, nor even alleged.
I had told everyone on that list in the former comment that she had been increasingly abusive over a two year period when I was painfully and severely disabled.
No one ever seemed to hear.
I offered medical records, written testimony from professionals, and many pages of documentation. The court simply refused to acknowledge it.
I had prepared an Interrogatory in the format for the federal court of 40 questions for my ex. The magistrate cut me off before I could ask more than 4 or 5.
The few I did ask illustrated the warped and cruel attitude of my ex, and her brutal cynicism -- but the magistrate missed the point.
Her lawyer didn't. He looked alarmed when he heard the questions. But it only took a wave of his hand -- no objection.
The prejudice of the magistrate is illustrated in the fact that he allowed unsubstantiated and irrelevant testimony from my ex, yet attacked every point I tried to make.
This magistrate should be removed. Her attorney should be removed from the bar. And every employee of all the agencies I came in contact with need to be retrained on the concept of equal before the law -- or fired.
By
Unknown, at 6:54 PM
still dont see any connection from dvo to fam law
but did you actually give your permission to DOTA and Wall of Shame to have this bitch about Hughes FM reproduced at those web sites/forums??
By
Anonymous, at 5:24 PM
I am trying to HELP mate - please answer the question
By
Anonymous, at 11:33 AM
I'm sure I don't understand your question. This letter was posted at the request of the author.
It's not my issue. It's just one of tens of thousands that are similar, from what I've seen.
This guy just wants fairness and justice. He believes -- perhaps falsely -- that making his complaint more public will help get him the answers and fairness he deserves.
What's surprising, since you seem to know a great deal about the conspiracies, is that you don't see the connection between DVOs and Family Law.
One of the root problems with Family Law is the abuse of DVOs. It has become so notorious that any woman can confidently use the prejudices of the courts for extortion.
By
Unknown, at 5:59 AM
I was asking re posting at dota/wall of shame but you are saying it is already second hand here [so is hearsay already]
the point is s 121 ALLOWS a person to make an argument as long as it is for the education of the viewer, but in this case there is no argument made, just abuse without even posting the matter complained about
that is further compounded [defamation wise] by dota etc publishing same defective material as hearsay, 4 times departed - get the drift, so DID you give Mike the permission???????
as for dvo - other way around mate it is the MARKETING method of the Fam Law Industry to get blokes to take eye off ball, by using lawyers
the old "daddy put finger up my bum, it was Yukkie" trick is used 100 times a day all over Oz by lawyers to line their pockets, ie 20 billion dollors pa in fees from stupid blokes who think THAT is what the case is about, but its not
the case is about s 68F - the dvo is a STATE matter but feminists/lawyers use as entrance ticket to FCA, and except for me acting as an advocate in as many cases as possible to explain the matter to bloke, no other person helps
and the crap you publish has the OPPOSITE effect ie just confirms men are Toxically Masculine [the latest feminist/DOTA expression
by allowing dota etc access to your stuff simply makes it all worse
By
Anonymous, at 11:10 AM
Who is "Mike"?
You seem to be jumping from one conclusion to another looking for a hot button, and missing all that I'm saying.
Obviously, you have an educated perspective on some of this stuff -- far beyond what I do anyway. But this glad-handed shuffle of ideas only makes me feel like I'm dealing with a used car salesman.
One that I'm only certain I'm not buying a car from ...
Instead of throwing around acronyms that I don't understand, explain what they mean and why.
One thing though, this "toxically masculine" stuff is obviously sexist and discriminatory. Anyone who listens to the words that follow the phrase is not allowing someone to turn off their thinking muscle.
By
Unknown, at 1:19 PM
One thing though, this ***"toxically masculine"*** stuff is obviously sexist and discriminatory. Anyone who listens to the words that follow the phrase is not allowing someone to turn off their thinking muscle.
OK you are now getting the picture
Toxic Mascul is a term invented BY Lindsay Jackel of Dads on the AIR and Nuance, which are scam/scab so called mens groups thet prey upon people like you as victims of the FLIndustry
So far I managed to get the MINISTER responsible [Kay Patterson - minister for families] but not DOTA as yet
it seems to me dota simply surfs the internet to plagiarise stories like yours, and then use them to KEEP stirring up the anti father bias [disguised as PRO father]
SO I was asking DID you WILLINGLY become part of the scam by giving permission to Mike/Lindsay etc at DOTA to publish your "story" [as naive and ineffective as it is in its raw format]
By
Anonymous, at 12:32 PM
You seem to have missed the whole point: This is not my story.
It is a letter written by someone else complaining about the performance and apparent bias of a magistrate.
This man did willingly request that this letter be published anywhere that it was possible to publish.
As for him, or me, being used by Lindsay Jaekel -- I have no idea.
I can say that Lindsay has not discussed it with me in any way. That he has broadcast it on Dads on the Air looks to me Lindsay simply acceding to this man's wishes -- not some DOTA conspiracy.
If I thought it was a scam, I would not have published it here. If I find out it is a scam, I will remove it from this blog with my own comments about such things.
As for the phrase "toxic masculinity" -- that is just another hate-mongering propaganda term. It's painful to see, but nothing that should not be expected.
By
Unknown, at 6:03 PM
I too am at the mercy of Judge Hughes here in Canberra. This case you have posted is so early similar to mine that I thought this was about my matter, then I realised it was ten years ago.
I am a caucasian Australian and I married a Chinese National. Our marriage lasted two and a half years and then all of a sudden, out of the blue, my Chinese wife alleges Domestic Violence and disappears with our 18 month old daughter.
By the way, from the day my wife learned she was pregnant she never let me make love to her again. The last two and a half years of our marriage there was zero intimacy. Every time I tried to get close to my wife she told me it was Chinese custom to not have sex during pregnancy and while your raising a little baby. I believed her words. I now learn I was an idiot.
The only person guilty of Domestic Violence was my Chinese wife who daily left me with cuts, scratches, bruises and bleeding and also would daily smack and/or pinch our 18 month old daughter.
All of this was reported with colour photos to my GP over a two year period. I have many witnesses to this daily abuse and they too would speak to her about how she assaulted me. Her response was always, "He's my husband, I can do whatever I like!"
I'm on a disability so I was the full time carer of our daughter whilst my Chinese wife worked full time and also ran a clandestine Chinese shopping business sending powdered milk, baby formula and many other things to China.
Child and Youth Protective Services were called in and after conducting there investigation stated in their report "the bond between the father and daughter is very strong. There is no evidence that the daughter is at risk with the father." CASE CLOSED
So to cut a long story short - despite Judge Hughes accepting that I am the primary care giver of my daughter, she awarded full custody of my daughter to my wife and no contact arrangements put in place for me - the father.
Judge Hughes believed every lie my Chinese wife told her and gave no weight to my evidence from Community Services, friends who are solicitors, friends who work in Domestic Violence cases.
During the hearing Judge Hughes also sat at a 45 degree angle away from me the whole time and just remained focussed on the poor wife suffering alleged domestic violence.
JUDGE HUGHES IS BIASED AND IS NOT A FIT AND PROPER PERSON TO BE A JUDGE
WTF - Judge Hughes is gender biased and another solicitor at the hearing commented that Judge Hughes has not yet been able to cross the gender divide.
Judge Hughes placed my daughter back in danger with my wife and I have no contact.
Accordingly now an official report has been filed with Child and Youth Protective Services regarding the safety of my daughter with her mother.
I have also filed an appeal in the Family Court Sydney to try and undo this utterly terrible injustice perpetrated by Judge Hughes.
I am so sad for my little daughter and grieve for her every day. This is not about me, it's about my daughter and her losing the secure family environment she once enjoyed. I will fight for my daughter to the very end. One day my daughter will learn about how hard her daddy fought to protect her.
My Chinese wife has done this as a tactic to get residency.
Marry an Australian, get pregnant, have baby then leave the marriage on a domestic violence claim then get residency as the parent of an Australian child.
This is just so sad.
I cry for my daughter every day......
By
Anonymous, at 8:25 PM
Judge Hughes has always been very kind and intelligent with her comments to us. She has such a difficult job to do and I'm totally at the mercy of the system.
I really find it hard to believe your comments. In our case which has been before her so many times she is insightful and wise. She is faced with difficulties of abuse, violence, illness and substance every single day. She must get so tired. As I write, I'm in hospital. The process is long, gruelling and takes no prisoners.
By
Family law refugee, at 5:46 PM
I have nothing but a bucket load of respect for her. She has integrity and grace, wisdom and compassion. Get judge Neville then you'd really have something to whinge about.
Having said all that nothing good to say about the independent children's lawyer and the person writing the family report. What a joke that is.
By
Family law refugee, at 5:49 PM
After 14 months of waiting, I've just received a 'judgment' from Hughes as well. Ludicrous!!! She says my witnesses were credible, and my Ex's weren't - and then goes on to make decisions based on those discredited witnesses! Long story short: my Ex is left with a $3.8 million dollar estate and I got nothing - zero! I'm now going to be bankrupt at 58 yrs of age because of legal fees...the legal system and this man hating psychopathic 'judge' are a travesty.
By
DN, at 6:37 AM
I also lost everything today she got 2 house's and I cant see my son.
she destroys kids leaving the without a father.
I wounder how many great fathers have taken there own life because of her.
I have baby girl im a single parent she lives with me 100% and now after 3 years and way to much money im left homeless and bankrupt. good work judge that's really in the best interest of my son that now has no father and my 5month old girl. your a joke and a male hating lesbo.
By
Unknown, at 4:55 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
System is broken, at 7:06 PM
Hughes is a psychopath: I have a Masters in Psychology, so I think I'm qualified to make the statement. If you have her for your matter, do whatever you can to get a different judge. She is completely out of control. I was in a defacto for 8 years and had joint ownership of property - no children - and out of a $3,000,000 estate I got $0... just $150,000 in legal bills. This has destroyed me financially at 58 years of age. My ex completely discredited herself in every way, and yet still 'won' the case. My lawyers were stupified at every turn by her comments in the court room. Absolute travesty of 'justice.' She's a man hater. If you can't get a different judge, quit while you're ahead.
By
Anonymous, at 8:12 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home