'Sorry' to man accused of sex abuse

The following article in the Sydnet Morning Herald describes Mr Ginges' experiences after false sexual abuse allegations were used to sever his relationship with his children. As you can see he was ultimately able to expose the injustice and get some compensation and an official apology. However as a solicitor he was painfully aware that he was lucky, that most men wrongly accused had no hope of righting the wrongs.

The practice of one parent using sexual abuse allegations to deny the other access to their children continues to be a main stay of many custody litigations, especially those that go on for more than a few years (as they typically do if a father insists on resisting moves to limit his relationship with his kids). Custody litigations that don't involve alligations of some sort of abuse are almost unheard of. Drop in to any Family Law Court hearing and you will usually witness assertions of sexual abuse.

Petty the Family Courts doesn't recognise the damage and pain that the vilification and exclusion of one of the parents causes children - and protect them. It would, after all, be "in the best interets of the child" Seems they place more emphasis on their "erring on the side of caution" mantra.


'Sorry' to man accused of sex abuse-

By BETTINA ARNDT

Sydney Morning Herald 15/4/00

http://smh.com.au/news/0004/15/pageone/pageone02.html

Thirteen years after accusing a solicitor of sexually abusing his three children, the Department of Community Services has expressed its regret for the damage it caused to the man and his family.

Katoomba lawyer Mr Hal Ginges lost custody of his children and had no contact with them for more than five years as a result of the abuse allegations.

Now the department has admitted in court that its investigation was incomplete and unprofessional and that the conclusions reached by its officers were "not soundly based".

On Monday, the District Court in Sydney awarded a verdict in favour of Mr Ginges, who had sued the NSW Government for compensation for injury suffered as a result of the botched investigation. It is believed the department has paid him damages.

Mr Ginges says he was only able to pursue his claim because his children came back to him.

"Without them I wouldn't have been able to prove the whole thing was nonsense," he told the Herald.

It is the first time the NSW Government has made such an acknowledgment. A South Australian man once received an ex-gratia payment from the State Government for damages resulting from an incompetent investigation leading to sexual abuse allegations.

The allegations against Mr Ginges arose as a result of a notification in March 1987 to the Katoomba office of the then Department of Youth and Community services, now DOCS. The three children, Kieran, then aged 10, and his two sisters aged 8 and 4 had already been subjected to a sexual abuse investigation five weeks earlier when they were taken to Westmead Hospital by their mother, Ms Anne Morris, and her partner, Ms Leslye Chenery.

All three children declared no abuse had taken place, according to a Westmead Sexual Assault Centre social worker's report.

Kieran, now a 23-year-old arts-law student, told the Herald: "I couldn't work out what was the point of all this, but I was adamant in saying nothing had happened to me."The Westmead social workers found no evidence of abuse.

By the time of the department's investigation, Ms Morris had left the children with their father, who had long been their primary carer, to move in with Ms Chenery.

The investigation by department district officers Ms Christine Waterer and Mr Les Cormack described by the department as "brief and urgent" involved a four-hour interview with the two girls.

A leading Sydney child psychiatrist, Dr Brent Waters, reviewed the DOCS files to provide expert evidence for the District Court proceedings. His report described the investigation as "extremely coercive" and unprofessional.

Dr Waters strongly criticised the interviews for containing leading questions and failing to acknowledge the children's emphatic denials that any sexual activity had taken place.

The department's investigation was followed by yet another visit to Westmead, and all three children were medically examined. The Westmead social workers found there was no conclusive evidence to suggest any abuse had taken place. But the next day Mr Cormack confronted Mr Ginges and accused him of being a child abuser.

The department funded the children's move with their mother and partner to Melbourne, saying the children urgently needed "a safe place".

Ultimately, Mr Ginges's contact with his children was limited to supervised access, yet, according to Kieran, the children remained under pressure to say that they had been abused.

"We kept being taken to see people from DOCS and therapists who would further push the allegations and our weakness in not acknowledging them."

Kieran said that he made a decision to give in.

"Finally I decided that for the pressure to be removed I'd simply say something had happened, make something up."

Mr Ginges said Kieran made contact with him in 1992 following encouragement from a foster family he had lived with after leaving his mother's home.

By 1996 all three children were in Sydney, the younger sister with her father and the older with her father's mother. The children are now all very close to their father.

Ms Morris said she was very surprised by the department's decision. Ms Morris, who now lives in Adelaide and deals with child abuse matters for a women's health service, said she believed the DOCS investigation had been handled "extremely professionally and carefully".

The government statement announcing the settlement acknowledged that the department investigation "was not conducted in a complete and professional manner and that the conclusion reached by its officers was not soundly based".

It acknowledged the damage caused by the allegations.

"Following the investigation, Mr Ginges suffered the loss of his close relationship with his children for several years and also suffered at the time publicity adverse to his reputation. The department regrets the damage to Mr Ginges and his family."

Asked to comment, the department issued a statement saying child protection practices used by DOCS had changed significantly since 1987.

"DOCS decided it would not be beneficial to spend weeks in court defending practices which have long since changed and been improved."

The statement said the staff involved in the matter were no longer employed by DOCS. Yet this week Mr Cormack was working at the department's St Marys Service Centre. However, a DOCS spokesperson said Mr Cormack was a consultant to the department.

While expressing satisfaction at the verdict, Mr Ginges, whose work as a solicitor includes family law, voiced concern that sexual abuse allegations were often made vexatiously, and few men had been able to prove they were wrongly accused.

"Through my work as a solicitor, I know men who have lost their children to false allegations who never have the opportunity to rectify the damage done to them."

Kieran, who is studying at UWS Nepean, remains angry at the unprofessional intervention of DOCS and other professionals and the subsequent damage it caused to all their lives.

"It astounds me how these professionals can be so negligent. I find it abhorrent."

The best a man can get.

I spoke to a barrister friend today (who incidentally despises Family Law Judges) . He thinks I did well - especiallyconsidering I saved all that money on representation - I was ordered to pay $24,000 to the the child representative who lied in court to stop me seeing my daughter, who embellished the X's sexual abuse alligation to get my daughter teacher to oppose my efforts to see my daughter, who pushed for more psychological examinations of my daughter despite two Judges directing that it was systems abuse, that she should not go on (it was her seventh psychological assessment, plus she had to go through a year of therapy with a psychiatrist at age 6 for her misbehaviour with her mother (for being horrible to me), who even obstructed contact when my X agreed to it I had raised these issues in an effort to ghet him disqualified but my application was dismissed.

In other words the fact that I was penalised for taking more of the courts time than would have been taken if I had representation was offset by what the representation would have cost (lawyer logic).

He then eloquently set out the only path available to me. I needed to demonstrate that
the criticisms of my character and personality were taken on board, that I
had learnt and improved - then I'd have a chance at supervised access. If the supervising
ladies said nice things about me, I could then embark on the slow process of graduated increases in
supervised contact, any increase coming by way of a new application in court, ultimately cumulating is unsupervised contact eventually - first a little bit - unless the child, my child starts doing poorly at school or misbehaves with her mother in which case I would be excluded again.

This is what happens to every child and every father if the mother want it to be. .

Petty Ruddock didn't do anything to change this.

Poor little kids. The thought of all the lies they must endure as part of
this process makes me feel sick inside.
The marvel of children is their curiosity, their innocence and their trust.
...telling them lies that leave them confused and sad is an awful thing
to do to a child - any child. To see that done to your own child is like a
stake through the heart.

I wonder how those amongst us that supported the Government's so called reforms can face this reality. How they can face the torment it represent to our most precious children.

Regards,
Simon
Phone: +61 (0)3 5973 6933
Mobile: 0414 415 693
vascopajama@dodo.com.au

Anonymous - Family Court Outcomes #1

2004-05

Mother's solicitor argues father is mentally ill. Submission of Family Report and two psychological reports cleared father of any mental illness.

Final orders:

Father contact:

Alternate weekends Fri after school to Monday before school; each Wednesday during term time from after school to 7:30 pm; half of all school holidays - 29% of total time.

Mother contact: all other time - 71% of total time.

During the relationship father worked approx. six days a week to pay mortgage, wife worked one day per week.

Assets - house and superannuation:

Mother receives 68% of assets $370,000

Father receives 32% of assets $173,000

At time of settlement, $5000 of child support arrears were seized under a s72a application by CSA to the solicitors holding the property settlement.

Anonymous - Family Court Outcomes #2

2004-05

Case took 20 months. Father paid at least $60,000 in solicitors' fees.

There was never any allegation of abuse or incompetence made against the father with respect to the children. Allegations of physical abuse against the mother were unsubstantiated and dismissed.

Father's contact: 22%

Mother's contact: 78%

"My case took approximately 20 months after continual adjournments for reasons unknown. Early on I had to defend myself against false charges of abuse against my former wife (AVOs). The judge eventually threw these allegations out. I had done nothing wrong and 2 child counselors had said I was a good father but strangely they (both women) wouldn't agree with my request for 50/50 access for my kids. They both said I wasn't the Primary Carer and they didn't believe in 50/50 Equal Parenting Time.

"After Justice Boland made an interim decision, that was actually illegal and actually a final decision, that the kids move with their mother to Victoria, I knew then I had little chance of seeing more of my kids. NB. Boland had assured everyone that the case would be given priority and it would be heard within 4 to 6 weeks in Melbourne. After about 4 or 5 weeks, I rang Melbourne to find out what was going on and they told me that they hadn't even heard of the case !! But as soon as they got 'wind ' of my appeal against Justice Boland's decision (I was going to represent myself after getting sick and tired of throwing money away on Barristers) I got a call from the Family Court that my case would be heard in about a week and the judge would be Justice Kay !!

"Justice Kay apparently had a reputation, the wrong sought of reputation. Unfortunately it proved correct. He wouldn't accept my affidavit and wouldn't give a proper reason. Again everyone agreed that I was a good father but it made no difference. Boland had done the damage and Kay was too weak to do anything about it. Even before I sat down in court, Kay started on me. He treated me like a criminal. I pulled him up numerous times on hypocritical mistakes and his obligations but it didn't make any difference. He set out to destroy me in his court and I suppose in the end he got his way. I wrote a letter of complaint, but unfortunately these complaints are heard by a fellow judge !! A joke. These judges answer to no one.

"I now see my kids only every second weekend from Friday night to Monday morning and half of all school holidays even though the counselor recommended I see more of my three young kids.!! I also have to do 90 % of all the driving (they live an hour's drive away). My ex-wife got 70 % of all assets even though she came into our marriage with very little. She has been rewarded for taking the kids away interstate from NSW while I was at work at our business. She also cleaned out the house and lied to the kids!! A reward for wrongdoing and all to the detriment of my three kids !!"

Anonymous - Family Court Outcomes #3

2003-2005

Case took two years.

Children: one boy born in 2001

Final orders:

Father has six days and four nights contact per fortnight. This will reduce somewhat when the child starts Grade 1.

Father given 34% access reducing to 30% when school begins

Mother given 66% access increasing to 70% when school begins

Property:

Mother was given 68%

Father was given 32%

Mother had contributed 24% of assets according to the father's calculations.

Solicitor actively undermined negotiated settlement

Father and mother initially went to the Dispute Resolution Centre. By the mother's own account, mother had contributed 45% of the assets (father maintained it was 24%). Mediators put it to her 'So you would be happy with 45% ?' The mother replied 'No, my solicitor says I can get 70%, and I want 70%.'

In the Family Court process there were three mediation sessions. Solicitor for the wife, Eddy Lago (Cairns) undermined chances for reconciliation at two of these three sessions. In the first session, father's position was that mother had contributed 24% of the assets. Solicitor acting on behalf of the mother wanted 70%. In the spirit of reconciliation the father offered 35% (and was prepared to go to 50%. Solicitor Eddy Lago later asked me what my bottom line was and I told him 50%). The solicitor facetiously responded 'ok we want 90%' swiftly and effectively ending any prospect of a negotiated settlement.

The mother ended up winning 68% of the assets at the Final Hearing, however 40% of this it is estimated, was spent on the solicitor's and barrister's fees, implying that she received about 41% of the assets.

'He said it with a smile on his face'

Father went to pick up child on his day of care (informal agreement in the Family Court prior to Interim Orders). Mother says she wants father to come an hour later in future. Father agrees saying he will return child an hour later. Mother says child must return at the same time. Father suggests - ok how about half an hour later. Mother shrieks - 'No I can't trust you and attempts to take child from fathers arms. Father turns his back and begins walking to his vehicle eight metres away. Mother scratches father's forearms and pulls at his shirt. Father places palm on mother's forehead to keep her at a distance. Finally father gives mother a single barefoot kick to the shins so he can get child to the vehicle. Mother shouts that she is going to get a DVO.

Police officer organises a meeting. Mother's story that she was trying to take child from father because father was running away and grass was wet and father might slip over, doesn't add up. Blood from scratches on father's forearm still highly visible. Police officer says no grounds for a DVO.

At second conciliation conference, father presents a report of the incident, and also a letter from former partner of 14 years who stated that in all that time, father had never hit her, nor even pushed her - ie he had never been violent in anyway. Eddy Lago, solicitor for the mother says 'how did you get that out of her ? Did you beat her up as well ?' Father (speechless) turns to the Deputy Registrar Gilbert Victoire to see if he was going to respond to this blatant provocation. Deputy Registrar Gilbert Victoire responds to father 'He said it with a smile on his face.'

Serving documents on the solicitor

Father, as a self-representing litigant, went to the offices of solicitor for the mother Eddy Lago to serve papers and gain a signature in the box entitled 'Solicitor's signature.' Receptionist notified solicitor that father had documents to serve and said to father 'He'll be right down'. Father waits for 30 minutes then ducks outside to put more money in the parking metre. When he returns, he goes upstairs to the office of Eddy Lago and informs the secretary that he just needs a signature and he'll be off. She comes out of the office telling him that he must wait downstairs and solicitor will attend shortly. Father informs secretary that he will continue to stand outside the door until he receives the signature. Solicitor Eddy Lago comes out and shouts at the father to wait downstairs. Father repeats that he only needs a signature and he'll be off, and until he receives the signature he will remain exactly where he was. Solicitor goes back inside the office, then reappears saying that he'd rung the police. Father says he is not concerned about the police but just needs a signature and he'll be off.

Father waits for another 30 minutes outside the office of Eddy Lago, before he reappears. 'Come downstairs with me.' Father and solicitor go downstairs where father expects solicitor to sign the box entitled 'Solicitor's signature.' However, solicitor tells father once again police are just about to arrive and that father had no right to abuse his staff. Father responds that he did not abuse any of his staff members and just requires a signature, noting that the police are taking their time in arriving. Solicitor says he is not required to sign the box, the receptionist at the front desk can do it. Father says that a lot of trouble could have been avoided had he said this in the first place.

Solicitor goes upstairs and father goes to receptionist at the front counter and asks if she can sign the box. Receptionist knows nothing of this and rings upstairs for solicitor Eddy Lago who returns to the foyer. Solicitor, about 6'3" in height then proceeds to stand over father and shout at father telling him to leave the premises. Father says he just needs a signature and he will be gone. Office manager appears to see what the shouting (on the part of the solicitor only) is about. Father explains he needs a signature and asks office manager if he is able to sign. Office manager says he is not. Father gets his name as a witness of delivery of court documents and leaves. Solicitor writes an Affidavit which is included with other Affidavits in the case for child residency and property settlement. Father believes solicitor Eddy Lago was trying to provoke father so that he would take at swing at him, and thus be able to prosecute him, and use new evidence in his case.

Solicitor Eddy Lago arranges a meeting

(four hours discussing $400 worth of bills

Interim Orders

At the third conciliation conference, father asks Deputy Registrar why father can never see his child on a weekend, especially seeing he has a step sister who is at school during week days and goes to visit her mother during school holidays. Mother responds 'because I work, and weekends is the only time I can see him.' Deputy Registrar remembers from previous conciliation conference and says 'But don't you also have Thursdays off?' Mother replies 'Yes but that's when I have to do my shopping !' Irritated with mother's response Deputy Registrar slams his book closed and turns to father saying 'you should seek Interim Orders.'

So father spends many hours preparing an application for Interim Orders. When the matter is finally heard the judge rules 'because the Final Hearing is imminent, we will not change the current pattern of access.' The judge described the Final Hearing as imminent even though no date had been set. The Final Hearing occurred 12 months later.

Final Hearing

Justice Carmody comes across as reasonable and even-handed. He gave the impression that he made allowances for the fact that the respondent was self-representing.

However Justice Carmody stated that the father was inexperienced as a father, even though the father had brought up a 14 year old daughter and currently had sole residency, and had more experience than the mother.

In property settlement he took into consideration scrappy evidence of shopping grocery bills paid by the mother, did not tally the items where a major arithmetical mistake had been made, accepted as evidence a bank form which had been filled in but had not been stamped, nor had the main form even been separated from the butt. He ignored completely that over $5,000 had been received by the mother for Family Benefit and that this amount should be taken into consideration when calculating who had spent what. Because the father had not kept shopping grocery bills from four years prior, it was assumed he hadn't bought any.

Father was able to prove that sexual abuse allegations in the Affidavits by the mother and maternal grandmother were completely fabricated because the mother had not even mentioned these presumably serious issues during her meeting with the Family Court child psychologist who was writing the Family Report. When asked by the father during cross-examination why she didn't raise these serious issues with the child psychologist, the mother responded after a pause that she hadn't had enough time. When asked how long the meeting had gone for she replied that she couldn't remember. When asked again she said she though the meeting had gone for one hour. The father was able to show that the meeting had lasted one hour and 45 minutes.

Even though the father was lucky to be able to prove that serious allegations of sexual abuse were totally false, there was not even a word of caution from the judge or from anyone.

Even though the mother works fulltime and is on call some nights and weekends, and even though the father was available to care for the child any time and all the time, and even though the child had a sibling at the father's home, it was deemed in the child's best interest to be located with the mother. One of the justifications of giving sole residency to the mother has been that the father is working fulltime and the mother is available to look after the child. Here we see the double standard of the Family Court and bias against fathers in action.

During the Final Hearing the self-representing father was not reacting quickly enough - that is immediately resuming his seat the moment the Applicant's barrister, Josephine Willis interjected. After a couple of reminders, Josephine Willis turned to the father, and at a distance of approximately 50cm, shouted 'When I stand you sit ! You got that ?! When I stand you sit !' Speechless, the father did not respond. Rather he later approached the Barrister and calmly explained that as he had never been in court before, much less been self-representing, he will try to remember as best he can, but may forget again. It also occurred to the father that the behaviour of the barrister Josephine Willis was deliberately provocative, and constituted intimidation. Justice Carmody was witness to this extreme outburst but said nothing.

Justice Carmody ordered Respondent to pay Applicant $5,000 towards their legal fees

Justice Carmody ordered the Respondent father to pay $5,000 towards the legal fees of the Applicant. This was despite the fact that:

1. the father had made offers for settlement and the mother had made none.

2. Residency orders were closer to what the father had sought than what the mother had sought.

3. that generally Respondents do not have to pay legal fees of the Applicant.

Eddy Lago, solicitor for the Applicant had argued that the Respondent had drawn things out so the two-day Final Hearing was longer than it needed to have been. The father pointed out that cross-examination of the father by the mother's Barrister was significantly longer than cross-examination of the mother by the father.

The father in his Orders Sought asked that pick-ups and drop-offs of the child be reciprocated - ie each parent do their own pick-ups such that drop-offs are eliminated. Justice Carmody didn't see this as a reasonable request and ordered that the father do all pick-ups and drop-offs.

The father asked that the mother use the child's surname as described on his birth certificate (the father's surname) rather than changing it to her own to avoiod confusion as to which letter the child is listed under at school, with Medicare etc etc. Justice Carmody suggested that this was one issue that in the new spirit of cooperation, the father and mother could resolve amongst themselves. One year later this issue has not been resolved.

An easy obvious general policy solution would be for boys to take the surname of their father and girls to take the surname of their mother.

Justice Carmody gave 68% of assets to the mother even though she had contributed on 24% (according to the father). He said 'This is a global assessment and I am not required to, and will not provide a breakdown for this figure.' Not even a justification for this decision was given.

'I expect by then you two will be able to sort things out yourselves.'

The Family Report was based on meetings of the Family Court child psychologist, Marilyn Venus, and the mother, and then the father. The child's 14yr old step-sister was also required for an interview, though the child's maternal grandmother, with whom the child resides while the mother is working.

The Child Psychologist also sat in a small room observing and taking notes while the father and child 'interacted'. Similarly this took place with the mother. That this is such an unnatural situation in which to be objectively observing child parent behaviour, and that so much hangs in the balance with this half hour 'observation' is disregarded. One can easily walk along a plank located one metres above the ground, but suspend the same plank between two buildings 100m of the ground and the result is quite different.

Nevertheless, the interviews and observations went smoothly. In the Family Report, the Child Psychologist recommended a three stage increase in contact with the father. Marilyn Venus said to the father following the release of the report 'I didn't go all the way to equal residency because I felt I'd intervened enough, and I thought that by the time he goes to school, I expect by then you two will be able to sort things out yourselves.' What a big assumption considering the mother was willing to fabricate sexual abuse allegations amongst other blatant untruths in her Affidavits.

The father asked the Child Psychologist why the Family Court granted equal residency in so few cases. She said 'you have no idea of some of the fathers we have come through here.' 'Are many of them so terrible ?' the father asked. 'Oh no, most of them are very good fathers' she responded. 'So why is equal residency granted in less than 5% of cases ?' the father continued. The Family Court Child Psychologist, Marilyn Venus, did not respond. She looked at her notes, shuffled her papers and changed the subject.

The judgment of Justice Carmody

In his Contact Orders, Justice Carmody followed the recommendations of the Family Court Child Psychologist. He was only going to make orders until the beginning of 2007 which would have meant father and mother would be posturing for the next two years preparing for the next round in the court. The judge had given some excerpts from the Family Law Act during to read during the lunch break. One part of the Act is a recommendation - when making orders, consider orders which minimise the need to return to court. The father pointed this out to the judge. Justice Carmody seemed irritated. However, in his Final Orders he put in a fourth contact stage beginning in 2007 and continuing indefinitely.

The father pointed out to the judge that while stages one to three were progressively increasing, stage four would be regressive and that there was no apparent logic in this. The judge responded that when a child starts school, both parents have less time. The father responded that even taking this into account, the child would have less percentage contact with the father. The judge replied irritably 'well I'm not going to change it now.'

We were handed a copy of the Orders for perusal. Eddy Lago, solicitor for the mother approached the father after a bout five minutes saying, 'Well we're finished. Are you finished ? We should go back in.' He was obviously pressuring me to agree. However, I took my time reading over the Orders.

I noticed that the judge had deviated from the recommendations of the Child Psychologist by Ordering pick up at 7.30pm rather than 7.30am. The judge, again irritable, remarked that that was just a 'typo.' 'Typo' it might have been, but had I not pointed it out at that moment it most likely have remained irrevocable.

Do you mean to say the Family Court process actually creates conflict?

The father argued that it would be better to have Final Orders that could give finality to the Family Court process rather than orders which require returning to the Court in two years time, because the adversarial Family Court process amplifies conflict, and we need to resolve conflict. Justice Carmody was unable to fathom this argument. 'Do you mean to say that if two people come to the Family Court and there is no conflict between them then the court will create conflict ?' he asked. I responded 'if two people come to the Family Court is usually means that there is already conflict between them, but the way the Family Court operates means that solicitors will search for ammunition, and that there will be more accusations and counter-accusations as a result.

one more fuitile letter to a Senator

Dear Mr Stephens,

This is my desperate plea for all of you to consider the joy good health and success in life of children who enjoy the ongoing love guidance and care of both the parents after separation of their parents, and so avoid the conflict, distress and emotional devastation caused when one parent is empowered to exclude the other parent after separation or divorce.

International research studies overwhelmingly show that children who have suffered the substantial or complete removal on one of their parents suffer several times the incidence of low self esteem, depression, drug abuse, poor academic achievement, teenage pregnancies (girls) increased trouble with police (boys) mental illness, metal illness and suicide.

Children continually say they want to live with both their parents. They don't want one of them taken away. It is simply a lie to suggest otherwise. It is preposterous to suggest that children are harmed or destabilised by spending half their time with each of their parents. Moving from household to household adds excitement, interest, contrast and the love and guidance of the other parent. It is a joy for children, and a right. To say otherwise is a lie promoted by those that have a financial interest in the devastation caused to children when one of their parents is banished from their lives.

Unfortunately, for our children, the government relies on vested interests, including the Family Court, the Law Council of Australia, Relationships Australia, the Family Court's Institute of Family Studies among others, for its information and advice on issues relating to family law. The government allows these groups to misrepresent research on children's issues which, contrary to their representations has overwhelmingly supported the inclusion of both parents in children's lives.

All of these groups and organisations have made formal submissions to government opposing reforms that would allow children to enjoy the love care and guidance of both of their parents in their lives.

These groups would mostly be out of business if the government reformed legislation to allow children equal access and contact with both their parents.

The parent exclusion business is a multi billion dollar business, and therefore exerts immense pressure on government to maintain the status quo. The money is made because parents typically spend everything they have and more, to protect their children from the damage that mutually exclusive custody outcomes cause.

Ask anybody in the street, any grandparent, any sister, brother, any mother who hasn't been got at by Family Court practitioners, any media poll. They'll all tell you the same thing. The vast majority of people want children to be spared the trauma and damage caused by having one of their parents vilified and removed by the Family Court and its practitioners. Don't rely on vested interest for your information because they will support their livelihoods.

The best outcome for children under the current system is a weekend a fortnight and half holidays. Typically this gets reduced to a couple of hours in a "Contact Centre" or none at all during litigation. This is nothing short of a horror story for children.

I call on you to support an independent review of research, all of which has been submitted in the many enquires into Family Courts since its inception in 1975.

"Equal parenting responsibility" does nothing to ease the conflict caused by the exclusion of one of the parents. Nothing in the government's proposed legislation makes it harder for a lawyers to deny a child contact with both their parent.

The proposition that a Family Court should consider equal time with both parents is testimony to the Court's opposition to allowing children both their parents. What do you think it was supposed to be doing in the first place? The suggestion that it only has to do this when its in a child's best interests is blantantly dishonest because it fails to recognise that it is almost always in a child's best interest to have both parents in their lives equally.

The Family Relationship Centres proposed by the government do not address the damage done to children by the mutually exclusive policy of the Family Court and its practitioners. This initiative is a deliberate effort to avoid reforming the Family Court and the Family Law Act. The proposal is a ruse, a humbug. Whilst mediation between separating and divorcing parents is always helpful, the problems can not be solved until the Family Court and its practitioners are prevented from excluding one of a child's parents through a process of vilification of that parent.

Three hours at a Family Relationships Centre can not deliver a reduction of conflict through improved sharing of parenting for a fundamental reason - because Family Relationships Centres will be run my organizations who have publicly opposed improved contact with the otherwise excluded parent.

The proposed Family Relationship Centres have been promoted as a way of allowing separating couples to ovoid the Family Court. As a solution, ending Family Court support of summary and ongoing exclusion of one of the parent has been thrown out in preference to an experiment in counselling. Leaving the court to continue its destructive ways. Nothing has been done to change the law applying to summary and ongoing exclusion of one of a child's parents.

I suggest to you that the fix is VERY simple. As in many things the solution is to remove the problem. The problem is the forced exclusion of one of a child's parents.

Accordingly the fix is brought about by;

1. Insisting that laws are passed that protect children from having one of their parents summarily, and unilaterally excluded by the other, a situation that the court currently endorses,

2. Insisting on laws that make the summary exclusion of one of the child's parents illegal,

3. Insisting on laws that allow any excluded parent to apply for immediate relief by way of enforceable court order. A parent must be able to make urgent application to the Family Court for immediate relief from their exclusion if the other parent has been obstructed them from having equal contact with their children. In other words a reversal of the presumption that an excluded parent must mount a lengthy and often unaffordable legal campaign (more often than not against Legal Aid funded lawyers) to seek that which the court currently denies in almost all contested cases - equal involvement with a parent's children, by so doing preventing the excluding parent from arguing that the wrongfully established status quo of one parent being excluded should prevail - ie: equal time parenting for all parents who want to (and can) stay involved in and relevant to their children's lives must be protected by law.

4. Insisting that Section 121 of the Family Law Act is rewritten to make the Court and its practitioners fully accountable to the public. Section 121 should only afford protection from publicity for the child, unless such publicity is needed to protect the child from sharp practice of court practitioners or bullying from the court when an excluded parent objects to their child being abused by process.

The biggest benefit of this "fix" is that it prevents most custody battles from even starting - when there is no summary exclusion of one parent, in most cases there is no issue to be fought over.

The vast majority of custody litigation is caused by the courts endorsement of the exclusion of one parent, because any parent will do everything they possibly can to protect their children.

Current family law legislation must be reformed so that the Court's role is;

i) providing immediate relief for any parent that has been summarily excluded from their child's life,

ii) resolution of financial matters between parents that reflect both parenst role in their children's lives, and

iii) in rare situations protecting children where one parent can be shown to be a danger to their own children.

The bond between a child and both its parents should not be breached unless and only unless a court has found on evidence that a child's contact time with either or both their parents was seriously dangerous for the child (ie: in extreme circumstances) and not in circumstances where one or both parents had demonstrated a functional capacity before the separation or divorce.

The government's proposals should be rejected because they do not address the problems they purport to.

For the sake of our children I implore you to protect them from the damage caused by a money driven adversarial system that literally destroys lives.

Regards,
Simon

Family Law Reform - Letter to Attorney General

Hi, still haven't got this Blog page fixed up the way I want it meanwhile however I thought I would post some of the letters I wrote in my desperate efforts to prevent the practitioners and courts from ejecting me from my daughter life - all to no avail.

This letter is among many that illustrate the utter hopelessness of trying to protect children from the abuse of the Family Court and its practitioners, who see their job as punishing and exclusding one of the parents. Sadly, the easiest way to hurt a parent is my hurting their child and this exactly what they do - knowinglyit seems.

I've removed the names to protect myself against the sectreacy laws that protect the Family Court from accountability.

Outcry

25/06/05

The Hon. Philip Ruddock MP
Australian Government
PO Box 1866
Hornsby Westfield, NSW 1635

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your response of 24 May 2005.

Please note however the issue is not the enforcement of Court orders. The issues I raised were the Child representative misrepresentations, and the disturbing fact that despite allegations of sexual abuse being found not to have substantiation the Family Court has instead relied on these representations in denying me ANY contact with my daughter for over a year now.

Needless to say the Family Relationship Centres have no barring on the courts interpretation of the law or its reliance on child representative solicitors that can act to destroy a child relationship a child would otherwise have with one of their parents. Your new FRCs may provide mothers the opportunity to avoid the devastating court process - sometimes, if the mediator doesn't have the typical anti father attitude social workers are well known to favour. However if no changes are made to family law and how the Court administers it, whats the point? Mediation sessions will be a means of reading the riot act. If father's don't like it - bad luck. Without changes in the Law, the court's attitude and its interpretation of the Law this measure will in the main be useless.

I will forward my complaints to the Office of Premier and the Hon Robert Hull. Your never know they may decide to break ranks and do something to protect my daughter. Given the refusal of the other state bodies to address these serious issues I won't be holding my breath.

You may be interested to know that I am in the middle of my final hearing, however after five day in court Justice Carter adjourned the case for six weeks whilst she went on her country run. Another six weeks of not knowing if my daughter is dead or alive! I am still restrained from talking to, writing to or seeing my daughter, whom I'm told the lawyer representing my wife, after years of being angry at her mother's attitude towards me, now says she hates me.

These judges have a litigious perspective that needs to see one of the parents as guilty, the other innocent. They don't get it!. A child's well being is dependant on a relationship with both parents. The court's role should be preventing one parent from excluding the other. Instead they do the opposite. They facilitates the exclusion of the child's other parent, empowering one parent to vilify, demoralise and often destroy the other parent.

The solicitor appointed by the court to be my daughter's Child Rep justified his obstruction of my contact with my daughters by saying he's "entitled to have a view". Given the outcome and the serious damage to my daughter's life, how can this be said to be in the her best interests?

The application of the adversarial legal system is against the interests of the child.

Clearly the laws have to be changed to address the ease with which one parent can sever a child's relationship with the other parent on teh advise of lawyers and various "professionals" under the existing Family Law Act.

I respectfully submit that to do nothing about this situation, where there is opportunity for remedy is tantamount to child abuse on a massive scale.


Yours faithfully,

Should I Apologize For Being Angry?

Should I Apologize For Being Angry?
> By George Rolph
>
>
> I have heard it muted that men will never be able to pull
> together and fight as one, until they stop being angry at women. The
> reason given for this logic is that many other men will not join the
> men's movement if they think its made up of men who are angry at women
> because, their sense of chivalry will create in them an inherent need to
> defend women. While this logic is faultless, I wonder if its underlying
> premise is faulty. Allow me to explain.
>
> I agree completely that gratuitous rage at ALL women is bizarre
> and probably borders on the mentally deranged scale of social sanity, if
> it does not correct itself in time in the men affected. I also believe
> however, that Radical Feminism is infested with females who ARE mentally
> deranged because of their blind hatred for all things male. Having said
> that, I also believe that men have a right to be angry at those women
> who have, by various means, set out to destroy everything that those men
> hold dear.
>
> Now, if some guy (or woman)tells me that, because I am angry at
> the abuses I have suffered personally and witnessed against other men,
> he/she will not stand with me, my answer to him is a simple and direct
> one; Good! Go away, because you are not welcome. If the pain of your
> past fathers, present brothers and future sons, is less important than
> your old fashioned attitudes towards savage females, go be a Radical
> Feminist!
>
> I firmly believe that as men, we have to get real here and
> understand exactly what it is we are fighting; who the enemy are; what
> they have done and are doing to men; how they are doing it and what we
> have to do to defeat it all. There is a huge and growing roll of fallen
> men who have given their very lives because they have suffered massive
> personal and/or shared damage to their families, their finances and
> their reputations by females and hate filled female political
> philosophies.
>
> Men who, like my own father, have placed shotguns in their
> mouths. Men who have burned themselves to death in protests. Men who
> have jumped off bridges. Men who have starved themselves in hunger
> strikes. Men who have lost their sanity. Men who have been raped in
> every way imaginable by a savage, feminised system and become homeless
> drifters. Men who have gassed themselves in cars. Men stripped of their
> families, children and reputations. Men falsely accused of horrendous
> crimes who have preferred death to trying to live with such a stain on
> their character. Men who have watched helplessly as crippling child
> support payments have destroyed their ability to earn or keep a business
> running. Men who have been sent to jail for waving at their children in
> a passing car and so found themselves in breach of a no contact order.
> Men trapped in horrifying and savagely abusive relationships they cannot
> escape from or find any help to manage, because the system set up by
> women, for women, will not allow them in. Men being forced to pay child
> support for children they did not father. Men losing jobs because of
> invented sexual discrimination allegations. Men who, every day, have to
> read and watch incredibly insulting things said about their gender in
> endless press reports, magazine articles (often written by bitter
> females) on TV shows and in movies. In India , over a million males were
> forcibly castrated on the orders of a female premier. Just how damn
> patient do they want us to be?
>
> No matter how much those on the fringes of the men's movement
> (I.e. Internet radio commentators and journalists) think men's anger is
> somehow, uncivilised, many men have very good reason to be furious and
> its that fury that drives them on. What those detractors should be
> thankful for is the massive restraint those angry men are showing. Those
> men have every right to storm the courts and government buildings and
> start shooting.
> The fact that they do not is a testament to their incredible
> patience and wonderfully noble characters! Forty years of insults and
> assaults by women and feminised men is enough to make any man angry. For
> me, the problem is not so much the angry men, as the men who dont get
> angry.
>
> The assault against the male gender has long gone past the cafe
> chatting stage. Those who observe the mens movement and tut, tut at the
> rage they see and hear, as they sip their coffee in the Internet cafe or
> office canteen, should understand just how close to a world wide and
> massive male rebellion we are all coming. If it does blow up, it will be
> very ugly indeed. While that prospect is frightening and one that must
> be headed off if possible, it will not be done by side line commentators
> telling men to cool it. These men are not going to cool it. What must be
> done is to find constructive ways to channel that anger. That has to
> start with education.
>
> Know your enemy is the first rule of warfare and, make no
> mistake, this is a war! What is more, it is a war that MUST be won! Our
> enemy is not all women but some women and some men. The modern missiles
> aimed at men are bigotry, lies, deception, disinformation,
> misinformation; hate dressed up as equality, political propaganda of the
> worst kind and wholesale political manipulation of the populations
> around the world. All of these things are falsehoods and all are
> missiles of the mind. Therefore, the fundamental weapons of our warfare
> are truth, justice and personal integrity. Shields of the mind.
>
> The instrument of the weapons formed against men is Radical
> Feminism. Therefore, they are our enemy. The history of what they have
> said and done are our ammunition. Calling them to account socially,
> legally, morally and financially is our goal. That includes anyone:
> Journalists, judges, lawyers, publishers, politicians, TV executives,
> teachers, policemen and on and on, who have pressed these injustices
> onto innocent and helpless men and families for personal, political, or
> corporate advantage and gain. We have to make the supporters of this
> foul Radical Feminist political movement into social pariahs. We must do
> this as a warning that will sound loud and clear throughout history,
> that the likes of these vermin will not be tolerated again. Just as we
> did with that other bigotry called, Nazism.
>
> A friend of mine was in the army. I asked him, What would you do
> if you are on a battlefield and you see a women charging towards you
> with a gun and the intent to kill you? I would shoot her. No
> hesitation? I asked. Nope! None. He said, emphatically. OK. I replied.
> What would you do if you were in a corner at home and your wife was
> standing over you with an axe with the intention of burying it in your
> head? He thought hard before replying. Finally he asked, I cant get
> away? No. You are slumped in a corner and she has the axe raised. There
> was a long silence, and then he said, I would pray.
>
> Chivalry aimed at the wrong people will utterly destroy men who
> wont fight back. If they want to stand by and watch as vicious,
> politically motivated attacks destroy all they are and all they love,
> then they have no place in the men's movement at all. On the other hand,
> if they understand this is a real war, then they can shoot back with
> legal weapons and need not fear. The enemy has to be stopped and curling
> up in a trench and hoping, that if he is polite, she will not bayonet
> him with a false allegation or a new law designed to rip his life apart
> is, frankly, stupid! It was that attitude that got us into this mess in
> the first place.
>
> Violence is not the answer, but neither is Chivalry. This gender
> war is costing too many lives to be fought as if it was an 18th century
> battle between gentlemen. It isnt! Men did not start the war but men
> have to win it. The time has come to fight back with the best weapon we
> have... The truth! Sometimes the truth is a cruel weapon.
>
>
> I understand there are women in the men's movement who find
> men's anger difficult to deal with. Perhaps they have had too many
> compliant men around them for too long, I dont know. But those women who
> do join us had better not start to lecture us about how its so very
> important to be nice. Nice, will cost you your family, property,
> reputation and all you have earned, if you are male. If history has
> shown anything to men, that is it.
>
> Save your lectures for kindergarten kids. Dont make the mistake
> of talking down to us because, if you do, we will turn against you also.
> Roll up your sleeves and fight beside us or get out of the way. If you
> do that you are welcome, if not, then go away! There are not many social
> workers found on battlefields and we dont want to be mummied out of our
> anger thank you very much!
>
> Should I apologise for being angry? Hell no! I have every right
> to be angry.
>
> George Rolph grolph12@...
>
> Biography:
>
> George Rolph is a 52 year old male living close to the edge of
> London in the UK . He is a writer and a specialist in domestic violence
> and abuse issues. In particular, male victims of domestic abuse.
>
> George campaign for males against the extraordinary bias and
> bigotry they face in everyday life. His aim is to raise awareness of
> these things and encourage males to understand the truth about our
> history and rights.

Children's Interests Vs Vested Interests.

Children's Interests Vs Vested Interests.
Should kids be allowed equal access to their dads after divorce?

The federal government proposed “Shared Parenting Bill”, being debated in parliament this week, is supposed to make it easier for children to enjoy the love, care and influence of both their parents and end the trauma and damage of the profitable business of excluding one parent by application to the Family Court.

Clearly conflict is against the best interests of children yet the Family Court and its ancillary practitioners promote conflict as an alternative to equal time parenting.

Unfortunately, lawyers that specialise in Family Law make their money from conflict not resolution. Typically intervention orders are used that turn the father into an instant criminal (punishable by jail) if he attempts to see his children outside the restricted times that have been dictated. Intervention orders handed out without the need to prove any wrong doing, typically start a process that causes tremendous harm to children, who as a consequence experience several times the incidence of underachievement, depression, mental illness, drug abuse, and suicide as they grow older.

Excluding any child’s father (or mother when it occasionally swings this way) through a process of false allegation, intimidation, and vilification represents emotional torture for the father, and, very serious abuse of the children.

The debate is about whether or not a child gets to grow up with the care and guidance of both their parents. Its not a debate between men and women, as we so often get told. It’s a debate between the “vested interests” - people who derive their livelihood from securing mutually exclusive custody arrangements for children on one side, and parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters - ordinary Australians that know children should be protected from harm and given every opportunity to succeed in life, on the other.

Unfortunately the vested interests are typically seen as experts and their views widely publicised by a media who is less willing to air the views of ordinary people who have no commercial interest in compromising children’s lives.

If parliament can deliver the commitment expressed by Prime Minister John Howard to reduce the epidemic of fatherlessness in our community, they will do so in defiance of lawyers and associated social workers and practitioners who profit from this misery industry.

They will succeed in replacing the conflict that is a living Hell for so many of Australia’s children, with a common sense solution that delivers happiness and fulfilment to the children, and their parents, neither of whom need be aggrieved.

If parliament again fails to reform the Family Law Court (it’s tried two times before), it should ensure that fathers are spared the suffering of expecting to be allowed to stay a part of their children’s lives, by publicly acknowledging the Family Court’s mutually exclusive policy on child custody arrangements, thereby allowing fathers to spare their children the torment of the process.

Simon Hunt (excluded father)
Mornington