Justice For Darcey Freeman

By Special Guest Writer Akasha Mc Donald

The dead cannot speak.  They cannot cry when there is no justice.  

"Take me away" Arthur Freeman said.  

The defense lawyer continued to shift the focus on the words that were not spoken, the food that was not offered and the CTV camera that did not record.  Well dressed with a shiny purple tie, sat Arthur Freeman carefully following the movements of the lawyers, calculating the sum of words, expressions and moments nearing the end of a two day committal hearing at Melbourne Magistrates Court.  His lawyer did well to convince others that Arthur Freeman was not guilty, that he was mentally ill and not fit to stand trial.  There was more than just a few flaws that became the thread undoing the blanket of defense.  Without saying the word "catatonic", the lawyer gnarled away with questions establishing a lost cause even after it was confirmed that Mr Freeman had spoke.   It is an empirical fact in trauma studies that perpetrators suffer from trauma post the incident.  This has been well documented over many years.  The behaviors Mr Freeman displayed after the act, sounds just like text-book trauma.  

Towards the end of the hearing, the judge spoke directly to Mr Freeman informing him of the consequences of pleading guilty and not guilty throughout the trial.  As if gratified by knowing that his victims would be tormented by the case dragging out and the possibility of it twisting into a great injustice, he stood proudly and said, "Not Guilty".  Silence filled the room, followed by an echo of pens in unison furiously scratching away at paper.  His face was devoid of all emotion but a twisted sense of triumph that spread across his face. After all, it is the last opportunity he has to torment his ex wife and family.  

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.  

Natural Biological Parents

There are lobby groups who want to create laws and policies that enforce families to reform to the nineteenth century style where every family is made of natural biological parents.  The groups are:

Shared Parenting Council of Australia

Fathers4Equality 

Rationshed 

Dads4Kids: Fatherhood Foundation

Australia - Richard Hillman Foundation Inc.

Australian so called Child Support

Fathers 4 Justice

They say that they are safer with natural biological parents and we cannot go wrong with laws like the ones they suggest.  LIke many children born into a home rampant with family violence, these children are forgotten from the minds of these groups including the recent seven year old who was starved to death in the North of NSW.  They say that it is a child's rights to be care for by both parents.  Even if it kills them?  Is this a childs right?  Is it really in their best interests to die in the hands of their biological parents just because its traditional and against feminism?  The father in the article below, blamed his wife for the death of their seven year old.  Yet the domineering nature of this particular father suggests that he plays the stereotype of the head of the family and thus his decisions should warrant the same level of accountability.  Unlike the groups above, I neither sympathize nor support the mother involved in the trial at this stage unless some facts come to light that prove that she was not responsible for such an act.  This is an example of how children are not always safe with their natural biological parents and it is stupidity to think that by attracting laws based upon bias research would simply "make everything better".  It should also be noted that hitler also had similar ideologies and believed that the women's place was in the home.  

Father blamed wife for starved girl's death: court 

May 27, 2009

A man pointed to his wife and said "it was her, all her fault'' after being arrested over the starvation death of their daughter, a jury has been told.

The seven-year-old girl was found dead in the family's Hawks Nest home, north of Newcastle, on November 3, 2007.

Her parents, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, were arrested a fortnight later on the NSW south coast after warrants were issued for their capture.

Sergeant Michael Moulds, then a senior constable, told a NSW Supreme Court jury on Wednesday he arrested the couple at Albion Park railway station on November 17.

He said he had police printouts of the couple relating to their outstanding warrants and also recognised them from media coverage of the girl's death.

They were taken to Port Kembla police station, where Constable Paul Hewitson said the father blamed his wife for their predicament.

Crown prosecutor Peter Barnett SC asked him what was said.

'''It was her, all her fault'. And he pointed back to the dock area where the female accused was,'' Const Hewitson told the court.

He said a search of two bags found with the parents found items including three mobile phones, four Centrelink health cards, four Centrelink pensioner concession cards, 14 prescriptions in the names of the parents, a large quantity of prescription and non-prescription drugs, new clothes, toiletries and the couple's framed wedding certificate.

Earlier on Wednesday, a paediatrician who had treated the girl told the jury the state of the child's body after her death was so extreme she could not describe it.

Dr Dimitri Tzioumi treated the girl at Sydney Children's Hospital in Randwick in 2002 and said the girl had periods of significant growth during her early years, coinciding with visits to paediatricians.

If the girl had continued growing in line with the growth percentile scale she would have weighed 26 kilograms in November 2007, she said.

The court has previously heard the girl weighed only nine kilograms when she died.

Dr Tzioumi said she had seen a video of the girl taken at the morgue in Newcastle after her death.

"She was severely wasted, or emaciated,'' she said.

''(There was) no likeness of the child I knew.

"This was extreme, so extreme I can't describe it.''
 
The trial before Justice Robert Allan Hulme, sitting in East Maitland, continues.