Ian Kay is at it again (2)

His grammar is atrocious. His passion, if not obsession, is too evident. But he dares to say what so few other Australians will.
(Reproduced here by request. I do not agree with everything Mr Kay says, but we must all defend to the death his right to say it.)

Rob Moodie , Promotes Child Abuse.

In response to an article attributed to Rob Moodie, Chief Executive Officer of Vic Health in the “ Herald- Sun “, Oct -27.

Most men, in particular fathers, would agree with Rob Moodie , that the comments by Sheik, Taj el-Din, that women are meat, and the cowardly attack on a defenseless girl, by a gang of youths, is despicable.

However Moodie uses these two matters to promote the politically correct witch hunt against men and support the great ,Domestic - Violence Perjury “Industry “ hoax.

Moodie claims domestic violence is men being violent to women.

John Coochie , a Canberra based statistician, was totally ignored by politicians and others concerned with child welfare, when his articles appeared in Canberra newspapers. He exposed these facts;

• That women are equally prone to domestic violence, and are more likely to cause serious harm due to their propensity to use knives in domestic altercations.
• That only 2% of women admitted to hospital with diagnosable injuries, were victims of domestic violence.
• That 30% of the women admitted to hospital as a result of assault were victims of other women.
• That a survey in the United States, revealed that women who cry violence often had a history of violence themselves.
• That violence by men towards women in Western Society is decreasing, while violence by women is increasing in particular their violence against children and other women !

The claims made by Moodie will lead to even further power to the courts to accept any ‘allegations” of violence by vindictive women to use restraining orders, to evict fathers out of their own homes - and their children’s lives.

I don’t believe Moodie is unaware that a child whose father is subject to a restraining order is 7to 10 times more likely to be physically and / or sexually abused .

Moody like the Attorney General, Rob Hulls should face criminal charges for abusing their office, by deliberately misleading the public re the truth of domestic violence and knowingly being aware this leads to child abuse.

This letter is being sent to politicians, the media and others and is being circulated worldwide on the internet.

Ian Kay Activist for children to have their father’s love and protection C/O 3927 P/O Australia

Read more!

New Link: 10th Australian National Family Law Conference Melbourne, 16-20 March 2002

From a 2002 conference in Melbourne:

A Manifesto

The concept of parental responsibility is past its use-by date. It should be consigned to the dustbin of legal history, like the Roman law concept of paterfamilias. Society needs a new standard: that of family responsibility. By this I mean that family members should be responsible for each other and that the extent of the ‘bundle’ of rights accorded to each family member should depend on the degree of responsibility exercised in practice by each member, whether such responsibility is accepted voluntarily and lovingly or imposed by the law. The idea of family should be broadly defined to encompass disparate cultural and social models so that the general principle of family responsibility can be adapted pragmatically to specific circumstances.

A comparison of the legal standing of families and parents, de facto and step-parents, and the extended family. It is increasingly enlightening to see how the thinking has progressed over such a short time. The conclusions bring into sharp focus how Family Law has been changed and brought into Family Court practice.

Read more!

Half a truth is a whole lie.

There is a Yiddish proverb: "Half a truth is a whole lie."
As if in response to Ian Kay, three articles have appeared in publications across the nation containing identical phrases of half truths by Pru Goward in her demand for Sheik Hilaly to be deported; Adele Horin in the Sydney Morning Herald reporting on an article by Dr Michael Flood.
(The excerpt below is from the SMH. The topics and wording were nearly identical for all three authors.)

A survey of 2000 people shows there has been a significant improvement since 1995 in attitudes towards violence against women. But it also shows many people still trivialise or condone it.

The survey, conducted for the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, is part of a wider report, Two steps forward, one step backward. It found 40 per cent believed rape resulted from men's inability to control their need for sex, and half believed, despite the lack of evidence, that women falsified claims of domestic violence to gain a tactical advantage in custody battles.

Michael Flood, a researcher at La Trobe University and a contributor to the project, said: "Too many people believe men are uncontrollable sexual beasts and women are liars and temptresses. " Men, especially from migrant communities and those with traditional views about gender roles, were more likely to have "violence-supportive" views.

The survey says "attitudes have improved" on a range of measures since a similar poll was conducted in 1995. For example, smaller proportions now believe that "women who are raped often ask for it" (6 per cent compared with 15 per cent in 1995), and nearly all people believe domestic violence is a crime (97 per cent compared with 93 per cent in 1995).

There is also wider acceptance that it is a crime for a husband or boyfriend to force his partner to have sex.

The results reflect recent findings by the Australian Bureau of Statistics of a decline since 1996 in the numbers of women subject to physical or sexual assault.

However, 15 per cent still believe "women often say no to sex when they mean yes", about the same proportion as in 1995. And there is low recognition that emotional, social and financial abuse are serious: almost one in four did not consider yelling abuse at one's partner was serious.

The rise from 9 per cent to 20 per cent in the numbers believing women are as likely as men to be perpetrators of domestic violence was an area where views had hardened, despite contrary evidence.

Dr Flood attributed the change to campaigns by men's rights groups.

Yes, Dr Flood, and the men's rights groups should be commended for attempting to overcome institutionalized prejudice that has destroyed tens of thousands of families and lives.
The reality is that women are equally likely to resort to violence in a relationship, and even more likely to resort to 'domestic violence' as more recently defined by the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates' Courts -- as criminal acts.
Yelling at one's partner should not be a criminal act. It is a normal human reaction to an emotional situation. However, in the press to condemn such normal human emotional expressions, thousands of men are being condemned for not arguing with their abusive partners.
Not only men resort to emotional, social and financial tactics of abuse. Women are at least as likely to become addicted to abuse as men.
For more than two months, the papers have shown a marked (17% - 37%) increase in domestic violence, Dr Flood, especially in Victoria where the police have adopted rules which generate increases.
Forced sex will always be controversial within a relationship. If clear evidence of force is presented, then it is certainly a crime. But to swing wide the door for increased allegations based on mood or opportunity is foolish.

I'm sure it would surprise Dr Flood and his friends if he were to ever realize how vindictive a woman becomes if a man no longer finds her attractive. Yes, women press for sex, too. And if it is denied - often because the woman has become too abusive and controlling - she becomes the legendary "woman scorned."
In the simple-minded prejudice of the cause celebre, no woman is ever scorned.

Few people doubt that domestic violence is a crime, as reasonably understood by the general public. However, the new definitions of 'domestic violence' attempt to make it illegal to argue with a female partner, since the definitions are only being applied to men.
And only an idiot thinks that women "ask for it" to be raped.

In a grand hypocrisy, the changes you applaud are only canonizing the perception that men are sexual beasts, and the racist stereotypes that follow such stupidity.

Read more!

Ian Kay is at it again

Ian Kay is has been called an embarrassment to Men's and Family Rights' groups. His is the persistent passion of someone who truly believes they have been wronged, driven ever harder by the lifelong commitment of a native love and need for his children.
His words reflect desperation, and frustration turned to rage. His rage is dismissed as madness, or drunkenness.
After so many years -- Kay has been raging at the system for more than a decade. -- will his story ever be told fairly? It's doubtful. Ian Kay himself probably could not tell it.
Did the inequities of the system drive him to madness? Or did these inequities only exacerbate an already unstable mind?

Was, or is, the system reasonable and fair in denying him contact with his children?
Is all this passion, persistence, and energy only wasted?
Why does Ian Kay feel forced to rant and rage? Couldn't he, and many others like him, have made a contribution to Australia if their deepest feelings were not denied? I don't think there is any question there.
What would have happened if such passion and persistence were directed towards productive pursuits?

As someone who has experienced first hand the institutionalized prejudice of the Victorian legal system, I can understand the deep anger Mr Kay expresses -- to a point. I cannot share his rage at being denied his children. I can share the deep sense of betrayal by government and loved ones -- but not the pain of more than a decade.
I've tried to find more constructive avenues for my rage. It is, in the final analysis, a matter of personal choice. For Ian Kay, in a society that sees his anger as weakness, he has found no other avenue than to rage into the vast abyss of the Internet.

I cannot admire blind rage. Yet I must respect the persistence of someone who knows they have been wronged, especially since I share that experience.
And so, Mr Kay ... This is a graphic expression of a tragedy.

(Reproduced here by request. Formatting removed for legibility. Three messages.)

Politicians, I request you approach the Attorney General, Rob Hulls declaring me a vexatious litigant , while refusing to investigate this judicial corruption and malice.

The charges were a conspiracy between the Hierarchy of the Family Court, the Federal Department of Public Prosecutions, the Federal Police and the County Court.

A ‘specially selected , ‘little fat rat , and a mongrel bastard drunkard, judge Campbell of the County Court, gave me four months jail , for naming mongrel bastard Family Court judges, mongrel bastards , on letters I addressed to my children.

Campbell was aware that at the time I had been denied any contact or knowledge of my children for nine years , by this court , and that this was abuse of the Australian constitution and the United Nations , “Declaration of Human Rights.

Sylvia Clach, was given a two-year suspended sentence after she admitted swerving into a bike lane and killing cyclist, Anthony Marsh . Refer article “Herald- Sun “

It is claimed the law is an ass , if the courts can jail devoted fathers over trivia , who are being denied their children, while allowing a woman to walk free after admitting running down a cyclist and killing him , then the courts are the asses anus and the judges and magistrates are what the ass pushes through it.

This letter has been sent to judges , politicians, media and others and is being circulated worldwide on the internet Ian Kay Oct – 23 - 06.

Ian Kay Activist for children to have their father’s love and Protection C / O Somers P O 3927

Rob Hulls , the Victorian Attorney General, is too pathetic and cowardly to face me and he refuses to investigate this judicial corruption and malice , instead he declares me a vexatious litigant.

Phil Rodda , ( ‘ the specially selected ‘, known corrupt police magistrate ) gave me 8 months jail ( 4 months suspended) for postal breaches of a restraining order. * Rodda was aware I was trying to make contact with my children , as the courts were denying me contact, without any justification.

* Rodda did this to justify the Magistrates and Supreme courts, and police denying me bail for 2 months , over stalking charges. Rodda was compelled to dismiss, the stalking charges , because the of the obvious and embarrassing treachery, and perjury of the police and their witnesses, the charges were based upon.

At the same time, Rodda, gave Gregory Starrow , a community based order, after he admitted he was a member of a global internet child pornography ring, promoting heinous crimes against children , and owned more than 24,000 erotic pictures of children (and even babies !!)

Who is vexatious me or the system?

This letter has been sent to the judiciary, politicians, media and others, and has been emailed worldwide , on the internet Ian Kay March – 18 – 06.

Hull’s mother would have fornicated with a diseased rat, to produce something so low , that promotes legislation that can lead to the abuse of vulnerable children .

The Victorian Attorney General, Rob Hulls,

Is a Child Molesting Monster

A Professor of Human Science , Dr Stephen Baskerville, of the Harvard University claimed ;

"The epidemic of child abuse coincides directly with the epidemic of restraining orders against fathers “. --Brian Burdekin. the former Australian Human Rights Commissioner claimed ;
“ …….. there is a 500 to 600 percent increase in sexual abuse of girls when their natural father is removed from their lives.”

Hulls is very aware that the current taxpayer funded witch hunt against men in particular fathers, ( it has cost millions of dollars ! ) based on biased feminist concepts of domestic violence , phony statistics and lies , which he openly supports, leads to an increase in the physical and sexual abuse of children.

Hulls is aware, that Hospital records reveal that only 2% of women admitted to hospital with diagnosable injuries, were victims of domestic violence, and that women are responsible for most of the abuse and neglect of children. +


Hulls is very aware how children, who see their fathers evicted out of their homes and their lives, by the blatant use and abuse of restraining orders usually issued based on “allegations “ of violence , with no evidence to support them, are immediately lose their most natural and perfect protection – their father

Hulls will have the blood of abused children denied

their father’s protection on his hands .



This letter has been sent to the judiciary, media and others and is being circulated worldwide on the internet

Ian Kay Activist for children to have their father’s love and protection C/O P-O 3927 Australia

Read more!

Parent Activist Murtari Will Remain In Jail

Parent Activist Murtari Will Remain In Jail

Posted by: "Teri Stoddard" shared.parenting.works@gmail.com sharedparentingworks

Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:33 pm (PST)

Parent Activist Murtari Will Remain In Jail

http://mensnewsdail y.com/2006/ 10/26/parent- activist- murtari-will- remain-in- jail/

--
http://www.mensinte rests.com
http://myspace. com/teristoddard
http://www.sharedpa rentingworks. org
http://mensnewsdail y.com/author/ teri
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/SINGLE- PARENTS-

Read more!

The Wonders of Oz

While it is legal in Australia to abuse the elderly and disabled of any age or sex -- Such actions are protected by a web of IR laws, odd quirks of the definition of civil law because of the timidity to define such actions as crimes, and social prejudices. -- the abuse of women has become a cause celebre.

Sheik Hilaly has opened the debate across the nation by his comments earlier this week:

The Sheik alluded to rapes in 2000 in which four women were separately gang-raped by young Muslim men, including Bilal Skaf, who received a 55-year jail sentence, later reduced.

He said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and inappropriate clothes, "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", The Australian reported.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat," the sheik asked.

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (head scarf), no problem would have occurred."

Without putting the belief in free speech aside, this was at best an unfortunate choice of words for the 'Mufti of Australia.'

Before leaping onto the wave of condemnation, the Sheik must realize he just assigned the behaviour of those men to the moral level of undomesticated animals. Even a house cat learns not steal meat off a table. Perhaps we should give him credit where it is due.

Pru Goward has no right to demand his deportation. The Sheik is a citizen of Australia. He has every right to speak within a place of worship the tenets of his faith. Ms Goward is only illustrating again why she was a poor choice to for the post of Sexual Discrimination Commissioner.

This is just bandwagon racism, and we should expect better from any national leader.
Anyone who has attended church in the last 50-60 years has heard the same or worse in sermons in any number of denominations. No, it's not well said. Blaming the victim for rape is idiotic.

But wanting to deport a religious leader for emphatically stating a position on morality is, from a national leader, even less. Freedom is not something that you have when it's convenient. It's something you believe in and defend no matter how someone abuses it. Otherwise, it's not freedom. It's a lie.

Ms Goward seems to have taken her commission to fill Australia with as much sexual discrimination as possible; along with a fair amount of racial and ethnic discrimination and slurs. What sane government would make this prejudiced woman Sexual Discrimination Commissioner? -- And people wonder why there are so few political jokes in Australia. It's simple: It would be hard to beat the government for making a joke of itself.

And then, who has not thought that dressing children in sexy clothes is improper?
Sexy clothes turn both men and women's heads in public. It's a matter of taste to be sexy, not just skin.
Is there a limit to what has to be 'cute'?

The Sheik speaks out at a very unstable time in western history, about a volatile subject: rape.

On page 8 of the Insight sections (The Age, today), Elizabeth G from Ferntree Gully course called, "Crime and Gender" - part of her law degree,

"It taught me that most people in Australia agree with you about rape. Even 'free' Western democracies blame the victims for the attacks. This is evident in the statistics (only one in 10 rapes are reported, only 2 percent of reported rapes result in conviction). .."

This factoid has been bandied about for years. When I first heard it in the 1970s, it was one in three rapes were reported; then one in four. Like most gossip, the story only got better. One in five, and now it's one in ten.
When and where do people use their heads and question such figures?

A little critical thinking is necessary to be a lawyer, Ms G. Did you happen to check some of the supporting statistics?
From the Australian Institute of Criminology report, figures provided by an arguably biased source - the Australian Women's Safety Survey - all sexual assaults in the last 12 months total 142,900.
If only one in 10 were reported, then that would mean 1,429,000 rapes occurred in Australia in the last 12 months alone - which would be more than the total of all sexual assaults reported in the last 20 years: 774,100 (and these figures count multiple rape as a single instance.)

Extrapolating, it would mean that 7,741,000 rapes were committed in Australia over the past 20 years.
Considering quickly the fact that the population only reached 20 million last year, with an almost perfect split of males and females (.95 to 1.05), it would be possible to conclude that nearly every woman in Australia has been raped (-- unless they are tucked inside a room and only go out in a hajib ..?)
When will reason (critical thinking or common sense?) be realized?

Training
The most striking fact is that Ms G is a lawyer in training. She is dependent on her teachers to convey facts responsibly to her to fulfill her future duties as an officer of the court. Her duty will be to aid the court in obtaining a fair unbiased judgment. How can she possibly do that?
The answer is she can't. She has been trained to fear, gossip and prejudice. She will stand before the bar and act on the information she has been given to the best of her ability. Reading the rest of her comments, she has been given "statistics" to support her fear and prejudice.

Which is the greater crime?
For a man to speak inside his place of worship about the beliefs of his religion?
Or for someone who must act professionally to defend equality before the law and free speech to be trained to prejudice?

The Mufti's remarks incite fear, and from that perhaps violence, hatred, and greater prejudice from all sides. Ms G's comments accomplish the same thing. The differing quality may be whether one or the other is accountable to their own beliefs.
The Mufti's immoderate words encourage women to dress modestly, according to the traditions of the religion they choose to follow. He has also encouraged women to take advantage of education and other advantages of a free society.

Ms G will step forward into Australian society armed with statistics from one-sided studies like the "Controlling behaviours of male partners", -- with no equivalent study for the controlling behaviours of female partners. From her description of the 'Crime and Gender' course, she has already found her cause.
Will the prejudice she has been taught serve the same role as religion for the Mufti? Will it define a financially successful career? There is no question such a career path exists.
Why should anyone expect her to find the moral courage to seek reality when prejudice offers such a profitable future?
After all, justice is in the eyes of a patronized magistrate...

Read more!

New Link added: Parenting Time dot net

This is the home of OPTIMAL™, the Online Parenting Time Information Manager and Access Log.
OPTIMAL can help you win custody, change custody, or reduce child support. What is OPTIMAL? OPTIMAL is an online custody calendar that allows you to easily schedule and track parenting time as well as monitor compliance with your custody arrangement. Often just monitoring compliance is enough to cause a change for the better. What can OPTIMAL do for me? OPTIMAL reduces conflict between you and your child's other parent by providing a shared tool for scheduling parenting time, and by providing an unbiased, easily accessed record of scheduled time versus actual time. Can OPTIMAL help me in court? Absolutely! You can use OPTIMAL to change custody, win custody, or reduce child support. OPTIMAL produces clear, compelling printouts that are specifically designed for use in court. The OPTIMAL time logs are also powerful and effective tools, documenting any interference with your parenting time. What comes with OPTIMAL? The central part of OPTIMAL is the Tracker module, where you record and track parenting time. However, OPTIMAL also contains a variety of other tools (included free) to help you manage and coordinate parenting time.

Read more!

Family Court - two years of anguish and escalation

(Reproduced here with permission of the Author. This article was also published on Online Opinion.)

Family Court - two years of anguish and escalation
by Geoff Holland

After my separation and subsequent divorce, the Family Court process took two years of anguish, during which the relationship between myself and my ex-partner degenerated from a time when we would still hug each other, make jokes and offer cups of tea, to one of bitter arguments and physical violence. I believe the Family Court system and Family Law industry is partly responsible for this escalation of conflict.

“My solicitor says I can get 70 per cent and I want 70 per cent”

Before my ex-partner had initiated the Family Court process I organised to meet with her at the Dispute Resolution Centre. By her own account, she had contributed 45 per cent of the assets (I maintained it was 24 per cent). One of the mediators put it to her, “So you would be happy with 45 per cent?” My ex-partner replied, “No, my solicitor says I can get 70 per cent and I want 70 per cent”.

In the Family Court process there were three “conciliation conferences”. My ex-partner’s solicitor undermined chances to reach agreement at two of these three sessions. In the first session, my position was that my ex-partner had contributed 24 per cent of the assets. My ex-partner’s solicitor wanted 70 per cent. In the spirit of negotiation I offered 35 per cent (and was prepared to go to 50 per cent). The solicitor facetiously responded, “OK, we want 90 per cent” - thus swiftly and effectively ending any prospect of a negotiated settlement.

(The solicitor asked me straight after that meeting what my bottom line was and I told him 50 per cent.)

My ex-partner ended up winning 68 per cent of the assets at the Final Hearing; however 40 per cent of this, it is estimated, was spent on her solicitor's and barrister's fees, implying that she received about 41 per cent of the assets.

Interim Orders

At the third conciliation conference I asked the Deputy Registrar why I was not able to see my son on any weekends. The Deputy Registrar put this question to my ex-partner. She responded, “Because I work and weekends are the only time I can see him”. “But don't you also have Thursdays off?” he asked her. My ex-partner replied, “Yes, but that's when I have to do my shopping”. Irritated with her response, the Deputy Registrar slammed his book closed and turned to me saying, “you should seek Interim Orders”.

This was the first I had heard of “Interim Orders”.

So I spent many hours preparing an application for Interim Orders. When the matter was finally heard the judge ruled, “Because the Final Hearing is imminent, we will not change the current pattern of contact”. The judge described the Final Hearing as “imminent” even though he could not set a date. The Final Hearing occurred 12 months later.

Father “inexperienced”

During the Final Hearing the judge made some bizarre statements. For example, he stated that I was inexperienced as a father - even though I had actively brought up a 14-year-old daughter (positive and thriving according to the Family Report). In fact, I had more experience than the mother.

“Global assessment” in the kangaroo court

In the property settlement the judge took into consideration grocery bills paid by the mother four years prior, and a scrappy and barely legible notebook of supposed expenses. He didn’t investigate an arithmetical mistake in her totals, and accepted as evidence a bank deposit slip which had been filled in but which had not been stamped or separated from the butt. He ignored over $5,000 received and spent by the mother in Family Tax Benefits, to which both parents were entitled. Because I hadn’t kept grocery bills from four years prior, it was assumed I hadn't bought any.

The judge did not take into consideration my ex-partner’s superannuation because it was concluded that, “it would be a long time before she would benefit from it”.

The judge awarded 68 per cent of assets to the mother. He said, “This is a global assessment and I am not required to, and will not provide a breakdown for this figure”. Not even a justification for this decision was given.

My ex-partner was advised by her solicitor 2 ½ years before the Final Hearing that she would most likely gain 70 per cent of the assets if she went to court. She won 68 per cent of the assets. An immense amount of time was spent by both parties producing documents demonstrating financial contributions to the relationship but much of the documentation was ignored. The judge made a “global assessment” which did not accord with the evidence. It seems that the final outcome was in fact a virtual foregone conclusion, and that this was a kangaroo court.

Allegations of sexual abuse

The affidavits of my ex-partner and her mother contained allegations of sexual abuse by me toward my son. Having such false allegations made against you is extremely distressing. In my case I was very lucky to be able to demonstrate they were false.

My ex-partner agreed, during my cross-examination of her, that her allegations were very serious. I then asked why she had not raised these serious matters during her interview with the child psychologist who was writing the family report. She replied (after much hesitation) that she didn’t have enough time. But the family report showed that the interview had lasted 1hr 45mins.

I would have pressured my ex-partner to admit that she had fabricated the allegations except I was concerned the judge might think I was bullying her (which could preclude Equal Residency) as it was already plain to everybody that she had.

The judge made no comment to my ex-partner for having committed what was in fact perjury.

“In the child’s best interests”

Even though the mother worked full-time and was on call some nights and weekends, and even though the father was available to care for the child any time and all the time, and even though the child had a sibling at the father's home, it was deemed in the child's best interest to locate the child with the mother. Here we see the double standard of the Family Court and the bias against fathers in action.

Awarding costs against the respondent

The judge ordered the respondent (i.e., me) to pay $5,000 towards the legal fees of the applicant. This was despite the fact that:

I had made written offers for settlement and my ex-partner had made none;
residency orders were closer to what I had sought than those my ex-partner had sought; and
the normal procedure is that respondents do not have to pay the legal fees of the applicant.
I rang up to find about appealing against these costs. I was told that I would need transcripts of the Final Hearing which would cost me about $3,000. I was also told by the Family Court in Brisbane that a board of Family Court judges would hear the appeal and that, “Appeals are rarely successful because the judge’s decision is usually discretionary, and other judges do not like to overturn discretionary decisions”.

“I expect by then you two will be able to sort things out yourselves”

In my Orders Sought I asked that pick-ups and drop-offs of the child be reciprocated - i.e., each parent do their own pick-ups such that drop-offs are eliminated. The judge didn't see this as a reasonable request and ordered that the father do all pick-ups and drop-offs.

I asked that the mother use the child's surname as described on his birth certificate (the father's surname) rather than changing it to her own, to avoid confusion as to which name our son would be listed under at school, with Medicare and so on. The judge suggested that this was one issue that in the new spirit of co-operation, the father and mother could resolve among themselves. One year later this issue has not been resolved.

Surely the court is there to make decisions when no agreement can be reached by the parties. An easy policy solution would be for boys to take the surname of their father and girls to take the surname of their mother.

The Family Report was based on meetings of the Family Court child psychologist with the mother, and then with the father. My 14-year-old daughter (from a previous relationship) was also required for an interview, though the child's maternal grandmother who was looking after my son most of the time while the mother was working, was not required to be interviewed.

The child psychologist sat in the corner of a small room observing and taking notes while my son and I “interacted”. Similarly this took place with the mother. This is such an unnatural situation in which to “objectively” observe “typical behaviour” between a child and a parent, and yet so much hangs in the balance with this half hour “observation”. One can easily walk along a plank located one metre above the ground, but suspend the same plank between two buildings 100m above the ground and the result is quite different.

Nevertheless, the interviews and observations went smoothly. In the Family Report, the child psychologist recommended a three-stage increase in contact with the father. She said to me following the release of the report, “I didn't go all the way to Equal Residency because I felt I'd intervened enough, and I thought that by the time he [our son] goes to school, you two will be able to sort things out for yourselves”. What a huge ill-founded assumption this was considering the mother was willing to fabricate sexual abuse allegations among other blatant untruths in her affidavits to minimise my contact with my son.

As with the whole Final Hearing, all the onus to demonstrate and achieve reconciliation was placed on me while the mother benefits from not co-operating.

I asked the child psychologist why the Family Court granted Equal Residency in so few cases. She said, “You have no idea of some of the fathers we have come through here”. “Are so many of them so terrible?” I asked. “Oh no, most of them are very good fathers,” she responded. “So why is Equal Residency granted in less than 5 per cent of cases?” I continued. The Family Court child psychologist did not respond. She looked at her notes, shuffled her papers and changed the subject.

The Final Orders

In his Contact Orders, the judge followed the recommendations of the Family Court child psychologist. He was only going to make orders until the beginning of 2007 which would have meant both the father (me) and the mother would be posturing for the next two years preparing for the next round in court. The judge had given me some excerpts from the Family Law Act to read during the lunch break. One part of the Act is a recommendation: When making orders, consider orders which minimise the need to return to court. When I pointed this out to the judge he seemed irritated. However, in his Final Orders he put in a fourth contact stage beginning in 2007 and continuing indefinitely.

I pointed out to the judge that while stages one to three were for progressively increasing contact, his stage four would reduce contact and that there was no apparent logic in this. The judge responded that when a child starts school, both parents have less time. I responded that even taking this into account, the child would have less percentage contact with the father. The judge replied irritably, “Well I'm not going to change it now!” Easy for him to dismiss, but his sloppy decisions can have a major impact on our lives and relationships for the next decade or more.

We were handed a copy of the Orders for perusal. My ex-partner’s solicitor approached me after about five minutes saying, “Well we're finished. Are you finished? We have to go back in.” He was pressuring me. However, I took my time reading over the Orders.

I noticed that the judge had deviated from the recommendations of the child psychologist by ordering pick up at 7.30pm rather than 7.30am. The judge, again irritable, remarked that that was just a “typo”. “Typo” it might have been, but had I not pointed it out at that moment it most likely would have become irrevocable.

Forget about Child Support

I believe one of the reasons my ex-partner wishes me to have minimal time with my son is simply as a punishment, an act of malice. I believe a further reason is that the more contact I have with my son, the less Child Support I am required to pay her. Worse, if we had Equal Residency, which I was seeking, my ex-partner may have to pay me Child Support (due to her higher income).

I do not wish to receive any Child Support from my ex-partner. I would like to sign a Parenting Agreement stating that if we had Equal Residency, neither of us would seek Child Support from the other. However, as my ex-partner knows, such a condition would not be recognised by the Family Court. So I have no way to guarantee to my ex-partner that I would not claim Child Support, and thereby pave the way for an agreement on Equal Residency.

The Family Court system is fatally flawed

The Family Court system and industry generates and amplifies conflict. This fact is extremely serious because one of the most important factors in a child’s life following family separation is some sort of reconciliation and harmony between the parents to heal the huge rift of divided loyalties and love the child has for both parents. The current system aggravates an already strained relationship to the point where there may never be any sort of reconciliation between the parents, leaving many children emotionally scarred for life.

The new Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) are an admission that the current highly formal, expensive and adversarial system is wrong. But the FRCs will not work because the Family Court’s quirky and gender-biased policies have not changed. (Mothers will simply pass through the FRCs and on to the Family Court).

I believe there are at least several hundred people - mostly men - who suicide each year following divorce, as well an alarming number of murder-suicides involving children. I believe the current Family Court system is partially responsible for many of these deaths. The Family Court system is fatally flawed. We need real change.

Read more!

New Link: Manhood Online, Australia

Manhood Online is a professionally produced website with a gentle artistic style. It is done in the colors of the outback and the "bright, red land", reminiscent of the American Southwest. The style is a dramatic warmth that reflects the best of the Australian character. And the content of the site seeks to fulfill the promise of the artist.
The designer seeks to express the depth of Australian manhood, the broad sweep of the land, the courage and warmth of those who inhabit this country. He succeeds.
It is a work of art in design and content.
It is at once a warcry, in the breadth of content -- in Gatherings, links to hundreds of men's groups across Australia, and in the Forums where the voices of Australia can be heard -- and an attempt to show the poetry of Manhood -- in the moving statements of Snapshots.

	Good things Dad did We all know the stories of fathers who got it wrong. In fact, we know these stories so well we often forget the things our fathers did get right. We believe it's important to tell the good stories. That's why we invite you to tell us how your father got it right.
	Manhood Forums The place where you get to have your say on the topic of your choice.
	Manhood Online Snapshots Men from all walks of life answer the 16 big questions about what it means being a man today.

Over 100,000 hits to this site per month from over 2,000 IP's

This website is inspirational, at once spiritual and useful to any man at any point in his life; not just those who are seeking to deal with the trauma of the end of a family or relationship.

Manhood Online is done in Lotus Notes and Java, which may limit its availability to later model computers and faster bandwidth connections. The navigation is simple and direct, but some of the pages could use a short note indicating how to access links. Some lists in Java require a mouse double-click to follow a link.
Personally, I applaud the use of technology and design to produce such a powerful, positive statement amidst the morass of Men's sites that seem allergic to the alacrity of technology and attempt to cater to the lowest common denominator in skill and literacy.
This is one of the finest designed websites in Australia. It is truly impressive.
Bravo!

Read more!

Tautology

What is a tautology?

My constantly introspective and self-critical self asked me, "Why are you writing like this? You've never written so many tautologies before."
And, I had to admit he was right.
So... Why?

Mostly because I don't believe the right words are being used. And, maybe, I'm searching for them. The terms that should be used are like ... prejudice .. dispossession ... illegitimate .. inept .. and so on, but not many are willing to use them.
My tautologies are expressing my frustration and angst.

Let me illustrate with another type of tautology.

A friend who had heard my story said she thought my ex was a very brave and smart woman, who was determined to get what she wanted.
Nodding, I agreed.
So I said, "Let me take a hatchet, and embed it in your hip just between where the leg joins the pelvis."
"Now, while you're on the ground bleeding, let me kick you right there -- just below the ribs, the solar plexus, and drive the boot deep into your chest. I'll do it a few times, just for good measure."
"Then, because I don't want to appear heartless or cruel, I'll bandage your wounds so you don't bleed. And cover you with a blanket so you don't get cold. ... I'll show a few people that you're covered in the blanket, and tell them I can't understand why you don't get up."
"I'll tell you how stupid you were to let me hit you with the hatchet a few times."
"Now tell me how brave and smart I am for continuing to kick you in the gut for a couple of years."

A little overdone, but that's also a tautology. It is also a reasonable analogy for what happened to me, but I really need to add that the police and courts laughed at her, then awarded me a large sum. Then they fined her for trying to explain why she had a hatchet in her hip.
More tautology.
It doesn't matter how accureately a tautology expresses an idea. Just the idea that it's a tautology makes it something to be dismissed.

Read more!

Blogs and Freedom

How many honest, intelligent, caring men in the world does it take to do the dishes?

Both of them.

(from one of the 8586 Australian blogs tracked by the now-defunct Australian webblogs site, by Ozguru)

Australian Webblogs was an enterprise to track the growth of blogging in Australia. It failed.
On international blog news and information tracking sites, the only blogs listed are encyclopedia services. Even education and training blog services have found few people willing to maintain their blogs. The only blog sites that remain active are large corporate sites -- usually because of foreign ownership -- and media blogs by active columnists.
The voice of citizen journalism in Australia is silent.
The core of blogging in Australia remains with young people, ages 15-24. It is no surprise that this is also the age group the most successful marketing projects target.

Thirty-five percent of Australian households use the Internet. Of those, 65% are on some form of broadband. No other country took to the Internet (per capita) faster than Australia. Only 5 years ago, less than 10% of Australian households were on the Net.

Australians do not seek an individual voice. Per capita, it can be said that Australian society is more insular than China, without the legal and technical restrictions placed on chinese bloggers and internet users.
The reasons for this reticence to express individual experience and perceptions might be worth exploring for some social scientist someday.
Expressing one's individual feelings and opinions exposes thoughts to criticism. It means exposure. Exposure means someone can condemn on platitudes and hypocrisy. Expression means one's beliefs and values are exposed and may be used to manipulate or be attacked.
These concepts are the core of personal development and democracy.
Respect for the open expression of another's ideas requires circumspection and reflection, comparing the experience of another with one's own, then seeking new perspectives on one's own assumptions, attitudes, and viewpoints.

I was taught as a child that generalities are not true for even half. In fact, a generality often proves true for far less than that. The only true generality is that generalities -- sayings and cynicisms -- are lies. Lies for cowards to hide behind and appear worldly.
But generalities do shape and mold expressed opinion, the public perception. If you want to change the public perception, you must speak out against the generalities.

That said, I must conclude in general that Australians do not understand their rights and responsibilities as citizens. Australians are happy to let government pass new, ever more invasive, laws -- sometimes at cross purposes -- instead of taking the responsibility for their own actions and words.

It is like a nation trapped in adolescence, with all the insecurities and conflicts of adolescence. When Australians speak, they want to be the voice of a mob. There is far too little respect for individual opinion. Too often, Australians let those who are titled in some way be the "voice of the people."
There is a deep-seated class mentality that dictates the silence of the "working class." Reality in today's Australia is there is no "working class." Anyone, male or female, can be whatever they choose to be. Education and hard work are all that define class in Australia. "Working class" is only an excuse to dismiss one's duties as a citizen.

It is no wonder that the government arrogates itself to treat citizens here like children.
Nor is it surprising that Australians seem to treat each other as children so often; and expect only the most childish responses.

For "the Lucky Country" or "the Biggest Island in the World", such attitudes may have been sufficient. But Australia is growing, and it will have to grow up too. Those labels are best used to attract tourists. If Australia persists in trying to make slogans like that a national goal, then it will fail as a society.

Australia has stepped onto the world stage and presented itself as a leader in international affairs. In order for "democracy, Australian style" to work, it must accept the exposure of petty failures and work to improve from the citizen level.
Government and laws are, at best, the desperate reactionary answer to national problems. -- How long will it take Australia to realize that fact?

When the government has failed the residents of Australia long enough, damaged and offended enough Australians, a mob forms. For most of history, that required books and news articles to influence opinion over years. Even if the media is as slow as government to accept the realities, public opinion will seek the truth at the lowest common denominator: cynicism and resentment.
When this happens over long years, even decades, the government has failed in its "duty of care", and the media has failed it purpose in democracy.

Now the Internet has given new better ideas a voice in hours, not years. And it has had an inexorable effect, despite the painfully slow reactions of government and social structures.

The Men's Rights and Family Rights' movement is an example.
After decades of neglect by playground politicians, the cynicism about the idiotic prejudices of the system gave way, driven by deep rage and frustration, to literally hundreds of groups and websites across Australia demanding the laws and the implementation of the laws regard the realities of family life; and the limitations of the legal system. Australia's experience echoes slowly similar movements across the world. Australia's echo is slow and subdued though, as reflected by the links on this blog.

Yet even with their families destroyed, and individual character slandered, by the courts, Australians cling to a fear of expressing their individual experience and opinions, and to a compulsion to look to government or those ratified by some title to give the effort a voice. Even on the Internet, individuals are afraid to speak their minds publicly. The voice of bitter experience is whispered in small corners of the Net, hidden from public view. When someone seeks to give these bitter experiences public expression, they are quickly abandoned by those who did not have the courage to speak out.
The result is these voices are scattered, fragmented, and easily dismissed by those in authority. Those whom the voices sought to serve flee from them, and condemn these leaders and authors with cynical dismissals that bear no basis in fact, but continue the superstitions and prejudice.

When I began this blog, I surveyed the Internet seeking help from all levels of Australian society, sure that what was happening to me was a grotesque anomaly. It turned out to be a national disgrace that had been accepted by all for decades, and was only getting worse. There was no help available.
That, at least, has changed to a degree. I hope this blog has made some small contribution to that change.

The national disgrace was, and is still, costing lives daily and billions in productivity and health, endangering the future of Australia. This national disgrace is fueled by greed, from the playground politicians to the petty manipulations of greedy ordinary women. A national disgrace that exposed the failings of education, social services and law, the mental health system, and the playground resentments driven by leadership towards the disabled and elderly.

Blogs are only one example of the cynicism and fear that prevents free expression in Australia. But there are many examples and expressions which reflect the results of the pretense of freedom.

Read more!

New Genre? A film about the trials of child support!

There are a few articles recently in the Australian papers about soldiers sending their combat pay home only to find it has been used to finance a little playtime and a breakup.
In at least one reported case, $50,000 had disappeared along with the wife.
In another, the soldier came home to find his wife had left the kids with his parents, gone across the country partying, then used the remainder of his hazardous duty pay to fund a lawyer.

(reproduced here with permission)

THIS IS GREAT!

This is a must see for reform advocates. This movie exposes the child support system for what it is, and in particular, documents the destruction of military men.

http://www.supportthemovie.com/

Support? is a film that covers the true everyday issues of love, stress, family, and the pain that is enhanced a 1,000 times more when families are put through the detrimental affects of the Family Court systems in which are flooded with more cases than the labor force can handle OR chooses NOT to handle.

Finally, a shocking documentary that exposes the truth! See what experts are saying about how some have figured a way to make money by emphasizing on divorce and child support issues between men and women through court orders.
Making them pay exuberant amounts of money in exchange for their CREDIT, HOMES, and BANK ACCOUNTS and yes even their FREEDOM!

Exposed… Support? Brings you deep into the Military angle! Go face to face with the attorneys that handle the day to day cases of the men and women who give their lives to protect our homeland. You be the judge is this justice?
Shocking news as every branch of the US military is affected when they return home after fighting at war and not being able to pay while abroad.
Only to return and be incarcerated for missing payments due to arrears the day they arrive on American soil.

Support? was made to be suggestive and educational in order to spark a call to action and bring a case by case solution for better results for the children of America and the Generations of the World!

Want to learn more? Read the full synopsis:
http://www.supportthemovie.com/film-synopsis/indexFull. php

Regards,
David R. Usher
Senior Policy Analyst, True Equality Network
President, ACFC Missouri Coalition
314 452-2297 (weekdays)
314 991-1959 (home and weekends)

Read more!

New Link: Dads Who Fought Back, the movie

Two Canadian fathers formed a film company to produce the story of their battle for visitation and custody.

Dan O'Moore in Adelaide is in the process of making short films on similar subjects for the fathers4equality Australia group. He has been talking with a number of producers and may form his own film company.

They are two average guys who won't give up.

Two fathers are struggling to do something not all divorced men can do: be involved in the lives of their children. Some argue that the deck is stacked against them, and the courts and legal system favour mothers. Others blame a system buckling from the weight of ready divorce and in-fighting...ex-partners who use any tactic to gain the upper hand.

THE DADS WHO FOUGHT BACK follows these two passionate men who refuse to take a back seat and are willing to put everything at stake to have a relationship with their kids.

See the trailer here.

Read more!

Support? (a short film)

"The most intelligent thing you can say about men and women in American is, We need each other..."

Read more!

Australian women as victims

Sometimes, life offers insights which make otherwise obvious conclusions sparkle clear.

THE mother of a Melbourne schoolgirl fears she may be forced into an arranged marriage after her Utah-based father stopped her returning to Australia from the US.

Lydia Karg, who was a student at South Oakleigh College, has not returned from America after a two-week visit to her father in July last year.

Her mother, Tracy Fonti, 40, claims Lydia has fallen under the influence of the Mormon church and fears she will be forced to marry a person chosen for her and live a life of domestic servitude under patriarchal Mormon traditions.

"It is a concern that she might be partnered off -- she could end up in an arranged marriage," she said.

Mrs Fonti said her former husband had indoctrinated her daughter.

Horrible, isn't it? This poor schoolgirl has fallen under the spell of her "super charismatic" American father, and has been stolen from the loving care of her mum. Tucked little further into the piece, the father says,

"Lydia wants to be here," he said. "She was running away from her (Mrs Fonti)."

As an American who has lived in and around Mormons for most of my life; and as an American who has witnessed graphically the sort of desperate victimhood taught and trained into Australian women, I have a very different sort of conclusion.
I'd say the father is accurately describing both his own feelings and the feelings of his daughter.

Mormons

First, the Mormon church is patriarchal, without question.
But arranged marriages are something that only appears in small discredited cults which claim to be Mormon -- just as some Mormon offshoots still practice polygamy. The mainstream church abhors both.
The Mormon church does encourage women to become educated, however. The church provides scholarships and even funds a world-class university, Brigham Young University, which in coordination with the state-owned University of Utah, are internationally reknowned schools of medicine. Both Brigham Young and UU were forerunners in the effort to bring women into higher education, and have been for more than 30 years.

Mormons, even those who have left the church, live their Christian values with a lifelong dedication that challenges other congregations.

Male or female, patriarchy does not mean repression in the Mormon church. It means making an personal, educated commitment based on character. And, to be fair, many Mormons don't choose to follow the church.
If Lydia Karg chooses to follow a life of "domestic servitude", it will be her own choice. These words are just intended to be inflammatory. I'm sure Mrs Fonti is aware of that.

Words are weapons

Patriarchy, mum, domestic servitude, charisma, forced marriage.

These inflammatory words, though, are characteristic of the inculcated victimhood of Australian women though.
As an American, it isn't hard to understand why the influence of her father would make Lydia reject her mother's victimhood; to be repulsed by the life choice to become a victim/abuser.
Mrs Fonti's words are expressions of abuse. They are insulting her daughter's intelligence and, paradoxically, would return her to a society that will bribe her daughter to have children -- resulting in a life of "domestic servitude". Ever more frequently, such bribes result in a woman having a series of children by different fathers.

My impression of Australian women is that they are taught and trained from a young age to the role of victim. For a woman to reject this role is to reject her mother and all that her mother has taught her. From my own experience, the idea can be terrifying. It is more than asking her to step away from her comfort zone. To ask a woman trained as a victim/abuser to be aware of her actions and act, pro-actively, to find other ways to express herself, can cause her to lose her sense of identity. This is part of what Erin Pizzy called the addiction to abuse.
From confusion, comes fear, and then a determined effort to destroy the object of abuse, her partner(s), and in doing so vindicate the addiction to abuse.

Vive le Difference!

From the long standing sayings in Australian culture -- such as "Treat 'em mean; Keep 'em keen." -- the role of an abusive victim is deeply infused in the cultural norm, for both men and women.
Men throughout the world are taught to celebrate the differences between men and women. With a mutual sense of respect, the differences make life fuller, fascinating, and the surprises can make each day joyful.
However much a man may whinge and groan at the quirks of his partner, he loves her all the more for them -- until she turns to abuse; and then nominates herself the victim.

Lydia's American father would quickly identify that saying as teaching his daughter to abuse, and reject it in his own life. He would find it intolerable to be treated that way. Even more, he would not want his daughter trained to the role of victim/abuser.
Mrs Fonti would feel that any misrepresentation or abuse of the public and legal system was warranted in her efforts to discredit Lydia Karg's father.

The hypocrisy of Mrs Fonti fogs the mind. There is no mention of Mrs Fonti's carreer.
She is decrying the role she has chosen. She has remarried. She wants her child back so that she can live the life of "domestic servitude" to care for her daughter and her new husband. And she would teach her daughter the role of a victim, which will dictate the men she will marry.

Did the Herald Sun reporter, Suellen Hinde, question Mr Karg?
It's a sad commentary on the editorial discretion at the Herald Sun to allow such a story to be presented in this manner. Lydia Karg can return to her mother any time she chooses, and her father would probably pay her airfare.
We're not talking about a child being spirited off to Lebanon or Egypt, where laws dictate that children and wives are legally possessions of the father. Lydia lives in the United States. She knows her rights. She is being taught those rights and the protections of those rights every day.

Ironies and Reality

Not all patriarchy is heinous.
It is a patriarchy that gave us all the freedoms we enjoy. A partriarchy gave us freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and the right to own property and privacy. Patriarchal men believed so deeply in those freedoms that they fought and died for them for centuries; and continue to do so to this day.
In fact, these men died defending Mrs Fonti's and Ms Hindi's right to publish their partial and inflammatory article, hoping to raise a public furor.

The ironies of reality strike again. The inference is that Lydia Karg would be better raised in Australia. Yet the best evidence of that would be that no public furor arises, and no political pressure is used. That would mean that Australia has outgrown the institutional support for women as victim/abusers.

Read more!

Perspective: Involving children

Involving the children early in the FCoA process is a necessary step. There is no question about it.

The former FCoA procedures, under CJ Nicholson, -- which excluded the children in favor of court procedures that essentially left the whole matter in the hands of the lawyers and judges --, trapped the family, parents and children in the adversarial process and court procedures.

The failure of the courts and procedures, supposedly based on "the interests of the child" illustrated another fact that we cannot lose in the rush to implement new court procedures. The interests of the child are best served when the interests and needs of both parents are best served.

The former FCoA attempted to abstract and generalize the concept of "the interests of the child", and failed.

Supported by a marginal and incomplete understanding of child development, as you've pointed out, the results were a childishly cruel interpretation that was applied across the board -- even in the face of decades of facts. It was the arrogance of the courts in bald face.

What we cannot lose sight of is that although the interests of the child must be paramount, these interests cannot be the only issues considered. Unless the courts intend to dictate the lifestyle and daily activities of the family, then the realities and needs of both parents must also be important considerations. It can be said that "Happy parents make Happy children", if you will.

The measure of the courts' failure can be the degree to which the courts attempted to dictate the lifestyle of the parents.

One recent report went even further to state that a happy child after separation lived in a financially secure mother's home. That conclusion was based on the results of the current biased -- where more than 85% of mothers are awarded custody -- reality. Even then, a second largest category was for children in financially secure homes with their father. The only realistic conclusion that could be drawn from these figures was that children are happiest in a financially secure home -- something no parent would disagree with.

The key concept is that the child(ren) cannot be used a leverage to force either parent to act by anyone involved, and that includes the psychologists, the court, or the state. If the child(ren) are used as leverage by any participant, the results are similar to when one or both parents attempt to use the child(ren) as weapons.

The child(ren) are quickly aware that they have been objectified, and react in dysfunctional or disassociative ways that reflect that realization.

I have come to believe that if there is a heirarchy of needs that must be served, it would be something like this:

1. The physical and emotional safety of the children
2. The parental needs of both parents
3. The physical and financial needs of both parents
4. The beliefs of the psychologists and counselors
5. The financial requirements of the state.
6. To satisfy the strictures of the law.

No 1 above, has been defined and overstated, in my opinion, to the point that many ignore the other factors that will influence decisions. There is no question that every parent will choose, to different degrees of sincerity, to place their children's needs above their own. To take this issue as the only issue simply makes the whole process abusive, to both children, parents, and family.

Legislation for over 30 years has recognized the parental needs of both parents, but has been perverted by the manipulations and abuse of different professions. It has taken nearly a half century for the courts to recognize the wisdom and meaning of this legislation.

In a commercial, capitalistic society -- whatever your feelings about those terms -- reality forces the process to consider the financial needs of both parents. Both parents must be free to contribute to the well-being of the child(ren) to the best of their abilities. In order to be happy with the demands of making that contribution, both parents must feel that their individual parental needs are satisfied.

To impoverish one parent in favor of another is abusive to all involved. Such actions displace the heirarchy.

For professionals, -- counselors, psychologists, lawyers, and semi-professionals in social services -- to attempt impose their own beliefs on the parents is problematic.

For some professions, they are attempting to create a self-fulfilling prophecy using children as leverage. Counselors and psychologists must understand that their role is to satisfy ranks 2 and 3 above. The more trauma and drama they create, the more dysfunction they create. This dysfunction may be profitable for them in their careers, but it only results in a deeper distrust of their professions and in the system as a whole.

For lawyers, schooled in the adversarial process, all the people involved are fair game. There is only one measure of success as a lawyer, time billed. If there is no conflict, there is no need for lawyers. A measure of the failure of the system as a whole is the amount of time barristers and solicitors are needed.

Unfortunately, semi-professionals -- courthouse clerks and 000 operators -- follow these prejudiced beliefs and aid in creating the self-fulfilling prophecy. Their role must be defined as in support of the process; not the prejudice.

If this heirarchy is followed, the financial strain on the state can be reduced because there will be less stress in the breakups; meaning less court time; and less need for aftercare from the breakup. The finances of the state can be spent aiding the separated parents to build new lives by education and professional development, instead of so many more destructive efforts.

I have come to believe that the law has little place in this process. There are too many issues that cannot be defined clearly enough to satisfy the current methods of law enforcement and the courts.

The law must be rational in order to be enforceable. It is irrational to outlaw normal human behaviour. You cannot outlaw angry arguments during a breakup; even more, to outlaw attempts to avoid such arguments as has been done in recent definitions.

The magistrates and judges are incapable of judging abuse. Its definition is too ill-formed, and the courtroom is a poor structure to bring forth a fair judgment.

The law can prevent violence. It can deal with those who are violent. But to define violence as an angry look or someone holding the television remote, is ridiculous -- and more, destroys the general faith in the law and legal system.

Even more so, the attitudes taken by the court and legal system, especially the lawyers and judges, towards parents damages the role of parental authority, which could be called another form of truly damaging child abuse.

Paul Donley

Read more!

Update: John Murtari

a moment to vote, a lifetime of change
Posted by: "Teri Stoddard" shared.parenting.works@gmail.com sharedparentingworks
Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:31 pm (PST)
Teri Stoddard here.

My recent article, "John Murtari, Criminal or Loving Father?" was chosen as an Editor's Top Pick and is now a Featured Article under News on Associated Content. Please take a moment to visit this site and vote for my articles. Doing this will help me get recognition for my work and as well as furthering the cause.

A little way down the page on the left hand side you will see this: More by Teri Stoddard.
This will take you to my other published articles. Please, if you can, vote for and/or link to them. If you have a web site, please add my RSS feed.

I'm especially proud of Is He "the loser" or is he "Dad"? and It's Not Your Mother's Fathers Movement Anymore.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and vote. I really appreciate it.
The more people who read our work the more likely we are to force change.

Keep fighting, we *are* making a difference.

Teri ; )

http://feminist4fathers.mensnewsdai ly.com
http://www.sharedparentingworks. org
http://true- equality.blogspot. com
http://www.mediarad ar.org
People for Family Law Reform: http://tinyurl. com/n65sy

Sample Letter to Judge Bryan Hedges

Honorable Judge Bryan Hedges
Onondaga County Family Court
401 Montgomery Street
Syracuse, NY 13202

Dear Judge Hedges:

Subject: John Murtari

I realize you are a busy man. I know that you see many cases in your courthouse each day, as do most judges across the country. Try as you might, it's not humanly possible to know enough about each case in the limited time you have with parents to get it right every time. I'm writing because I believe you got it wrong in the Murtari case.

I should start by telling you that I acknowledge there are parents who run from their responsibilities. I have ex-husbands who avoided paying their child support. One in fact, traded recording radio commercials for a local restaurant in exchange for free beer; a move I had to believe was done to avoid garnishment. Another never paid a dime, even while he was enlisted in the Army, something I hope parents no longer get away with.

John Murtari is nothing like my ex-husbands; he's a responsible man and loving father. Unlike my ex-husbands, who also abandoned my children emotionally and physically, John Murtari is in jail because he chose to remain in his son's life.

You allowed his ex-wife to move his son across the country, for reasons that are dubious. As much as I disagree with your decision, I won't address that now. What I will address is the fact that you have refused to include his travel expenses when calculating his child support. I wonder how you expected him to continue to parent his son if he wasn't to see him in person. You certainly can't believe a young boy doesn't need his father in his life.

Mr. Murtari hasn't had solid food since July 31 in protest of your sentence. That alone should show you the depth of his love for Domenic. His example is sure to teach Domenic the importance of standing up for your convictions. You can show Domenic the importance of admitting when you're wrong by letting his father go free when he asks you for a reduced sentence next week, allowing the travel expenses from here forward, and adjusting all arrears. I'd ask you to give Mr. Murtari the equal physical custody he and Domenic want, but I don't think I'll push my luck.

Please put yourself in Mr. Murtari's shoes. What would you have done with a young son across the country and a dying mother to care for in Syracuse? Put yourself in Domenic's shoes, who has made it clear he wants more time with his father. Will Domenic come out of this hating you, all judges or the family courts, or will he have a new respect for you, all judges and the family courts?

Respectfully,

Teri Stoddard
Founder
Shared Parenting Works

Read more!

Fathers on YouTube -

.. I don't think parent listen enough to their kids .. I will not give them the dirty details of what happened to the marriage. It's not important for them to know.
What is important for them to know is that both their parents love them equally; and they want to share that responsibility for their benefit.

Read the supportive comments, and the few hateful words.

Read more!

Reinstating fatherhood

Reinstating fatherhood
by Jason Thompson

The modern father who dares to heed the call and seek the children with whom it is our whole destiny to be atoned, cannot, indeed must not, wait for his community to cast off its slough of pride, fear, rationalized avarice, and sanctified misunderstanding.
"Live," Nietzsche says, "as though the day were here."
It is not society that is to guide and save the modern father, but precisely the reverse. And so, every one of us shares the supreme ordeal -- carries the cross of the redeemer -- not in the bright moments of his culture's great victories, but in the silences of his personal despair.

Furthermore, we have not even to risk the adventure alone; for the fathers of all time have gone before us; the labyrinth is thoroughly known.
We have only to follow the thread of the father-path,
and where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god;
where we had thought to slay another, we shall slay ourselves;
where we had thought to travel outward, we shall come to the center of own existence;
where we had thought to be alone, we shall be with all the fathers of the world.

For the little boys, who's fathers are made criminals by unfair laws, and institutional prejudice, below. Mr Daniel Beatty, at the Apollo Theater.
The Men's Rights and Fathers' Rights movement is a civil rights movement. It is a human rights movement. It opposes inequality before the law. Every man who is accused by his ex partner of abuse is not a pedophile, a pornographer, a child pornographer.
The woman who places false allegations against this man is the abuser. The wrong people are losing their civil rights, human rights, and are being sent to jail, dispossessed.



Why Daniel Beaty's father went to jail, we will never know.
But there are thousands of fathers in Australia who may share his fate for no other reason than they oppose the injustice and illegality of facing a prejudiced system, much as Daniel's father did.

Read more!

Baillieu and Mental Health

Well, the flashbacks are back. My guts are churning from memories I don't even want to relive.

A couple of comments about Mr Baillieu's plans for a new mental health system in Victoria.

TED Baillieu will spend $226 million on tackling mental health problems if he becomes premier.
...

Speaking at the Melbourne Press Club yesterday, Mr Baillieu said a Liberal government would also set up:

FOUR community-based care centres as an alternative to hospital treatment.

THREE youth mental health centres to look after those aged 12 to 25.

MOBILE teams to provide at-home mental health care.

SEPARATE mental health units at five major hospital emergency departments.

"Mental illness can no longer remain a hidden disease, an affliction compounded by social stigma," Mr Baillieu said.

Illicit drug use was contributing to the mental illness problem among young people, he said.

What Ted Baillieu is proposing is a good start. Although the system will need far more Community Mental Health centres.
The Family Resource Centers will not make up any of the difference. They will be too tied up with the Family Courts and legal system. The politicization of the FRCs is already apparently in place.

It's a political statement to pretend that the young people will be the largest group using these programs. With a decade of neglect, there is a massive unanswered need in the adult community, particularly the elderly and disabled. Mr Baillieu is talking to the social stigma here. It is long past time Australia realized and dealt with a decade of neglect by the Howard administration.

A patient-centric model, where the patients are taught how to deal with the affects and symptoms of their illness is best.
Community Mental Health clinics quickly become overwhelmed if they try to be mini-hospitals. They are best used for evaluation (3 days), self internment (by the patient) for protection, and group therapy.

Effective and efficient care for the mentally ill means teaching those involved -- patients, friends and family, and carers -- how to manage the illness. At the end of the day, it is the patient who must manage the illness, not anyone else.
Programs such as California's "Intensive Day Treatment" have been enormously successful in teaching patients how to manage their mental illness.

Treatment Centers depend on the services

What is really needed is a series of programs that teach those with mental health issues to manage their illness, and their medications. Similar programs in the US have been designed to run at least 3 months. Some institutionalized or addicted patients may require longer training.

Offering treatment centers is good, but if they only function as pill pushers, they will be largely a waste of money. That sort of naive treatment is already available from GPs. (The stupidity of the "Extended Sessions" comes to mind. At the end, the GP just gave the patient new drugs -- usually whatever was being pushed by drug companies at the time.)

Teaching a person to manage a mental illness is how to deliver effective treatment and cut costs.

Psychotropic Medications

Patients must learn that not all medications are effective. In fact, some medications can worsen the illness they seek to treat.
Patients, their families and carers, need to learn that psychotropic medications take weeks, sometimes a few months, to become effective. And then may prove to be wrong for that patient.
That means running from one center or doctor after another is only putting all involved at greater risk.
And that self-medicating with alcohol or other drugs will only make things worse overall.

Managing the Symptoms

Patients need to learn that they are not completely helpless when faced with a mental illness.
They, and those close to them, can learn:

• that mental illness does not mean complete disability in many cases;
• most mental illness has cycles, and those cycles can be managed -- sometimes even controlled or lessened;
• cycles can be recognized by milder symptoms, which may allow the person to do things which may lessen or avoid the cycle;
• certain activities, such as aerobic exercise, B vitamins to help the body deal with stress, and other things specific to the disease and/or person can help;

Parents, family and carers must learn that there is a point where the disease must simply run its cycle, and there is nothing to do but wait.

Exercise is only part of the answer. Forcing a person back to work to suffer without any right to complain, is brutal and cruel. Peer pressure is only common brutality with the excuse of a mob.

(from the Herald Sun 50/50 column, page 18)
VICTORIANS are fed up with the Bracks Government's social engineering and kowtowing to minority interest groups. All this time at the expense of real issues -- education, transport, law and order, road safety, water, health and government transparency. -- Peter Braustch, Baxter

Ya think?

Read more!

Mental Health: Baillieu vs Pike

GP Dennis Gration could see what would become of his depressed patient if she could not get the help she needed.

She would become another victim of the mental health system.

Danielle Nowland was a vivacious, bubbly, happy, hands-on young woman until a back injury stopped her working as a gardener.

That triggered the start of a mental slide that resulted in her death almost three years ago.

Ted Baillieu is listening, -- Australia's mental health system is all but non-existant. Lives are lost every day because of government neglect. -- but Bronwyn Pike seems unwilling to play with the big boys.

TED Baillieu will spend $226 million on tackling mental health problems if he becomes premier.
...

Speaking at the Melbourne Press Club yesterday, Mr Baillieu said a Liberal government would also set up:

FOUR community-based care centres as an alternative to hospital treatment.

THREE youth mental health centres to look after those aged 12 to 25.

MOBILE teams to provide at-home mental health care.

That's great, Ted.
Let's hope these are not just non-core campaign promises. Even then, what Baillieu is promising is not enough by far. At least he isn't promising to "look into it" as the Bracks government has been doing for more than 5 years.
Bronwyn Pike is supposed to be the Bracks government Health Minister, her response is churlish:

Health Minister Bronwyn Pike said the Liberal policy would be paid for by money set aside for the hospitals in the future.

"This money is not Ted Baillieu's to spend. It is needed to treat the tens of thousands of extra patients we know will be seeking treatment in our public hospitals over the coming years," Ms Pike said.

"Without this funding, waiting lists and times will blow out and Victorians will see their public hospital system deteriorate the way it did when the former Liberal government was in power."

The public health system has continued its deterioration under your guidance, Ms Pike.

And maybe if you'd represent those who need health care and mental health services, instead of coming up with partisan excuses, CONNEX could keep its drivers. CONNEX reports that 37 men each month step in front of trains because of problems with the family courts. Mental health services would at least help these people.
You can't do much in a hospital bed for someone after they're hit by a train.

BTW, Ms Pike, did you notice that the woman committed suicide after she became disabled? -- and was treated like something less than human..?

Go ask the big boys if they'll spare with some of the billions they're putting into grandiose buiding schemes and showy sports events to help the people of Victoria be more healthy.

Why don't you do your job and go find the money that's needed? .. instead of being impressed with the size of the inadequate budget you administer?
Or is taking responsibility going to be another thing the Bracks' government will "look into" someday?

Read more!