750,000 across Australia

Mens and Family Rights groups critical of the Family Court and the supporting social process were asked recently to estimate from their readership the number of activists in each group. In a country of jst over 20 million people, with 7.4 million in relationships (according to the ABS), there are 750,000 people -not just men, about 30% are women- who can be considered 'activists.'

The common myth is that only 5% of family breakups end up in Family Court dismisses these people, their feelings and concerns.

Based on the estimated numbers, 1 out of 10 of relationships produce activists.
Their numbers have increased sharply in the last few years, as politicians make statements without checking their sources and facts; as government funding is wasted on ridiculous and even dangerous 'research'; and the public sources of information become increasingly closed to the average citizen.

When spokespeople for administrations or government ministers quote from documents to emphasize horrific numbers, -which has given Australia a pitiful reputation across the world- without bothering to note the sources clearly state that only women were surveyed, questions arise about competency. Why would a government minister authorize a statement condemning every male in the country without checking the biased source?
It's not as if the bias of these sources are not known to government. Federal and state governments fund the groups.

YouTube has become the platform for free speech as this freedom becomes increasingly restricted in Australia. Here are recent comments by Dr Bonnie Russel.


Not Mr Ficticious

Fact - In the last year I won 14 appeals in a row with CSA on various claims. Almost all were the the mother refused because she discovered that the only way I can prove she is refusing to work - thereby continuing to receive maximum CSA and other payments- are virtually unproveable. Because of the way that the legislators have written the CSA rules for variations and applications for change, fathers are silenced.
Fact - My new wife and I pay CSA worked out on our combined income prior to tax so surely that means we are paying their tax?
Fact - Yes we have been told repeatedly that if we get married, and we are honest and tell them, CSA then includes our partners income. But if the mum re marries that doesnt happen. This advice came from different case workers too, not just one.
Fact - Even in 50-50 (shared parenting), CSA payments will continue from the father if the parents don't earn exactly the same amount. The case can be open if there is a liability to each other of zero.
Even if you elect or agree to go private they still send you an assessment each year - CSA never goes away.

Is it any wonder so many more people want this system changed?

Read more!

Why I don't practice Family Law..

A long-time lawyer explained why he doesn practice Family Law. He is not alone. I've met at least two other lawyers who've expressed similar feelings to me.

I feel for my clients. One big reason I can¹t practice family law.

The result needs to be fair and equitable.

The legal process as a whole is one which is unfortunately in practice has nothing to do with justice and very much to do with winning.

Unfortunately the family law system is one which is entrenched.

The only way to change it is to change it is to change the law, and that is through the politicians and government both at state and federal level.

A very interesting point, but people should look at the internal guidelines of places like the Department of Human Services in Victoria.

Their guidelines in relation to domestic violence are written in a gender specific nature.

We must ensure that the mother is protected from harm...² we must do everything possible to assist the mother and protect her and the children from the violence and abuse of the father.

I am paraphrasing but people need to look at this. How does a man have a fair chance when government departments have policies such as these!

It's great when one sincere quote from a knowledgeable source pretty much says it all.

Read more!

Dan on Parental Alienation

(A comment by Dan O'Moore from the fathers4equality forum on Yahoo reproduced here with permission)

IMO this is where alienation plays it's most pivotal role. Kicking and screaming children need to be taught to respect thier parents. It is essential in raising reasonable people.
R E S P E C T.
Why does anyone think our society is in the whole it is in?
IMO no one respects JACK SHIT and why should they? The legislation does not respect it's people, the legislation is a tool of money hungry posturing puppets all wanting thier bight of the pie.

Normal children have issues with parents. Childish issues generally but issues none the less. For the alarmists yes there is abuse and that abuse should be stopped but lets look at the less extreme cases. Not all cases of separation mean abuse of children prior to the separation as some would have us believe. Alienation is abuse.

Enter the child abuse that is opportune parental Alienation.

Opportunity for children to act out against one or the other parent guided by the alienating parent.

The alienating parent has great opportunity.

Promises/threats/ accusations are made by the alienating parent and drilled into the children's minds without the excluded parent around there is no rebuttal. Essentially brainwashing IMO.

The children's world is small. Smaller because it is halved. They try to survive. They do what they can to reduce conflict and protect one or the other parent. Generally they try to protect the parent who is most consequential in their lives: The custodial parent.

How can any child make a decision on the parent they wish to/should be with. Their judgment is essentially distorted. The consequences to the ongoing mental health of the child are innumerable. Guilt, anger, hate, jealousy, angst, fear all go into the mix.

When parents parent they will, if they care for the children, make some decisions for the children that the children wont like. Easy opportunity for alienation.

Dads are generally given the role of disciplinarian of the house. "You wait till your father gets home".

Fathers are easily made out to be dangerous." I love you darling you know I'll never hurt you, I'll never let Daddy tell you off again".

I feel the choice of the child is not good parenting unless it is a choice of friends, school subject, sporting activity, ice cream flavour or the like.

The Secret court seems to like its position of overseeing parent. This is why we have alienation that is inadvertently sanctioned, delivered & amplified by the Secret court. IMO this is essentially why the Secret court is not receiving parental alienation syndrome easily. As all in the court live off it!

Child's choice equals alienation opportunity IMO. While children must have the right to choose that right should be implimented very carefully. Just because a child doesn't like one or the other parent does NOT mean the parent is not parenting well. Children are at a grave disadvantage if they are to choose on the basis of which parent they like the most versus both parents police each others actions toward the child and have only the childs best interests at heart. Two parents offering balance and a broader spectrum of reactionary and educational outlook.

Both parents mould new individuals of their children with the balance that is two parents. That is the essence of life and natural selection. Individualism creates new ideas. Ideas that seem to be lacking in our country. Many overseas people have told me that we Australians are seen as the cattle of the world shunted whichever way our legislation pushes us and what do we do about it? Nothing! All the Australian votes go toward enterprise. Our little group (for our egos - ever expanding group - :) is a rarity of public discussion regarding legislation. Australia has been moulded against the individual. Is it no wonder that most individual enterprises fail on all scales?

Only having one parent makes half an individual. Half an individual is behind the leaders from the start. No less a different person but definitely bereft of the love, experience and parenting quality of the excluded parent. Knowing Daddy loves you is not being loved at all, that is having love taken away by exclusion. Being loved is unreplaceable. I dare anyone to rebut that. Money can't by love! I believe this is where youth anger is building from. The lack of love.

Besides life what is it we give our children? Our love & life experiences that is what. That adds up to a whole lot of love missing from a child's life. It adds up to a biased outlook for their lives. It does not add up that children should have either parent excluded. Even in extreme cases I believe that children should have opportunity to glean love and knowledge from both parents. It makes them whole, a whole individual.

Yes of course there will be scare mongering but with good quality observational accounting by re routing funds from bias enterprise the government could tip the balance in favour of better outcomes for children.

Education of errant parents is something I feel is lacking all ways round the Secret court structure. The Secret court is all about the fight. It is all about keeping income status quo for Secret court stakeholders. If they actually cared about the children the monster as we have it would not be in place.

IMO The legislation we now have is not about the people who must live under it. It is essentially political posturing. Nothing goes through without a vote attached to it.

Read more!

Possible class action: Discriminatory practices

Agencies working with parents often hear of, or receive complaint, that one parent is making false allegations in order to slow up the FCoA or FMC proceedings. Such allegations do considerable harm to the alleged perpetrator, not only in court proceedings but in their personal and professional lives.
The problem with all the legal verbiage in the new law that defines it is a simple matter of a Risk-Reward analysis. Until false allegations engenders enough of a risk to to outweigh the rewards that can be attained, it will be meaningless.

In the recently revised Family Law of Australia (FLA) such allegations are mentioned in many sections. The number of mentions in itself illustrates the political attempt to 'bulldoze' the public using the law. The punishments are comical compared to the possible risk.

The problem with this change and all the legal verbiage in the new law that defines it is a simple matter of a Risk-Reward analysis. Until false allegations engenders enough of a risk to to outweigh the rewards that can be attained, it will be meaningless.

The courts will be loath to make the order because the parent making the allegations has no income other than Government income support. It is meaningless to someone on government support to threaten them with financial penalties. Even if they are forced to pay, they know it will only be the government paying itself, in effect.

In other legal procedures, perjury - and that is what it should be called, not the euphemism "false allegations" - can mean jail time. Jail time is something that someone on government support will respect; especially if it means being separated from their children and possibly their home and possessions.

Making false reports and swearing false affidavits is criminal in every forum outside family law. Family Law is "different", in that it does not adhere to many of the recognized principles of western jurisprudence and legislation.
The 1 July 2006 ammendments require a costs order to be made against a parent making deliberately false allegations. Is this enough?

The government is happy to take away basic human and civil rights on the basis of false allegations, but is not willing to even mention commensurate punishment. Playing with the terms, the government has no sincere punishment for "perverting the course of justice" or "contempt of court" when the euphemism "false allegations" is employed.
It is another example of inequality before the law based on gender. It can be the basis of a class action suit against the government and numerous agencies.
This legalized discrimination, as has been noted by many legal scholars, guides 'judicial discretion' and the actions of other professionals and semi-professionals throughout the system and society. I think this can be proven easily, and these arguments have been used as the basis of lawsuits in the past - perhaps not in Australia. The examples I refer to come from the US and UK.

Since even the unequal risk is rarely real, the whole of the text of the sections quoted is nonsense. The rort will be much sharper defined when the policies of various police administrations across Australia are included; along with the implementation of these policies which are documented in statistics that already exist.

In Victoria, for example, police policy dictates that if officers are summoned to the scene of an argument, they are to initiate an Intervention Order against the man - and remove him from the premises if deemed necessary. The standard for 'deemed necessary' is simply continuing conflict, which leaves little discretion to the attending officers.
These Intervention Orders will be issued in spite even if both the man and woman involved state they are not needed or wanted. The Orders are initiated by the police.

This policy is highly politicized by Bracks and his Ministers, and based on misleading incomplete studies paid for by the government; and cited in the Press in inflammatory ways by Bracks administration Ministers (Hulls and Holding) along with other government spokespeople.

If such a class action were to be initiated, it would involve any man who has been removed from his home, lost possessions or income over the past decade. The reparations would be enormous, but they would be fair considering the amount of harm these practices have done to individuals, families, and the society as a whole.

Read more!