Stop The Responsible Fatherhood Bill

"All I ever wanted was supervised" a repeated phrase amongst family violence survivors.  The Family Court has come under recent scrutiny over unsafe contact and the controversial use of Parental Alienation Syndrome a diagnosis that has not been accepted by any scientific organization globally.  The bottom line is that children are ordered by the court to attend access visits where the parents are abusive.  If the mother objects, she risks losing the children altogether.  That is the state of not only the Family Court in Australia, it is an international problem.  

Until recently, there were few groups that were advocating for children and far too many groups advocating for such forced contact.  "Pro Contact" culture is really just being polite.  "Contact No Matter what" Cult, is more appropriate considering the facts that there is no limit as to who they wish children to have contact with.  

Cult definitions coined from 1920 onward^[1] refer to a cohesive social group and their devotional beliefs or practices, which the surrounding population considers to be outside of mainstream cultures. The surrounding population may be as small as a neighborhood, or as large as the community of nations. They gratify curiosity about, take action against, or ignore a group, depending on its reputed similarity to cults previously reported by mass media. -Wikipedia

Bizarre punishments against mothers are initiated by the courts if they do not comply without consideration for the impact that the children suffer.  

Some of these punishments include:

"Isolating The Child From The Protective Parent"

"Orders inhibiting the Child From access to Counseling"

"Removal of The Mothers Passport'

In cases where the parent has a mental health condition that is one of the leading causes of homicide, the protective action is often minimal.  Some orders are for the parent to take their medication and see their doctor, but left entirely to the device of the patient and the potential victims are left restricted by the court order and helpless to what might come about.  The Court evaluators who make the decisions that the judges often solely rely on are often untrained for these cases, but overtrained in the area of "pro - contact' and too well understand the terms of "maternal gatekeeping" "Alienation" and "False Memory Syndrome".  They believe that the child is not unsafe in relationships with sex offenders if they "just accept it" without the interference from mothers.  

This is due to the fact that in the early 80s, Dr Richard Gardner coined the term, "Parent Alienation Syndrome" and travelled the world with the help of Association of Family and Conciliation Courts(AFCC).  Many conferences were held indoctrinating lawyers, psychologists and judges into the belief that children are better off with abusive parents.  This belief was also supported by the international Child Emancipation, a lobby group for pedophiles.  

Cases where there is not enough evidence to support Family Violence are often referred to as, "False Allegations" and in most cases the victim is required to pay costs to the alleged perpetrator. This goes against studies that support the notion that in 95% of child abuse cases are true.  Clearly it is the interference that the victims receive during the court processes that leads to the lack of evidence that is able to be provided.  

Like the German Lebensborn organization, they said, "Best Interests" but the intention was to reintroduce laws that tie women to men and diminish any concerns regarding child abuse and violence against women.  The current family law regime reduces the value of children and mothers compared to men and promotes the cycle of violence continuing through to another generation.  Like a genetic disease, our children have been infected with family violence.  

The German Lebensborn organization was similarly cruel in its time.  In the context of the German welfare system, it was considered that it was the "best interests" of the child to be German.  By abducting babies of other origins for German families, "Best Interests of the child" was created to serve the purposes of racial intolerance.  Today in the context of Family Law, "best interests of the child" refers to the amount of time spent with a parent no matter how abusive they may be. 

Although there have been more efforts to protect mothers and children affected by family violence with the Violence Against Women Act and the introduction of the Protective Parent Bill, PAS is still alive in the US court system and have progressed to a point where they are supporting it through the "Responsible Fatherhood Bill".  Like best Interests, it is aimed at enforcing contact with fathers regardless of the rise to epidemic proportions of murder suicides.  In sect 2, "Findings" it states that the reason to provide fathers with billions of dollars in funding is due to:

6) Children who live without contact with their biological father are, in comparison to children who have such contact--

(A) 5 times more likely to live in poverty;

(B) more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom;

(C) twice as likely to commit crime;

(D) twice as likely to drop out of school;

(E) more likely to commit suicide;

(F) more than twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs; and

(G) more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.

(7) Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers.

  

The findings stated here is derived from a confirmitory bias. If you look deeper into the research, it becomes obvious that:

Children were economically abused by the fathers and the state for withdrawal of financial support of children.  It is in fact written in the convention on The Rights Of The Child:

 

Article 26

1. States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law.

2. The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of the child.

 

The "Violent males who grew up without fathers", were in fact infected prior to the separation by witnessing the actual violence.  According to Amy Coha:

• Boys who witness domestic violence are more likely to batter their female partners as adults than boys raised in nonviolent homes. Of the children who witness domestic abuse, 60% of the boys eventually become batterers.
• Sixty-three percent of boys age 11-20 who commit homicide, murder the man who was abusing their mother. In 50% of the time, if the wife (mother) is being physically abused, so are the children.

Teenage pregnancy is an old sexist phrase that draws the need to look at the pregnant women as the problem.  Contraceptives apart from the condom are directed at her as entirely responsible for the pregnancy.  According to Rape Abuse and Incest Network(RAIN):

Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

 

Victims of sexual assault are:⁷

3 times more likely to suffer from depression.

6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

13 times more likely to abuse alcohol.

26 times more likely to abuse drugs.

4 times more likely to contemplate suicide.

The fact that in some states, the perpetrator can apply to the Family Court to stop the abortion and continue these attacks on her suggests that women and girls are considered by the state as objects rather than human beings.  If such a bill were to pass, it would be a greater violation to the already eroded human rights of women and children.  

Dispute Resolution Centers

The accounts of victims of intimate partner violence being reduced to a "dispute" has often been contested by Family Relationship Centers.  They have often stated that they assess victims and the Family Court has backed this in their statements.  By law, the victim(s) do not have to participate.  This does not prevent a victim being coerced by a practitioner into participating with threats of supplying the court with a certificate stating that they refused to participate.  The resolution Dispute industry is very open to the employment of fathers rights advocates who intend on sabotaging the processes designed to protect victims as the protections themselves are in reality a mirage that appears politically attractive.  Below is a training guideline to becoming recognized as a qualified dispute resolution practitioner. 

To their credit, they have a component to responding to family domestic violence in family work.  However, I cannot say in what context the course refers to domestic violence and whether it is taken seriously and understood as a gender-based issue according to the articles set out by the united nations on violence against women.  

To find out, we did a random search and discovered a position description which is often inclusive of the roles and responsibilities that is required in a legal employment contract.  This is not the only provider that is short on requesting specific skills necessary, so I do request that readers look beyond the name of the organization for scrutiny as there is a larger contributing factor at fault here:

Note that there are no skills required in previous experience or training on domestic violence:

From the Attorney Generals Office on information for providers:  
How are they accountable?  Case notes.  If they write good case notes on the situation as if they are going to be held accountable, then they are as they like to put it, "Above the Law".  Good cases notes can include:

1. Tearing out pages and rewriting them before being audited or subpoenaed(source:Child Protection Insider).
   
2. Writing it in a way that it questions the sanity of the client that is most likely to threaten legal action.
3. Writing that they did things to ensure their safety such as making a phone call for a referral when it never occurred.
4. Writing up an appointment that never transpired.
5. Stating that they advised safety plans and the client had consented to something that they didn't consent to.

These are some of the actions that counsellors can and have done to "save their behind" from litigation.  

In reality, there are many workers that are under qualified for the job and pressured to conform to actions that would be regarded publicly by anyone as inhumane.  The whistleblowers act does not protect workers from speaking out against these situations and in some cases workers who do not conform to organizational abuse against their client can be defamed in their sector and deemed unemployable.     The counseling industry is unfortunately another ugly spawn of the industrial revolution unless it is done with a genuine motivation of good will to heal and understand others.  If one were to view large counseling organizations as we view fast food giants, one can truly grasp where the ethics fall to wayside whilst the greed to please the powerful becomes pure motivation.  What is rising is the fathers rights above children's rights trend and for the children it is a nightmare beyond the fairy-tales of a "happy Family".  The evidence lies in how many parenting agreements are made when there is a history of violence.  Not to mention how much the government is saving at the price of freedom from torture.  In fact, according to the Australian Associated Press in this article, it has saved 36.9 million dollars.