Trials and Tribulations
There's a popular joke amongst born-again Christians about praying for patience: Don't do it.
-- Because the way God teaches you patience is through trials and tribulations.
The men and women who have been fighting for equality before the law in the Family Court system must be the most patient people in the world.
(from "Government moves to ease trauma of separation", Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) 7:30 Report - TV Program Transcript Broadcast: 23 August 2006 by Nick Grimm)
The new Family Resource Centres are a hopeful change in the approach of the courts to families in crisis and breakups.
The answer is not the wisdom or leadership of the courts or politicians. It is because of men like Graeme Campbell, and organizations like Dads in Distress.
The next interchange though, is very telling:
These are the same courts which have claimed for three decades to be placing the "interests of the child" first? Yet both Nick Grimm and Graeme Campbell find it necessary in their first statements to emphasize that the courts now listen to children?
'Sad' is a popular word in these circles.
Women's groups are enraged about the new reforms. And the former, discredited Chief Justice of the Family Court, Alastair Nicholson has spoken out:
Mr Nicholson's reign in the Family Court lasted 14 years. He was a devoted advocate of formality in the courtroom. His is still a powerful voice in the debate about Family Law and the courts.
From an unnamed source:
Formalities
And considering the courts weren't interested in what the fathers' concerns were, what the Hell did they think they were doing all this time? The answer is even more ugly than the sexist conclusions drawn by many in the men's rights and fathers' rights movement: The courts were just playing a game called 'Court.'
In that game, the Court is all that's important; not the parents or children.
Women were just as abused by the courts as the men and the children.
Why would I say something like that?
Take a look at what the lawyers and magistrates are trained to do.
By law and training, the attorneys first duty is to the court, not their clients. (Corpus Juris Secundum vol. 7 section 4)
There is no question that most family law lawyers have adhered to their duty to the court, but not to the public weal for justice. After all, the courts only have to give lip service to the public weal for justice: It's not a hard thing to do; the courts define 'justice', at the end of the day.
Disregarding the feudal sexist terminology which still seems to imply that only men will appear in court, -- and yes, this is a recent volume -- the message is clear: A client is a ward of the court.
Lawyers are trained to consider their clients as "wards of the court". What is a 'ward of the court'? In effect, an "infant and persons of unsound mind palced by the court under the care of a guardian'. (ibid, Glossary of Terms and Definitions)
In aussie terms, "That's a shockah!"
Men, women, and children are to be considered as if they were infants or of unsound mind in a courtroom by lawyers and judges alike. Can you imagine the aggrandizing hypocrisy of such an attitude?
Think for a moment about what that teaches even the youngest child about their parents and the government, the courts, and life? One man or woman sits on a raised bench, collaborating with two or more others, to demonstrate to children that their parents are infantile, and of unsound mind.
Yet anyone who has appeared before a court will instantly recognize the attitude, -- and the blatant disrespect for their persons, children, and the truth that this attitude expresses. If this is a means to 'Justice', then the ends does not justify the means.
The courts, and the attorneys and other officials which serve them, are more concerned with their own "well-being" than anything else, as demonstrated repeatedly by the courts at all levels.
For those that do not immerse themselves in the game of 'Court', they are like novices in a video game. They don't know the rules, the characters and their roles, or the playing field. They are, indeed, like infants or of 'unsound mind'.
And when you lose a game of 'Court' in the Family Court of Australia, you don't just start over. A quick Restart won't do it.
You lose your self worth, your willingness to love and trust, and everything you have ever had or dreamt of having. 'Court' is like a game out of a horror-science fiction movie more than anything else -- but you live it.
Finally recognized
And that is the home truth of why the Family Resource Centres exist and are important. I hope the people who work in them realize that they have taken on part of the duty of the courts. Family Resurce Centres serve the public weal for justice, because the courts have proven inadequate to the task.
We should all credit those leaders who have seen this fact for what it is and moved to amend the Family Court procedures.
Chief Justice Dianne Bryant has proven herself a woman of vision and courage. But she was not alone in her quest. There were also men like Graeme Campbell, and many others who will remain unnamed heroes in this battle.
And let us not forget the fallen, the men who have committed suicide; and those for whom life has little meaning to this day.
Let us honor all those who endured the trials and tribulations while patiently waiting: men, women, and children.
And let us all pray that the damage that has been done will not endure into to far into future generations.
-- Because the way God teaches you patience is through trials and tribulations.
The men and women who have been fighting for equality before the law in the Family Court system must be the most patient people in the world.
(from "Government moves to ease trauma of separation", Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) 7:30 Report - TV Program Transcript Broadcast: 23 August 2006 by Nick Grimm)
The new Family Resource Centres are a hopeful change in the approach of the courts to families in crisis and breakups.
GRAEME CAMPBELL, 'DADS IN DISTRESS': I walked in the door and the first thing they did was start to, made me feel very welcome. They didn't know who I was. I introduced myself and the next question I received was, "What are the genuine concerns of fathers?"The first time. With whatever hope you may have in the new procedures, you have to ask yourself: Why is this the first time that the concerns of fathers part of the process?
That's the first time that question has been asked of me -- in my four years experience in the family law system.
The answer is not the wisdom or leadership of the courts or politicians. It is because of men like Graeme Campbell, and organizations like Dads in Distress.
The next interchange though, is very telling:
NICK GRIMM: Graeme Campbell is a member of 'Dads in Distress', a support group for fathers whose relationships have gone bad. It's a group that's complained in the past that fathers cop a raw deal in the courts. But he likes the fact the new Family Relationship Centres are not only father friendly, they're child friendly.
GRAEME CAMPBELL: Effectively the law said that the court couldn't listen to what children had to say. That simple. Their opinion didn't really count until they were almost adults, which is very sad.
These are the same courts which have claimed for three decades to be placing the "interests of the child" first? Yet both Nick Grimm and Graeme Campbell find it necessary in their first statements to emphasize that the courts now listen to children?
'Sad' is a popular word in these circles.
Women's groups are enraged about the new reforms. And the former, discredited Chief Justice of the Family Court, Alastair Nicholson has spoken out:
The Federal Government's new family law system discriminated against women and ignored the needs of children, former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson said yesterday. established as part of the legislative changes in an effort to provide first-point counselling services for couples experiencing problems, would most likely prove ineffective, Mr Nicholson said.(from "Family law changes sexist, ignore children's needs: ex-judge" by Catherine Naylor, Friday, 18 August 2006 Canberra Times)
"If ever there was a piece of anti-female legislation, this is it," Mr Nicholson said in his keynote address at the ACT Council of Social Service biennial conference.
...
The changes would most likely lead to more litigation, as was the case after reforms in 1995.
Mr Nicholson's reign in the Family Court lasted 14 years. He was a devoted advocate of formality in the courtroom. His is still a powerful voice in the debate about Family Law and the courts.
From an unnamed source:
“(New Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia Dianne) Bryant believes the Family Courts should be a work in progress to continually reflect the attitudes and values of the society we live in. Nicolson on the other hand wanted the Court and the way it worked to reflect his own beliefs and attitudes.”
Formalities
And considering the courts weren't interested in what the fathers' concerns were, what the Hell did they think they were doing all this time? The answer is even more ugly than the sexist conclusions drawn by many in the men's rights and fathers' rights movement: The courts were just playing a game called 'Court.'
In that game, the Court is all that's important; not the parents or children.
Women were just as abused by the courts as the men and the children.
Why would I say something like that?
His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and whereever the duties of his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.
The office of attorney is indispensible to the adminstration of justice and is intimate and peculiar in its relation to, and vital to the well-being, of the court.
Take a look at what the lawyers and magistrates are trained to do.
By law and training, the attorneys first duty is to the court, not their clients. (Corpus Juris Secundum vol. 7 section 4)
There is no question that most family law lawyers have adhered to their duty to the court, but not to the public weal for justice. After all, the courts only have to give lip service to the public weal for justice: It's not a hard thing to do; the courts define 'justice', at the end of the day.
A client is one who applies to a lawyer or counselor:(CJS vol 7, SS 2-3)
- for advice and direction in a question of law,
- or commits his case to his management in prosecuting a claim or defending against a suit in a court of justice; (sic)
- one who retains the attorney,
- is responsible to him for his fees,
- and to whom the attorney is responsible for the management of the suit,
- one who communicates facts to an attorney expecting professional advice.
Disregarding the feudal sexist terminology which still seems to imply that only men will appear in court, -- and yes, this is a recent volume -- the message is clear: A client is a ward of the court.
Lawyers are trained to consider their clients as "wards of the court". What is a 'ward of the court'? In effect, an "infant and persons of unsound mind palced by the court under the care of a guardian'. (ibid, Glossary of Terms and Definitions)
In aussie terms, "That's a shockah!"
Men, women, and children are to be considered as if they were infants or of unsound mind in a courtroom by lawyers and judges alike. Can you imagine the aggrandizing hypocrisy of such an attitude?
Think for a moment about what that teaches even the youngest child about their parents and the government, the courts, and life? One man or woman sits on a raised bench, collaborating with two or more others, to demonstrate to children that their parents are infantile, and of unsound mind.
Yet anyone who has appeared before a court will instantly recognize the attitude, -- and the blatant disrespect for their persons, children, and the truth that this attitude expresses. If this is a means to 'Justice', then the ends does not justify the means.
The courts, and the attorneys and other officials which serve them, are more concerned with their own "well-being" than anything else, as demonstrated repeatedly by the courts at all levels.
For those that do not immerse themselves in the game of 'Court', they are like novices in a video game. They don't know the rules, the characters and their roles, or the playing field. They are, indeed, like infants or of 'unsound mind'.
And when you lose a game of 'Court' in the Family Court of Australia, you don't just start over. A quick Restart won't do it.
You lose your self worth, your willingness to love and trust, and everything you have ever had or dreamt of having. 'Court' is like a game out of a horror-science fiction movie more than anything else -- but you live it.
Finally recognized
And that is the home truth of why the Family Resource Centres exist and are important. I hope the people who work in them realize that they have taken on part of the duty of the courts. Family Resurce Centres serve the public weal for justice, because the courts have proven inadequate to the task.
We should all credit those leaders who have seen this fact for what it is and moved to amend the Family Court procedures.
Chief Justice Dianne Bryant has proven herself a woman of vision and courage. But she was not alone in her quest. There were also men like Graeme Campbell, and many others who will remain unnamed heroes in this battle.
And let us not forget the fallen, the men who have committed suicide; and those for whom life has little meaning to this day.
Let us honor all those who endured the trials and tribulations while patiently waiting: men, women, and children.
And let us all pray that the damage that has been done will not endure into to far into future generations.
posted by Unknown at
9:43 AM
Social bookmark this
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home