Original
Caroline Overington | April 02, 2009
Article from: The Australian
IT was once widely assumed that children were better off with their mothers, especially after divorce. In part, that was because mothers did most of the child-rearing. They got pregnant, gave birth and did most of the heavy lifting - nappy changes, toilet-training and school pick-ups - as the children got older.
The role played by fathers, for many years, was assumed to be mainly financial: he was the breadwinner and often the person who provided the discipline.
Things have changed. This week, The Australian reported on an extraordinary Family Court decision - in the sense that it was completely out of the ordinary - to remove two children who had been living with their mother in Tasmania since their parents separated in 2005 and send them to live with their father and his girlfriend in Melbourne. There was no suggestion of physical abuse or neglect in the case known as Irish and Michelle (2009).
The facts are this: The couple separated in 2005; the father met a woman and moved to Melbourne to be with her in 2006; his children (a daughter, then aged six, and a son, then four) stayed with their mother in a Tasmanian country town. The mother - known in court documents as Ms Michelle - reorganised her working day so she could spend more time with the children. She had a limited income (less than $500 a week) but the father didn't earn much more (he works as a firefighter and makes about $50,000 a year, minus child support for two children).
The mother has a house with a front garden and a back yard for the children to play, and they live next door to their grandparents, who help out. Her father is a well-known, successful Tasmanian businessman.
The children's father - known in court documents as Mr Irish - works shifts: four days on, four days off, and often through the night. He has always had access to his children, but recently the change-overs had become difficult. He would turn up in Tasmania to take the children for holidays, and they would say: "I don't want to go" or "I don't have to go". On one occasion, witnessed by a child psychologist, the girl tried to climb out of his car window rather than go with him for a weekend. The father believed his relationship with the children was being eroded, that his daughter, now nine, was becoming estranged from him, and that their mother was responsible for these problems. He took the case to the Family Court and, to the utter shock and devastation of the mother, who has been the primary carer of the children all their lives, he won.
Justice Robert Benjamin accepted the court-appointed lawyer's evidence that "both children have consistently maintained that they wish to continue living with their mother".
"They have a close and intimate relationship with the mother and want to be with her," the psychologist said. "They identify their mother as their primary emotional support. As much as the children enjoy spending time with their father, both the children verbalised that they become distressed and miss their mother when they are separated from her."
But he also believed that the girl, in particular, did not understand how important it would be, in later life, to have a relationship with her father.
He said the child, known as B, was becoming emotionally estranged from her father and "either suffered, or was at risk of suffering, serious psychological damage if not psychiatric damage" if the mother didn't encourage her to have a relationship with her father.
There was nothing in the judgment to suggest the mother had denigrated the father, only that she hadn't encouraged a good relationship between the children and their father. The girl told her court counsellor that she didn't like that her father had left the family and now had a new girlfriend, whom she didn't like either.
But Benjamin made the decision to move the children with amendments to the Family Law Act in mind. These amendments, colloquially known as the "shared parenting" provisions, were introduced by the Howard government in 2006. They say that children "have the right to know and be cared for by both parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never been married or have never lived together".
Children also have a "right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents".
The case of Irish and Michelle suggests that mothers must now encourage their children to have a good relationship with the father; they must facilitate access; and they aren't allowed to talk down the father. If they do, the children will be removed from their full-time care.
Wayne Butler, president of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia, established in 2002 by fathers frustrated at the perceived bias of the Family Court, says the decision "has given us hope. There's a feeling now that if you want a substantial amount of contact with your children, you should wait and go to the Family Court because there is a good chance you'll get it. We strongly believe that children need a relationship with their father. There's a whole change in society's view of a father and that's being reflected in the Family Court."
That view isn't being encouraged by Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant, who told The Australian yesterday that Irish and Michelle shouldn't be read "as a marker for anything". "I've read the judgment closely and it seems to me that the judge took into account what the experts said, which is that the children, especially the girl, were at risk of psychological harm if they stayed with their mother. Some people won't agree with the decision." She noted that the mother could appeal within 30 days. Bryant promotes a view of the court as bias-free and transparent. She authorised the release of data on court orders made since the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parenting) Act came into force. The data isn't comparative - that is, it doesn't say whether fathers are now likelier to get access than they were before the amendments - but the Shared Parenting Council's Jim Carter says the data is nevertheless "encouraging for fathers and their children" because it shows that fathers are likelier to get substantial access to their children if they go to the Family Court than if they negotiate directly with their former wives.
"The situation since 2006 is that 17 per cent of fathers were granted primary care of their children and another 15 per cent were granted equal parenting time," Carter says. "That's a total of 32 per cent of fathers in litigated cases (getting substantial access)."
Mothers still get the bulk of the orders in their favour - 60 per cent get primary care of their children - but the Shared Parenting Council suggests that fathers who want "substantial access" to their children after divorce go to court because there is a reasonable chance they'll get it.
At a Senate estimates hearing on February 23, Family First senator Steve Fielding asked the chief executive of the Family Court, Richard Foster, about the amendments and he, too, was told there had been "a change in the orders that impact specifically on fathers".
Bryant says the data shows that fathers were given residence (or full-time custody) of the children in 19 per cent of litigated cases in 1999-2000, compared with 17 per cent of cases after 2006, "so that's actually gone down".
"We can speculate as to why. I think what's happened is that, rightly or wrongly, there was a prevailing view that orders were likely to favour mothers, and fathers would only litigate when they thought they had a good case," Bryant says. "It's possible that view has changed, so more (men) might litigate."
The number of orders for shared parenting is certainly up, from 6 per cent to 15 per cent, which means fathers get at least equal access in 32 per cent of the cases.
Women's groups are worried about the perceived new direction of the court. An online petition, started last month, has gathered 2300 signatures, and a coalition of women's groups will host rallies in all states next month, to highlight the plight of women whose children have been killed by their ex-partners on access visits. Victims of crime will speak, wearing red hoods over their faces, to circumvent laws that make it a crime to identify any party to a Family Court matter. Organiser Barbara Biggs says: "Our speakers have children who were killed after bad Family Court decisions. Some of them are very well known, with the cases all over the media already, but they can't be identified because that's a breach of the Family Law Act."
On publishing the Irish and Michelle story, The Australian received many calls from fathers who intend to try the Family Court system again. One such father, who hasn't seen his 12-year-old girl for two years, despite there being a Family Court order for access in place, says: "I'm supposed to see her this Easter but the orders were made in her absence. (The mother) doesn't show up for court. She doesn't acknowledge the orders. She has changed her telephone number so she can't be reached."
The couple separated when the child was five. "For a few years after that, I got good access. That changed when I got remarried. It dwindled away to nothing. When I read that case (Irish and Michelle) I thought: 'That's exactly what happened to me.' My daughter started to say: 'I don't want to see you' and 'I hate you', and of course that's not the case. We had a good relationship. I would try to speak to her on the phone and maybe I'd get her when her mother was in the shower, but she'd say: 'I can't talk to you. I've got to go."'
At the other extreme are women such as Kelly, a mother and a lawyer from Queensland, who was amazed when the court ordered a 50-50 custody arrangement with her ex-partner even though he'd been convicted of assaulting her.
"The lawyers kept saying: 'It has to be 50-50,"' she says. "He assaulted me when I was holding (the baby), but they say that's not the same as assaulting the baby, so the court says he isn't hurting the child. They said I had no choice under the new laws to hand the baby over one week on, one week off."
Showing posts with label Rally. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rally. Show all posts
FAMILY COURT RALLY & PETITION Sunday 3rd MAY 2009
FAMILY COURT RALLY & PETITION Sunday 3rd MAY 2009
GlobalBasic Info
| Type: | |
| Description: | In memory of all the children who have died at the hands of their parents following Family Court involvement....RIP And the children who continue to be forced into contact with violent or sexually abusive parents by the Family Court of Australia. |
Contact Info
| Email: | |
| Office: | PARLIAMENT HOUSE |
| Location: | Every Capital City, Australia |
Recent News
The death of so many of our country's children at the hand of their parents have shocked us all.
But have they shocked Australian politicians enough to make them review and amend the way the Family Court of Australia deals with children where domestic violence or sexual abuse allegations are made?
We hope so.
We are organizing this petition and a rally to be held in every capital city in Australia.
PLEASE SIGN THE FOLLOWING PETITION
http://www.gopetition.com.au/petitions/family-court-of-australia-amendments.html
Parents (and their family) currently involved in FCA dispute will need to wear red hoods or scarves to disguise themselves so they can't be identified for legal reasons.
Red will signify the blood of Australian children being shed by FCA orders which force children to have access to, or shared care with parents who are violent or sexually abusive.
Please read the discussion forum to see what you can do, the latest updates on the organizing, and more information about the protest.
Importantly, please sign the petition and send it to your networks, personally asking them to pass it on. This is how we CAN make a difference.
We already have media interest and dozens of volunteers helping with this. Be part of an event that will help save children's lives.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is an extract of a letter sent to the Attorney General's Dept recently. It was forwarded to me by Prof Freda Briggs.
You might find the list of incidents at the end of the extract, pretty amazing. I did.
"Since the reforms of 1996 and 2006, there is a palpable reluctance by the courts to reduce contact between parents and children, even when there is ample evidence that one parent has engaged in behaviours congruent with domestic violence or 'intimate terrorism' as described by the AIFS study where category C is ascribed to the most severe form of interpersonal violence. This is also in spite of The Family Law Act 1975, (Cth) s60B, (b) and (c). Justice Wall from the UK has stated that,
"I was concerned to read in a number of places in the files that reliance was placed on the proposition that it may be safe to order contact where domestic violence had been perpetrated on the mother, but not on the child. In my judgment it needs to be recalled that Drs Sturge and Glaser pointed out that domestic violence involved "a very serious and significant failure in parenting- failure to protect the child and failure to protect the child emotionally (and in some cases physically) - which meets the definition of child abuse. It is, in my view, high time that the Family Justice System abandoned any reliance on the proposition that a man can have a history of violence to the mother of his children but, nonetheless, be a good father."
"However, in Australia the reasoning seems to indicate that the judiciary continues to believe that a parent who has been physically violent to the other does not indicate that they are a danger to the children of the marriage. For example;
"However, on the father's own admission, he has acted in ways that would bear the description of "domestic violence". This includes putting his hands around the neck of the mother. It may be also that other conduct, though falling short of physical assault, but which was aggressive and angry, would also fit that description. He was probably controlling and dominant in the relationship with the mother. This might also fit the description of domestic violence. As well, he was a times physically domineering in applying physical discipline to [the 18 month old child], such as straddling her on the bed and holding her head or face to ensure her attention. All of these behaviours are indications of an approach to relationships and parenting, less than optimal, in times past. As well, it is clear enough that he has not been alert to crossing personal boundaries."
This father continues to have unsupervised contact with this child.
The causal factors between the dynamic of domestic violence, its range of indicators and the dangers this behaviour poses to the children of the marriage continue to be ignored by the judiciary, report writers, the legal practitioners and even the police department. This has resulted in the growing list of deaths of children from a family of origin where domestic violence can be ascribed as the feature of the breakdown in the relationship. Fears for the safety of children are ignored. Consider the following sample:
• 1996 - January 25: Peter May shot and killed his three children, Lisa eleven, Andrew eight, and Natalie seven during a contact visit. On the same day, he also killed his wife and her parents. May's history of domestic violence and links to the Men's Rights Agency was commonly known and reported,
• 1998 – October 23: After Ronald Jonkers lost custody of Aaron DeBaugy 5, Ashlee seventeen months and David seven, he poisoned them by carbon monoxide in their car on a contact visit in Perth,
• 1999 – August: WA four young children were gassed along with their father Mark Heath after a family court dispute,
• 2000 - Rhonda Bartley was shot dead by her ex-partner in Berri while attending a court ordered contact handover of their baby daughter,
• 2001 - September: Mikaylah Green eleven weeks, Taylah Pringle eleven months and Jackson Merrott six, were smothered by their father on a contact visit in Sydney,
• 2002- Ana Hardwick 35 is strangled by her former partner after the family court granted her custody of their eleven and eight year old children,
• 2004 – April 26: Jessie Dalton nineteen months and Patrick Dalton thirteen weeks were smothered by their separated father Jayson Dalton after a family court order to him to return the infants to their mother Dionne,
• 2005 – 4th September: Robert Farquharson killed his sons Jai ten, Tyler seven, and Bailey two, by driving them into a dam in Winchelsea, south-west of Melbourne on Fathers' Day contact visit,
• 2008 – May 9: The body of three year old Imran Zilic, was found after his father threw him down a mine on an access visit,
• 2008 – January 3: Christopher McEwen raped and then killed his daughter Rhiannon McEwen on Bribie Island on New Years Eve. The matter of the children's residency was before the Family Court in 2004 where the father was given residency of all three children. It is not known to this writer if it was by consent. However, this father was cleared by a psychiatrist to leave a Brisbane hospital's mental health unit just nine days before he allegedly raped and murdered his ten-year-old daughter. Queensland Health did not report the man – who had spent two weeks as an involuntary patient in the hospital's mental health unit – to the Department of Child Safety. Given this man's mental condition, the question is how in 2004 was it that he obtained sole custody of his four children aged between six and ten?
• 2009 – January 29: Arthur Freeman unbuckled Darcey from her seat in the family Toyota Land Cruiser on the West Gate Bridge about 9.15am and threw her over the edge and into the Yarra River 58m below. She died in hospital four hours later. The tragedy occurred one day after the Freemans had reached an agreement over access to Darcey and their two other children, Benjamin six, and Jackson two, following their separation in 2007. "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But have they shocked Australian politicians enough to make them review and amend the way the Family Court of Australia deals with children where domestic violence or sexual abuse allegations are made?
We hope so.
We are organizing this petition and a rally to be held in every capital city in Australia.
PLEASE SIGN THE FOLLOWING PETITION
http://www.gopetition.com.
Parents (and their family) currently involved in FCA dispute will need to wear red hoods or scarves to disguise themselves so they can't be identified for legal reasons.
Red will signify the blood of Australian children being shed by FCA orders which force children to have access to, or shared care with parents who are violent or sexually abusive.
Please read the discussion forum to see what you can do, the latest updates on the organizing, and more information about the protest.
Importantly, please sign the petition and send it to your networks, personally asking them to pass it on. This is how we CAN make a difference.
We already have media interest and dozens of volunteers helping with this. Be part of an event that will help save children's lives.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is an extract of a letter sent to the Attorney General's Dept recently. It was forwarded to me by Prof Freda Briggs.
You might find the list of incidents at the end of the extract, pretty amazing. I did.
"Since the reforms of 1996 and 2006, there is a palpable reluctance by the courts to reduce contact between parents and children, even when there is ample evidence that one parent has engaged in behaviours congruent with domestic violence or 'intimate terrorism' as described by the AIFS study where category C is ascribed to the most severe form of interpersonal violence. This is also in spite of The Family Law Act 1975, (Cth) s60B, (b) and (c). Justice Wall from the UK has stated that,
"I was concerned to read in a number of places in the files that reliance was placed on the proposition that it may be safe to order contact where domestic violence had been perpetrated on the mother, but not on the child. In my judgment it needs to be recalled that Drs Sturge and Glaser pointed out that domestic violence involved "a very serious and significant failure in parenting- failure to protect the child and failure to protect the child emotionally (and in some cases physically) - which meets the definition of child abuse. It is, in my view, high time that the Family Justice System abandoned any reliance on the proposition that a man can have a history of violence to the mother of his children but, nonetheless, be a good father."
"However, in Australia the reasoning seems to indicate that the judiciary continues to believe that a parent who has been physically violent to the other does not indicate that they are a danger to the children of the marriage. For example;
"However, on the father's own admission, he has acted in ways that would bear the description of "domestic violence". This includes putting his hands around the neck of the mother. It may be also that other conduct, though falling short of physical assault, but which was aggressive and angry, would also fit that description. He was probably controlling and dominant in the relationship with the mother. This might also fit the description of domestic violence. As well, he was a times physically domineering in applying physical discipline to [the 18 month old child], such as straddling her on the bed and holding her head or face to ensure her attention. All of these behaviours are indications of an approach to relationships and parenting, less than optimal, in times past. As well, it is clear enough that he has not been alert to crossing personal boundaries."
This father continues to have unsupervised contact with this child.
The causal factors between the dynamic of domestic violence, its range of indicators and the dangers this behaviour poses to the children of the marriage continue to be ignored by the judiciary, report writers, the legal practitioners and even the police department. This has resulted in the growing list of deaths of children from a family of origin where domestic violence can be ascribed as the feature of the breakdown in the relationship. Fears for the safety of children are ignored. Consider the following sample:
• 1996 - January 25: Peter May shot and killed his three children, Lisa eleven, Andrew eight, and Natalie seven during a contact visit. On the same day, he also killed his wife and her parents. May's history of domestic violence and links to the Men's Rights Agency was commonly known and reported,
• 1998 – October 23: After Ronald Jonkers lost custody of Aaron DeBaugy 5, Ashlee seventeen months and David seven, he poisoned them by carbon monoxide in their car on a contact visit in Perth,
• 1999 – August: WA four young children were gassed along with their father Mark Heath after a family court dispute,
• 2000 - Rhonda Bartley was shot dead by her ex-partner in Berri while attending a court ordered contact handover of their baby daughter,
• 2001 - September: Mikaylah Green eleven weeks, Taylah Pringle eleven months and Jackson Merrott six, were smothered by their father on a contact visit in Sydney,
• 2002- Ana Hardwick 35 is strangled by her former partner after the family court granted her custody of their eleven and eight year old children,
• 2004 – April 26: Jessie Dalton nineteen months and Patrick Dalton thirteen weeks were smothered by their separated father Jayson Dalton after a family court order to him to return the infants to their mother Dionne,
• 2005 – 4th September: Robert Farquharson killed his sons Jai ten, Tyler seven, and Bailey two, by driving them into a dam in Winchelsea, south-west of Melbourne on Fathers' Day contact visit,
• 2008 – May 9: The body of three year old Imran Zilic, was found after his father threw him down a mine on an access visit,
• 2008 – January 3: Christopher McEwen raped and then killed his daughter Rhiannon McEwen on Bribie Island on New Years Eve. The matter of the children's residency was before the Family Court in 2004 where the father was given residency of all three children. It is not known to this writer if it was by consent. However, this father was cleared by a psychiatrist to leave a Brisbane hospital's mental health unit just nine days before he allegedly raped and murdered his ten-year-old daughter. Queensland Health did not report the man – who had spent two weeks as an involuntary patient in the hospital's mental health unit – to the Department of Child Safety. Given this man's mental condition, the question is how in 2004 was it that he obtained sole custody of his four children aged between six and ten?
• 2009 – January 29: Arthur Freeman unbuckled Darcey from her seat in the family Toyota Land Cruiser on the West Gate Bridge about 9.15am and threw her over the edge and into the Yarra River 58m below. She died in hospital four hours later. The tragedy occurred one day after the Freemans had reached an agreement over access to Darcey and their two other children, Benjamin six, and Jackson two, following their separation in 2007. "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Find out more at Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=69087938967
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
