Will the FRCs make a difference?
Will the FRCs make any difference?
I doubt it.
From The Law Report, 20 June 2006
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2006/1664836.htm#
From the New Zealand study, quoting Burgess research in Great Britain:
Has the law and its implementation changed? I doubt it.
What happened in my own case is indicative.
I had reported the increasing abuse by (my ex, I’ll call her ‘Ob’ for convenience) and her daughter (Lob) in the house during the two years while I was severely disabled – unable to stand, sleep or walk without considerable pain. I usually describe it as being like an 80 year old man.
I had reported it to the police, the supervising attorney at Victorian Legal Aid and the barrister that was assigned, in detail and in writing.
I had reported in writing, via emails to the supervising attorney at Victoria Legal Aid, that:
I called the police after one of the neighbours (who doesn’t want to be named) phoned me to say that Ob and Lob were making a lot of noise in the front yard announcing that they were throwing out and giving away my things. (The police came, but the 000 operator had told them to respond to a ‘domestic’. They came expecting to arrest me! By the time I got the A/S to understand – over 40 minutes later -- that I was doing the right thing by calling the police instead of going to the house myself, the disturbance was ended.)
I reported that veiled threats had been repeated by Ob and I was concerned that Lob or her younger brother would try to shoot me. I reported that the family had a number of rifles and a few unregistered weapons; and one pistol I had seen that I knew was unregistered. (The police found no weapons at the house. I told them the weapons were probably at one of the sons’ homes; and that Ob’s ex husband had most of them. As far as I know, the police never looked anywhere but at my former home.)
Before the IO orders were filed
This is not a single allegation presented at an opportune time in negotiations, but substantiated and documented incidents repeated over months. If she had been able to document similar incidents, I would have been thrown in jail and anyone I had involved in these ways would be facing charges.
But because I was male, unable to access legal counsel and still recovering from major surgery and the stress of two years of abuse, there was not even an attempt to investigate. No investigator ever asked me anything about the situation despite repeated police reports, substantiation from a number of neighbours.
There is actually much more. Literally hundreds of pages of documentation that prove Ob's presentations to her family, friends and the courts are false. But it is all inconsequential now. Australian courts do not fix their mistakes. They just make the same mistakes over and over telling everyone there never was a mistake.
And what will happen in the case of Heather and Bob after Hearher alleges violence?
Heather and her attorney know she doesn't need any proof or substantiation.
Her substantiation?
A couple of concocted entries to a "diary of abuse" she began when she first threatened to use the courts for extortion that I presented to the court as evidence; not of my abuse, but of her long-standing threats and intention to abuse the legal process.
Mirrored and coached testimony with Lob that amounted at most to a statement of how difficult it was to recover from major surgery while being insulted and ridiculed by them both.
No police reports. Neither of them ever called the police for protection.
No evidence of marks or bruises. I never raised a hand to either of them; nor did I even threaten to, despite what I realize now were repeated attempts to provoke me -- to provide evidence of my violent nature. All they proved was that I am and was not violent because I didn't react. In fact, the idea didn't even occur to me, and Ob knows it.
And my own words on a night when I was ready to cut my throat from a blog entry that went on to say a great deal more about the situation, but the court never heard because her attorney took it out of context.
A good example is when the judge on the panel is questioned about the use of the Family Report:
Yes, as Ms Dessau states above, all that FRC stuff is "one helpful piece of evidence" -- that can be twisted and construed any way her whims go in the courtroom.
Ms Dessau is saying she is looking forward to being entertained. She wants to see the performance of the attorneys and their trained monkeys, Heather and Bob. The court performance, as is taught in law schools, is not about truth or facts, it's a performance competition between attorneys.
The more obsequious and charming performer wins; not the truth or the facts.
If it were based on truth and facts, then Heather would be looking at a jail sentence or a heavy fine, since she has been shown to have lied in the FRC -- and apparently, she'll repeat her lie under oath.
Results
The courts never saw a truthful diary of abuse that I placed on a blog, despite the fact that her attorney had the 50-odd pages in the courtroom and I requested the court accept all of it into evidence. A wave of a hand from her attorney, without any legal objection, and the magistrate dismissed it.
My reward for not becoming violent or threatening violence despite two years of increasing abuse? I was removed from my home while still barely able to walk for first three months, then a year.
In another court appearance, a prosecutor effectively convicted me of the abuse I'd suffered when I plead guilty to "harassment" by putting the truthful story onto a blog. I deleted the blog before the court case, so I was not given a conviction. However, the police prosecutor -- who had never spoken to me -- read into the record that I had been 'increasingly abusive' over two years.
A letter of protest I wrote to the magistrates' court was never acknowledged, so I sent copies to Rob Hulls and Philip Ruddock. They informed me that they had no oversight over the functions of the courts.
Some of her family -- her sons, and brother because of his own legal exposure -- may be willing to concoct evidence for her. But others of her family could testify to her abusive attitudes and comments; including crude jokes ridiculing my infirmities.
Others in her family who have seen the behaviour of Ob and Lob during the period could be found to testify about their attitudes and actions.
Conclusions
The question I have to ask is: Given the behaviour of the legal and social system, would a change in the family law make any difference? No. I have no reason to expect that thousands have not been subjected to similar court-supported extortions.
From my experience with the ingrained prejudice of the legal system do I think the FRCs will make a significant difference once the ‘violence card’ has been played?
No. Just look at the quotes above. The legal and social services system still believes -- and intends to maintain -- that 8 out of 9 men in relationships in Australia are abusive.
What about the children's representative?
When I went to the local Victoria Legal Aid office, not one staffer was male; and the looks from the staff said they could barely tolerate my presence.
Ms Creak assumes she can make a reasonable judgment in less than an hour with 3-4 children. That's wholly ridiculous. No competent psychologist would like to be held to an opinion which would affect a person's life for years in less than an hour, with one client after another -- unless there were obvious mental issues. Yet Ms Creak presumes to be able to make one after another.
If the Children's Representative is not involved in the whole process, he or she should not be involved at all. The concept of erring on the side of caution only means that you are willing to be largely in error -- in this case, with three people's lives.
The Family Resource Centres are a good idea, but inadequate to the task. They are programmatic, as described in the article, which means they can hide all the prejudice and abuse of the courts and legal support system behind the same sort of step-wise hoops as the prejudiced courts use now.
They do not deal with the core problem: the unprofessional behaviour of the courts, court clerks, 000 operators, Legal Aid, and police, which is where the real problem lies.
What is needed is a means of holding prejudiced professionals and the courts to a standard of responsibility, and that can only come when all of these agencies of government are punished for discrimination and delivered to a robust justice system.
These people need to be retrained, held to standards, and removed if they cannot practice equal protection before the law at all levels. They can no longer be allowed to vocally and blatantly express prejudice.
Until those elements in the system are addressed, the FRCs are only shiny patina over a rotted body. Like spraying scented deodorizers into a sewer.
Who will oversee the FRCs? Not defined.
Who will define the standards and responsibilities? Not defined.
Paul Donley
I doubt it.
From The Law Report, 20 June 2006
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2006/1664836.htm#
Damien Carrick: So despite the best efforts of everybody involved at theFamily Relationship Centre, Bob and Heather come to an arrangement, and theydon't really take into account the needs or the wishes of their children.Well what happens is that Bob and Heather decide that Jules will spend halftime with both parents; that's what they set out in the parenting plan;Craig will spend all his time with Mum.
But that's what they want to do, but the parenting plan discussions cometo an abrupt halt because Heather says that Bob has come to her house andphysically assaulted her. Bob denies this.
Karen Morris, I know we'reconcentrating on you, but one last point: an allegation of violence, it's mentioned to the people at your Family Law Centre, does that pull down the shutters on this parenting process?
Karen Morris: It definitely halts that process for a while. The person that works through the parenting plan, will also be this family's liaison with other services. At this point we would probably refer to a specialised Family Violence Service, or a mediation service that is external to the Family Relationship Centre, recognising that issues of violence, if this isreality, will need some exploration.
We need to work out whether this is episodic with the parents, whether it involves the children. There are lots of issues here that need to be addressed: whether we need to bring in DOCS,but we'd probably refer out to a relationship service that can maintain thisfamily for a longer period of time, above that five or six hours that we're anticipating.
From the New Zealand study, quoting Burgess research in Great Britain:
All the lawyers advised the woman to go for sole residence (custody), and she was advised that she would get the child.It was suggested that she play the ‘violence card’, although she insisted there had been no violence.The man, on the other hand, was told he didn’t have a chance of keeping his son.
Has the law and its implementation changed? I doubt it.
What happened in my own case is indicative.
I had reported the increasing abuse by (my ex, I’ll call her ‘Ob’ for convenience) and her daughter (Lob) in the house during the two years while I was severely disabled – unable to stand, sleep or walk without considerable pain. I usually describe it as being like an 80 year old man.
I had reported it to the police, the supervising attorney at Victorian Legal Aid and the barrister that was assigned, in detail and in writing.
I had reported in writing, via emails to the supervising attorney at Victoria Legal Aid, that:
- (my ex) had sent four members of her family to steal the records from the house,
- and one of them assaulted me in the process.
- They knowingly took my passport and other identity papers. I reported this incident within a few minutes of when it occurred.
- I had a policeman record their return after these items had been held hostage to my agreement to leave the house.
- Also via email, while it was happening, I reported that Ob and Lob came to the house under the cover of their Intervention Order complaints with Ob’s two sons and their partners, a total of 8 people, to have a BBQ in the backyard.
- I reported that they shouted insults at me, jeering sarcastically about it being “my house”;
- Then the younger son moved to destroy property in common by starting to install a lock on Lob’s bedroom door.
I called the police after one of the neighbours (who doesn’t want to be named) phoned me to say that Ob and Lob were making a lot of noise in the front yard announcing that they were throwing out and giving away my things. (The police came, but the 000 operator had told them to respond to a ‘domestic’. They came expecting to arrest me! By the time I got the A/S to understand – over 40 minutes later -- that I was doing the right thing by calling the police instead of going to the house myself, the disturbance was ended.)
I reported that veiled threats had been repeated by Ob and I was concerned that Lob or her younger brother would try to shoot me. I reported that the family had a number of rifles and a few unregistered weapons; and one pistol I had seen that I knew was unregistered. (The police found no weapons at the house. I told them the weapons were probably at one of the sons’ homes; and that Ob’s ex husband had most of them. As far as I know, the police never looked anywhere but at my former home.)
Before the IO orders were filed
- I had reported that the abuse had escalated from repeated threats of violence by Ob’s sons and her ex husband; and that one of her sons moved to assault me when I could hardly walk in my own garage; and that he had jeered at me in my kitchen.
- I reported in writing that Ob had used the threat of violence by her two sons to enforce and unwanted bedroom change in the house – again, I was severely disabled at the time. Lob and her boyfriend had moved my things while I sat, unable to move from swelling in my hip and pain, jeering and laughing at me as they moved my things from one room to the other.
- I reported to Victorian Legal Aid and presented evidence in court to the magistrate that Ob had tried to concoct false evidence for nearly a year; and had threatened me with it, fully aware of the prejudice of the courts. Again, during the time I was fully occupied with trying to deal with my disability.
- I reported in writing to Victoria Legal Aid, and twice to the same magistrate, that Ob had threatened lawsuits: once in January, another in February. Although I had some corroborating testimony, the magistrate simply called me a liar. (Ob later confirmed these threats of spurious lawsuits in a back-handed way, forcing me to sign a settlement agreement where she included the easily-disproven statement that I was a ‘boarder.’)
This is not a single allegation presented at an opportune time in negotiations, but substantiated and documented incidents repeated over months. If she had been able to document similar incidents, I would have been thrown in jail and anyone I had involved in these ways would be facing charges.
But because I was male, unable to access legal counsel and still recovering from major surgery and the stress of two years of abuse, there was not even an attempt to investigate. No investigator ever asked me anything about the situation despite repeated police reports, substantiation from a number of neighbours.
There is actually much more. Literally hundreds of pages of documentation that prove Ob's presentations to her family, friends and the courts are false. But it is all inconsequential now. Australian courts do not fix their mistakes. They just make the same mistakes over and over telling everyone there never was a mistake.
And what will happen in the case of Heather and Bob after Hearher alleges violence?
Could allegations of violence, which aren't easy to prove, be seen as obstructionist? Is there a danger that mums might stay silent about allegations of violence, fearing that if they appear negative, the father might be granted even more contact or residence?They're back into the discriminatory courts. And the chances of her honour actually determining that violence did not occur are a little better than one in ten. Heather and her attorney know this. It's historical fact, supported by statistics generated by a prejudiced legal system over the last decade.
Nicky Davis: Yes, but they're going to be between a rock and a hard place in terms of wanting to protect their children, but at the same time not being seen to damage the relationship between the child and the father in case when the matter is actually heard by the judge, she determines that violence did not occur.
Heather and her attorney know she doesn't need any proof or substantiation.
Her substantiation?
A couple of concocted entries to a "diary of abuse" she began when she first threatened to use the courts for extortion that I presented to the court as evidence; not of my abuse, but of her long-standing threats and intention to abuse the legal process.
Mirrored and coached testimony with Lob that amounted at most to a statement of how difficult it was to recover from major surgery while being insulted and ridiculed by them both.
No police reports. Neither of them ever called the police for protection.
No evidence of marks or bruises. I never raised a hand to either of them; nor did I even threaten to, despite what I realize now were repeated attempts to provoke me -- to provide evidence of my violent nature. All they proved was that I am and was not violent because I didn't react. In fact, the idea didn't even occur to me, and Ob knows it.
And my own words on a night when I was ready to cut my throat from a blog entry that went on to say a great deal more about the situation, but the court never heard because her attorney took it out of context.
A good example is when the judge on the panel is questioned about the use of the Family Report:
Damien Carrick: Linda Dessau, if this matter comes before you, do youIn other words, the judge will ignore all the professional evidence and go on the verbal testimony in the courtroom. Again, this is a judge presuming to override all the sources of evidence. The fact is no judge can draw such conclusions. They're simply not qualified.
attach great weight to these sort of family reports?
Linda Dessau: Oh look, a family report is one of the significant aspects
of the material before us, but it's only one of the number of jigsaw pieces
that we have. Frequently when we hear the evidence, we have a different
evidentiary basis for the case. It might be, for example, that the report
writer has reached a certain conclusion based on what the parties or a party
has told him or her. When we hear the case and hear the factual dispute
about that issue, it turns out quite differently. Frequently things have
happened since the report was written; sometimes quite significant things,
but sometimes it might be all part of the factual dispute. So we're weighing
it all up, but of course that's one helpful piece of the evidence.
Yes, as Ms Dessau states above, all that FRC stuff is "one helpful piece of evidence" -- that can be twisted and construed any way her whims go in the courtroom.
Ms Dessau is saying she is looking forward to being entertained. She wants to see the performance of the attorneys and their trained monkeys, Heather and Bob. The court performance, as is taught in law schools, is not about truth or facts, it's a performance competition between attorneys.
The more obsequious and charming performer wins; not the truth or the facts.
If it were based on truth and facts, then Heather would be looking at a jail sentence or a heavy fine, since she has been shown to have lied in the FRC -- and apparently, she'll repeat her lie under oath.
Results
The courts never saw a truthful diary of abuse that I placed on a blog, despite the fact that her attorney had the 50-odd pages in the courtroom and I requested the court accept all of it into evidence. A wave of a hand from her attorney, without any legal objection, and the magistrate dismissed it.
My reward for not becoming violent or threatening violence despite two years of increasing abuse? I was removed from my home while still barely able to walk for first three months, then a year.
In another court appearance, a prosecutor effectively convicted me of the abuse I'd suffered when I plead guilty to "harassment" by putting the truthful story onto a blog. I deleted the blog before the court case, so I was not given a conviction. However, the police prosecutor -- who had never spoken to me -- read into the record that I had been 'increasingly abusive' over two years.
A letter of protest I wrote to the magistrates' court was never acknowledged, so I sent copies to Rob Hulls and Philip Ruddock. They informed me that they had no oversight over the functions of the courts.
Some of her family -- her sons, and brother because of his own legal exposure -- may be willing to concoct evidence for her. But others of her family could testify to her abusive attitudes and comments; including crude jokes ridiculing my infirmities.
Others in her family who have seen the behaviour of Ob and Lob during the period could be found to testify about their attitudes and actions.
Conclusions
The question I have to ask is: Given the behaviour of the legal and social system, would a change in the family law make any difference? No. I have no reason to expect that thousands have not been subjected to similar court-supported extortions.
From my experience with the ingrained prejudice of the legal system do I think the FRCs will make a significant difference once the ‘violence card’ has been played?
No. Just look at the quotes above. The legal and social services system still believes -- and intends to maintain -- that 8 out of 9 men in relationships in Australia are abusive.
What about the children's representative?
Damien Carrick: Now Sue Creak, you live in regional rural Australia.She's appointed by Legal Aid, which is already notoriously biased against men throughout Victoria.
What's the job of a child rep like for you? Tell me, do you have clients
like Jules? How often do you meet them? Do you have a huge territory that
you have to cover?
Sue Creak: Legal Aid appoints us, and usually it's regionally appointed.
...
Sue Creak: I have met them at McDonald's, Justice Bell's favourite fast
food place. It's clean, you can do them on the hour, every hour, and if
you're going to go over to Macca's at Casino, you'll do three families. I'll
do one at 3 o'clock, one at 4 o'clock, one at 5 o'clock, and I'll come back
to Lismore and do one after school. I've done that. At 6 o'clock. So I might
do four different families. It's an eye-opener.
When I went to the local Victoria Legal Aid office, not one staffer was male; and the looks from the staff said they could barely tolerate my presence.
Ms Creak assumes she can make a reasonable judgment in less than an hour with 3-4 children. That's wholly ridiculous. No competent psychologist would like to be held to an opinion which would affect a person's life for years in less than an hour, with one client after another -- unless there were obvious mental issues. Yet Ms Creak presumes to be able to make one after another.
If the Children's Representative is not involved in the whole process, he or she should not be involved at all. The concept of erring on the side of caution only means that you are willing to be largely in error -- in this case, with three people's lives.
The Family Resource Centres are a good idea, but inadequate to the task. They are programmatic, as described in the article, which means they can hide all the prejudice and abuse of the courts and legal support system behind the same sort of step-wise hoops as the prejudiced courts use now.
They do not deal with the core problem: the unprofessional behaviour of the courts, court clerks, 000 operators, Legal Aid, and police, which is where the real problem lies.
What is needed is a means of holding prejudiced professionals and the courts to a standard of responsibility, and that can only come when all of these agencies of government are punished for discrimination and delivered to a robust justice system.
These people need to be retrained, held to standards, and removed if they cannot practice equal protection before the law at all levels. They can no longer be allowed to vocally and blatantly express prejudice.
Until those elements in the system are addressed, the FRCs are only shiny patina over a rotted body. Like spraying scented deodorizers into a sewer.
Who will oversee the FRCs? Not defined.
Who will define the standards and responsibilities? Not defined.
Paul Donley
posted by Unknown at
9:41 AM
Social bookmark this
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home