My Message to Federal Magistrate Kate Hughes-she is discraceful! PLEASE READ

(Identity withheld through fear for child)

My Message to Federal Magistrate Kate Hughes-she is discraceful! PLEASE READ
Federal Magistrate Kate Hughes,

It is with sincere consternation and fear for the future of our
children and our society that I find myself writing to you.

I have for the first and hopefully last time, had the regrettable
experience of being an observer and participant in the Australian
Family Law System, Namely the Melbourne Federal Magistrates Court.

I have been supporting my friend through this
horrible process for almost twelve months now, and as I am not
directly involved in the matter I believe I have been able to observe
with a reasonable and objective eye.


You cannot be acting in the best interests of the child if you do not
also incorporate and consider the father's right to be a father, be a
parent to the child.in conjunction with the child's inalienable right
to be fathered, to build a meaningful and sustainable relationship
with his paternal parent.

It is neither acceptable nor logical to alienate one from the other.

It is incumbent upon you to be realistic, not tokenistic when
considering the best interests of a child.every kind of meaningful or
important relationship that exists in the human realm requires
significant and on-going interaction to take place.it takes time and
that time is essential.

Judges dictating one or two days a week for father-child interaction
are simply ignorant, ill-informed, out-of touch, retrogressive and in
part at least, are responsible for the adverse effects it inevitably
imposes on the child. Research clearly shows that judgments of this
kind directly impact on suicide rates, alienation of child to father
and contribute to school delinquency, drug abuse and emotional
problems.

The best interests of the child are not met if Judges and courts
continue to deliver judgments that clearly disadvantage the child,
the father and their relationship.a relationship that will
significantly impact upon and shape the future of the child. This is
undeniable injustice and should not be tolerated by our society. It
is an act of gender discrimination in part, conducted in a maternally
biased and farcical courtroom. It shows a fundamental ignorance of
true justice, the child's best interests and the significance and
value of the father-child relationship.


Ms Hughes, in your deliberation of the [name withheld] Contravention
hearing you have blatantly delivered injustice to the child and his
father.

In delivering your judgment you relied heavily and unfairly upon the
Affidavit and oral testimony of the wife and her witness. You gave
minimal credence to the husband's evidence in his oral testimony and
Affidavits and you did not adequately consider pertinent issues of
the child's bi-racial heritage.

One does not require a law degree to conclude from the written and
oral evidence brought before you that the mother's actions were
intentionally provocative, controlling in the extreme and simply
misleading. Her actions directly contributed to the events that
unfolded on the [date withheld] 2006, to which your
decision was based upon.

Ms Hughes, you display an appalling lack of insight and understanding
of the evidence that was presented to you.

In your judgment you site as "controlling behaviour", the father
returning a pair of shoes to the mother that the child did not want
to wear. Your judgment and pertaining comments rely purely upon
assumption. And your assumption is incorrect. Your lack of insight
and understanding in this instance is simply astounding.

If you knew the child and his character or gave appropriate credence
to the father's testimony in court, you would not find this
controlling at all. The fact is that the child often makes it clear
when he does not want to wear particular shoes. He clearly and
assertively says "no shoes papa.shoes off papa.shoes off" or "no
shoes [name withheld], shoes off.shoes off please" and he will attempt to remove
them himself. Furthermore, if you have children you would know that
this is common behaviour for a two and half year old child.

In relation to this you reminded the father, Mr [the father], that the
child is only two and not linguistically capable of negotiating the
language required to make it clear that he did not want to wear those
particular shoes.the child was over two and a half at the time and
you should know that a child of that age is perfectly capable of
using such language.

In your deliberation you have failed to adequately consider the
impact on the father of the wife's on-going irresponsible and self-
indulgent parenting.

It is glaringly obvious that there is a shared-responsibility for the
events that took place on [date withheld] 2006 at
[place withheld]. What you fail to comprehend and
acknowledge is the fact that the mother's display of anger is passive
in nature and is directly linked to her dissatisfaction with the
marriage and relationship breakdown, whereas the father has long
moved on from the relationship, his anger is not expressed passively
and is directly linked to his genuine concerns about the health and
well-being of his son. You sight the father as verbally abusive
towards to the mother's friend who came along to handover, but fail
to give equal weight to the harassing behaviour which the mother's
friend inflicted upon the father. There is an obvious gender bias in
your views and findings.

I have discussed this matter and your judgment with colleagues,
academics, law professionals and lay persons. The overwhelming
consensus is that the decision you have handed-down in this instance
epitomizes all that is faulty and unjust in the family law system. We
all agree that your decision is precisely representative of the many
ill-considered and paternally discriminatory judgments that clearly
adversely effect father-child relationships.

Many of my colleagues and friends including myself are separated and
share the care of our children equally. We all concur that there is
no justice to be found in the family court system, and as such, we
have all, in our wisdom chosen not to make use of this unbalanced,
uncaring, unintelligent, unsatisfactory and sub-standard system. The
realty is that there is very little public confidence.

Chief Justice Murray Gleeson in an address on "The State of the
Judicature" (Law Institute Journal, December, 1999 p. 67at 71) stated:

"The most important measure of the performance of the court system is
the extent to which the public have confidence in its independence,
integrity and impartiality".

The courts and the judiciary realise that there must be public
confidence in the courts or the legitimacy of the courts is
challenged. In a speech by the Chief Justice of Australia to the
Australian Bar Association Conference in New York, the Chief Justice
commented:

There is now a broader concept of accountability recognised by the
judiciary. That is, in order to maintain public confidence in the
courts, the judiciary and court administrators have to be responsive
to criticism where that criticism is justified.

I truly believe that you, Ms Hughes have been mistakenly appointed to
the position of federal magistrate. I now professionally and
publicly call for your resignation.the delivery of such injustice
cannot be tolerated by those whom you serve, the Australian people.
This injustice forced upon both father and son is an affront to the
collective intelligence of our society.

You have unfairly and unjustly penalized the child and his father.
Depriving the child of meaningful and acceptable contact with his
father is disgraceful to say the least. The child has been used to a
twenty-four hour period of contact, weekly with his father, interim
orders made by Federal Magistrate Phipps in 2005. You have reduced
this essential father-son interaction time to a six-hour period. This
is unquestionably detrimental to the child's emotional welfare and
development. Moreover, you have not appropriately or passably
considered pertinent cultural issues that are inextricably part of
this child's life. Your ignorance of these issues of culture,
ethnicity and race are simply staggering.

Furthermore, the changeover venue you chose is excessively distant
from the father's home. The driving time from Williamstown to Narre
Warren is more than one hour. When you consider the driving time
involved, effectively the child now only has four hours a week to
spend with his father. This is disgusting and intolerable. I truly
hope that you will have the same situation imposed on you and your
children (assuming you have them) during your lifetime. Only through
experiencing such an unwarranted and intolerable situation yourself,
will you properly understand the reality and true consequences of it.
Your decision is in no way considerate of the best interests of this
child.

In the face of serious allegations of sexual abuse of his son while
in the mother's care (raised by [the father]) you chose not to
address this matter, one which clearly requires immediate attention.
Instead, you chose to set the next hearing for September, which
leaves this matter unaddressed for an obviously unacceptable length
of time. Your decision and handling of this matter has left the child
in a potentially unsafe and harmful situation. Had the situation been
reversed and there were allegations of sexual abuse of the child
while in the father's care, I have no doubt that appropriate actions
would have been facilitated expediently.

Ms Hughes, I understand that you have a duty of care to this child.
You have acted without due care, diligence and attention; you have
not acted in the best interests of this child. Your actions have
placed this child at further risk. Your actions are reprehensible and
you must be held accountable for such negligence and incompetence.

We, the Australian public must be provided with an accountable and
transparent method of recourse when inexcusable judgments such as
this are imposed.

The court appointed Child Advocate:

The court appointed Child Advocate has also played a contemptuous and
dubious role in this process. The Child Advocate, represented in
court by Mr Holte, is motivated by personal interest and certainly
does not show that he acts in the best interests of the child. He is
clearly not acting impartially. It was obvious from the outset that
Mr Holte was disenchanted and uncomfortable with the fact that the
father was self-representing. Some of the behaviour I observed Mr
Holte display towards the father was condescending, juvenile and
unprofessional at best.

An official letter of complaint compiled and lodged by Mr
Aschendorff, in regard to Mr Holte's unprofessional conduct, has
conspicuously affected the attitude and stance of the Child
Advocate. Again, it is clear that personal agendas have taken
precedence over the best interests of the child in this process. If
this procedure is to be seen as fair, just, impartial and
transparent, it is imperative that the court appoint another child
advocate, one who is capable of fulfilling the role honourably and
impartially.

Ms Hughes, your deliberations and actions have unduly penalized a
young father and caused damage to the long-standing and mutually
essential relationship between father and child. In court on the
final day of the contravention hearing you relied wholly on Mr
Holte's assertion that the [name withheld] Contact Centre was only 20-30
minutes drive from the father's home in [place withheld]. This is simply
a false statement. The drive time from the father's home to the
Contact Centre is more than one hour, one way. If traffic is heavy
it takes over one and a half hours, one way.

[father'sname withheld] right under the law to receive a fair and just
hearing has certainly been denied. I am aware that Mr Aschendorff
intends on appealing your decision and I unequivocally support him.
It is however truly unfortunate that he must engage in this process
in search of real justice. It is an unnecessary strain on him and
his child.

Your judgment in regard to the wife having a reasonable excuse for
breaching [name withheld] interim contact orders and suspending contact
with the father, are fundamentally flawed. Again, you did not fairly
nor sufficiently take into account the long-term and on-going actions
of the wife. It is clear in Affidavit and oral testimony that the
wife's actions were calculated, intentionally malicious and a
deliberate attempt to distract from issues she did not want to
address, namely issues of child safety, welfare and emotional well-
being.

Clearly, the husband's underlying stress and anger stems from the
wife's choice to ignore the father's concerns of suspected sexual
abuse of the child by the wife's brother-in-law. I observed the child
cry and scream almost every week when it was time to return to his
mother. This took place for over thirty weeks. Surely you have a
duty of care to the child to adequately consider and give weight to
the fact that a two and a half year old child becomes so overtly
distressed when he realises he has to go home with his mother. There
is obviously something untoward occurring in this situation. This
fact warrants serious and immediate attention. You have failed the
child once again.

The farcical conduct that I observed this court engage in blatantly
sacrifices the investigation and acquisition of the truth, and
instead, indulges in legal competition and the pursuit of personal
agendas. How can this possibly create an environment where the
child's best interests are paramount? It simply is not possible.

Both the system and you Ms Hughes, as the deliverer of judgments,
have dismally failed this young child.

Yours Truly,
[name withheld]