*Dirty Tricks in Family Law*

No kidding. 90%, huh?

*Dirty Tricks in Family Law*
By: Bettina Arndt

Herald Sun - Monday 12 Februeary 2007

...

Many of the women's groups are very nervous about new Family Relationship Centers (FRCs) set up particularly to deal with children's matters. The government has rightly concluded that caring for children after divorce is a relationship issue, not a legal one and that the previous adversarial system was disastrous for children. But that legal system served the interests of the punitive mother very well since it failed so dismally to enforce contact orders and allowed allegations of violence to be used to deny fathers contact with their children. Remember the 1999 magistrate's survey which found 90% of magistrates believed false AVO's were used as a tactic in family law cases "to deprive partners access to children"?

The article describes a few other tricks barristers have pulled. I could add one: Threatening ridiculous lawsuits as harassment and intimidation, but only when the couple is alone - then denying it in court. The threat is enhanced by saying her lawyer told her she could sue.
The barrister stands and questions the man: "There were no lawsuits threatened, isn't that right? You are lying to this court."
I got a taste of that one myself.

There must be some list of illegal stunts or dirty tricks somewhere.
What is surprising is, after years of this stuff, the magistrates and judges don't catch on... It really is their responsibility to seek the truth before making judgments.

Read more!

The most difficult part

Yesterday, someone actually asked me what was the most difficult part of this horrible time.
I thought about the weeks then months of panic attacks that continued for days followed by exhaustion; then said, "It was that there was nothing to defend against. - How do you defend against what didn't happen?"
If there had been incidents or specific accusations, it would have been much easier. But there was nothing. Not one specific incident - because there had never been any incidents.
There had been arguments, yes. I raised my voice, but never raised my hand to anyone.
The police had never been called to protect anyone.
There were no bruises, cuts or marks.

In fact, the only threats came from my ex, and her family. It's not hard to threaten someone who can barely stand.
I lost the right to recuperate from a painful surgery in my own home on nothing more than assumptions. Neither my ex nor anyone else accused me of anything specific. They couldn't. The best they could do was try to incite or invent incidents. There was nothing specific in the statements to begin the Intervention Orders; nor was there anything specific in the testimony in the court that warranted my being removed from my home.

I lost the right to even avoid arguments in my own home.
The police and courts assumed things that never happened, then acted as if they had. In a final act of injustice, a police prosecutor read into the record that I had been "increasingly abusive over two years" completely without evidence. If he had sought evidence, he would have found that I was increasingly abused over two years.

"That would be crazy making." I was told.
- "Yes, it is. But that is the state of justice in Victoria, Australia. You can't expect the police or courts to correct themselves, can you?" I replied, then asked to drop the subject.
It's all past now. It's been almost two years since I simply signed over the house to my ex, and she went off to celebrate her successful extortion.
You do have to wonder if the people who executed this abuse of their authority and the purpose of law ever question what they have done? I doubt it.
After all, I was just disabled, and a yank - two things Australians truly hate.

Read more!