Another battle for shared parenting

Another battle for shared parenting - damn shame there's so much money in restricting time with Dad.
Please go to http://thefamilycourtphenomenon.blogspot.com/ for dicussion of why mothers get so easily talked inot to stopping their children seeing their Dad.
______
Outcry

Hi,

I dont contact very often but my Hsband and I have a mediation meeting with his ex and her new partner tomorrow. We have court orders in place that are 7 years old. We have broached them about shared parenting. I have two step kids that are 8 and 6. They both would like to spend more time with us. We now have 3 of our own 5 4 and 10 mths.

She has flat out said no. She and her husband also have a 4 yr old. We have had a pretty good relationship up till now always been able to sort stuff out. This is different. She has told the kids no way is it going to happen and has told them that we want to keep them forever. She asked them what they wanted and my stepson said he wanted to spend more time with us. She told him to move in with us and burst into tears. She has also told them that their 4 yr old will be lonly and is making them feel responsible for him.

I dont want to ruin the kids with a big court fight but I also think that they will be beter of if we have week on week off access. Their are also a few small incidents that we have issues with like sending my stepdaughter to school with headlice stuff in her hair or not brushing hair properly so their are huge knots or taking them out on delivery runs until 9.30 at night. We would like them to be part of normal family routine and have a normal relationship with them instead of trying to push it into every second weekend.

My oldest goes to the same school as his bro and sis and so I know theirs no geographical probs. I think maintenance or loss of is a big part of it but you cant say that can you.

Regards

Liz

PS wish me luck

Senator Dan Sullivan MLC Western Australia - Hansard

RUSSELL WOOD-MAYA WOOD-HOSIG - CHILD CUSTODY
Grievance

MR D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN (Leschenault) [10.00 am]: My grievance is to
the Minister for Community Development and is on the behalf of the
two children of Mr Russell Wood and Mrs Maya Wood-Hosig. Both their
10-year- old-daughter and eight-year-old son are Australian citizens.
Both were born in Western Australia.

Mr Wood and his wife split up, and the custody of their children
became a matter for the Family Court of Western Australia. At the
time both parents lived in Western Australia, and both had access to
the children.

A few years ago, Mrs Wood abducted the children, and, using false
passports, took the children to Switzerland. That was her second
attempt to abduct the children. After applications were made to The
Hague, the children were located in April 2003. However, the mother
then hid the children from the Swiss authorities. After the mother
refused to cooperate and return to Australia, the Wood children were
eventually detained by the Swiss authorities and placed in an
institutionalised home in Switzerland's for a year until they could
be returned to Australia.

Upon arrival in Australia, the Wood children were not returned to
their father and their father's extended local family, as one might
have thought, but were placed in the care of the Department for
Community Development.

This arrangement, which was supposed to be temporary, was due to the
children's perceived problems with the English language. I am
informed that the Swiss judge who personally escorted the children to
the aeroplane expected that the children would be returned to their
father after a short while. However, it soon became clear that the
Department for Community Development did not agree with the court and
would not support the return of the children to their father. The
department did not develop a reunification plan for the family, and
nor did it develop a schedule for handover to the father, who has
been allowed only four hours a week of strictly supervised access
since April 2005, although more recently a more liberal overnight
contact arrangement has been calculated.

In the first week of July amendments were made to the federal Family
Law Act. Those amendments were made just days after the family court
judgment in this case. Amazingly, just days before the amended
federal law came into effect, Justice Penny of the Family Court of
Western Australia ordered that the children be returned to their
mother in Switzerland. It seems that decision was made on that date
quite deliberately to ensure that Mr wood could not benefit from the
new shared parenting, or father-friendly, components of the amended
Family Law Act. Although there are a number of serious concerns about
the court's decision, I am focusing today on the department's role in
this matter.

Throughout all that time, Judge Penny never met and interviewed the
Wood children herself.

This makes it all the more important to know the role of the officers
of the Department for Community Development in this matter, what
advice they gave the judge, and how they influenced the judge's
decision.

Justice Penny set a deadline for the children deportation of 1
September. That is less than one week away. That means the Wood
children will not even be able to spend Father's Day with their
father here in Western Australia.

The Shared Parenting Council of Australia advises that there is firm
evidence that at least one, if not two, employees or consultants of
the Department for Community Development, among the string of some 23
employees or consultants who have been involved in this case, have
committed serious breaches of procedure. Concerns have been raised
that these officers conducted a seemingly personal vendetta of
revenge for allegations made about the department by Mr Wood in his
mountain of affidavits.

If the minister's department had evidence that Mr Wood had harmed his
children, or posed a risk to them, this would be a valid reason to
keep him at arm's length from his children, or allow him only
strictly supervised access. However, despite allegations from Mrs
Wood-Hosig, the Family Court judge has repeatedly determined that Mr
Wood has committed no offence.

An officer from the Department for Community Development, Ms Gurner,
told the court that the department's actions were because, as she put
it, "Where there is smoke there is fire." This appears to have been
sole reason given by the Department for Community Development for its
extraordinary actions in this matter.

Minister, was this really the basis for keeping the Wood children
away from their parent for 19 months? Was this really the reason for
depriving the Wood children of direct contact with their father,
except under strict supervision for just four hours a week? Was this
why the Wood children were shuffled between six foster homes rather
than allowed to enjoy the love and comfort of their natural parents?
Why did the Department for Community Development, or the judge, never
explore the option of bringing the mother back to Australia so that
the children could be brought up in a shared parenting environment,
with ongoing and direct access to both parents?

I understand that the department placed the children in foster care
largely because it believed they did not have an adequate command of
the English language. I have in my hands a DVD of the daughter's
recent birthday party. It shows clearly both children thoroughly
enjoying themselves, with lots of friends and extended family
members, and - guess what - they both speak fluent English!

The first priority in matters such as this must always be to protect
the children. If there is indisputable evidence that a parent has
harmed a child or poses a risk to a child, or if there is another
overriding, serious and proved concern for a child's safety or
welfare, every caution must be taken. Conversely, in the absence of
such evidence or any reasonable explanation, and considering the
court's rejection of such allegations, there can only be one
conclusion. That is that officers from the Department for Community
Development deliberately contrived to try to prevent Mr Wood from
developing a normal relationship and strong parental bonds with his
children in order to jeopardise his chances of gaining fair access to
his children through the Family Court.

In so doing, the actions of these departmental officers have caused
two children, both Australian-born citizens, to be taken to another
country, far from their father, most likely never to see him again in
person during the remainder of their childhood years.

Yesterday I gave the minister six questions about this matter. The
minister's answers will enable us to determine whether the department
acted properly, or whether its officers acted in a biased,
destructive and vindictive way. If the latter is the case, I strongly
suggest that the minister has no option but to suspend the officers
and psychologists concerned and instigate a thorough and independent
investigation of his department's handling of this case.

I would ask that the minister answer the six questions, and then
provide further advice as he sees fit with regard to this matter.

I have a letter from Senator David Johnson to the federal Minister
for Justice and Customs calling for action to be taken in relation to
the passport fraud. A lot of people hope that ultimately that will
lead to extradition proceedings. I seek leave to lay that letter on
the table for the remainder of this day's sitting.

[The paper was tabled for the information of members.]

MR D.A. TEMPLEMAN (Mandurah - Minister for Community Development)
[10.07 am]: I thank the member for Leschenault for raising this
grievance with me. The member has highlighted a number of issues and
concerns. I am a little concerned that the member has also identified
certain people by name. I need to highlight at this point that, as
the member mentioned in his grievance, a decision had been made by
the Family Court of Western Australia that the children be returned
to their mother in Switzerland. This decision has been appealed by
the father's legal representatives. Accordingly, my advice is that I
cannot go into too much specific detail about the complexities of the
case - this is a complex case, as I am sure the member appreciates -
because that appeal is still before the court. My advice is that the
judge has made it very clear that until she makes her final decision,
the issue that she is considering should not be a matter for public
discussion.

I acknowledge the seriousness of this case, so I am not trying to -

Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: I am well aware of what Justice Penny has
said. She has said that she does not want this matter to go to the
media. She is obviously hoping the whole thing is kept quiet before
the kids are taken off to Switzerland. However, no court proceeding
is under way at the moment, so that does not prevent this Parliament
from discussing this matter.
<008> P/1

Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: I am very mindful that I do not want to prejudice
any decision that may be made by the Family Court in this matter,
particularly as it has now been appealed.

This case is an example of the complexities that occur when, for
whatever reason, relationships break down. This is a particularly
difficult case because, when this relationship broke down, one of the
parents decided to go to another country. Conflicts that arise
between parents muddy the situation, and the animosity between
partners can cause a great deal of grief for not only their
relationship but also, of course, the most important people in this
case, the children.

The new Children and Community Services Act emphasises that decisions
about children must be made in their best interests, and sometimes
the desires and aspirations of the parents conflict with the needs of
the children. The new legislation also makes it clear - I need to
highlight this to the member and others in this place - that the
voices of the children should be heard when decisions are being made
about their lives. The legislation contains provisions that ensure
that that happens.

Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Can I point out that that is an incredibly
important point, yet the justice of the Family Court never met or
interviewed these children. That is why it is so important to
understand the actions of your department, because those actions
influence this case like nothing else. Had the judge spoken to the
children, we may have seen a different situation.

Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: That is true, but it is not my responsibility nor
the responsibility of the department to direct the judge's
determination. The member is aware that under our legal system it is
the judge's determination and direction that has to be carried out
under the law.

I understand the member's point that the judge - in his view and the
view of others - should have attempted to discuss the specific issues
of this case with the parents. I do not have a great problem with
that point of view. However, in the context of this case, the
department could not have directed the judge. When this matter comes
to appeal recommendations will be made.

Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: We are running out of time. There is one key
question: does your department have evidence that Mr Wood posed a
risk to the children or that he has harmed them? That is crucial.

Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: When I received the member's question yesterday, I
sought advice. Because of the complexities of this matter and
because, to be honest, a number of issues have been highlighted to
me, particularly in regard to the children and their responses, this
is a very serious case. I take very seriously what I need to do for
the member to ensure that the member's questions are answered. I will
organise an immediate briefing on this case as a matter of priority.

I will make sure that one of my staff attends that briefing so that
that person can respond to me directly. I will ensure that a senior
manager of the department also attends that briefing. The member has
highlighted the father's concerns specifically, and he must have his
interests heard. I will organise that briefing for the member as soon
as possible.

Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Thank you, minister; that is much
appreciated.

Rubens' story

Do women own their children?
You would think so, if my experiences are anything to go by.

I’ve had the misfortune of being involved in two relationships that did not
last. Each produced one child. After 12 years of marriage, on the first
occasion, my wife and I drifted apart to the point where there was no more
purpose in continuing together. At least, that is how I felt and hence, I
walked out of the marriage.

We were building a house at the time, or at least I, was building a house.
We were short of real finances and therefore I was doing ALL the work in
building what was to be our future home. She sat back and read Mills & Boon
books whilst I worked two jobs and spent every spare time working on the
house.

When I walked out I said to her that I’d come back to finish the house and
she could then keep the lot. All I wanted was to see my then eight year old
daughter. There was no violence or anything approaching that. There was,
however, a lot of emotion and crying, etc., mostly on her part. These things
are never easy but sometimes one has no choice.

Two weeks later, I had a policeman at my door serving me with an AVO. I rang
her to see what she was up to and she said that I should just walk of their
life permanently and that I should forget seeing my daughter ever again.

To cut a story short. I hired a solicitor and promptly fired him when the
first bill was for over $1000 back in January 1991. I had access orders that
were never complied with and eventually I filed for full custody, as it was
then known. I got interim custody of my child in August 1991 and eventually
had full custody some 2 years later after an incredible amount of court
actions on her behalf accusing me of everything from sexual assault of my
daughter to putting her in moral danger and to not even ensuring her
cleanliness. All nicely funded by us, the taxpayers, through Legal Aid. I,
on the other hand had to run my own case without the luxury of such help.

Legal Aid felt I had no prospects of winning, not even after she hired a man
to kill me when she realised things weren’t going her way, and that man
actually shot me. She was charged along with her mother for conspiring to
have me killed. The only person to do any time was the gun man. And he only
did just over three years. There’s justice for you. Rob a bank with a gun
and get ten years, plan a murder and attempt it and because you’re a bad
shot, you get three years and a bit with remissions.

It WAS nice to prove Legal Aid wrong though

That was a time that took away whatever fight I had in me, or so I thought.

Jump forward 4 years and I meet a lady I thought I would try to build a life
with. I fell in love. We moved into a home together after a few months and
all seemed well, well, almost. My daughter and her did not exactly get on
like a house on fire.

Nonetheless, we managed to produce a child two years into our relationship
and all seemed well. My daughter, however, felt more more alienated by my
new partner and eventually decided that she would go and live with her
mother, who had not bothered to see her in the eight years our daughter
lived with me. Regretfully, I thought it was probably for the best as far as
my daughter was concerned.

We lasted as a couple another year or so. The strains of my daughter living
and the underlying reasons for her living put a strain on our relationship.
When we eventually separated I suddenly realised I had lost both my
children. To not be able to see them every day left such a void in my life I
thought it wasn’t worth living. I attempted to gas myself but I was
interrupted about an hour too soon.

Jump forward a couple of months and my now ex partner and I came to an
understanding that I should have as much contact with our boy as possible.
She promised me she would not be like my first wife and make contact
difficult.

She was true to her word for six years, to the point where I spent every
rostered day off at her home helping her with her various jobs, she worked
from home. I even trained her in the use of computers. She went from a
technophobe to one where she was running an E bay business.

More than anything, I managed to build a deep and loving relationship with
our son. In fact I probably spent more time with our son per week than a
normal father that usually leaves home as the children are having breakfast
and only gets home as the children are getting up from their dinner.

I was lucky that I worked mostly long overnight shifts. That meant that I
was rostered off on nine days every three weeks. It also allowed me to coach
my son’s soccer team even on days when I was working. That meant going with
little sleep on those days but it was worth every minute of sleep I missed
out on. So you see, I was as close a live-in father as a child can get.

There was another reason for my spending so much time with my ex partner. I
still love her and I was hoping against hope that one day we might rekindle
what we had. I never made a move towards that end because I never saw a sign
that such an approach would be welcome and I didn’t want to risk my
closeness to the people I loved so very much.

In June this year, things fell apart big time. My ex had just had an
operation and I was living there in order to nurse her through her recovery.
I heard her on the phone every night at nine and when I asked who it was she
broke my heart when she told me that it was a man she had met.

I knew the day would come but it hurt anyway. Despite it all, I told her she
was quite free to do that and that it really was something I was expecting.
It would change things a bit, in that I wouldn’t be able to spend so much
time at her home but as I lived close by, I would still see our son as
often, only at my place. She told me then that she had another short affair
with a sales rep that used to visit her home to sell her stock for her E bay
business and that she had taken our son to a dinner date with him on
Mother’s Day eve.

I had worked all that night and came to her house in the morning, about 8am,
and cooked her breakfast so that she had it in bed, gave her her presents
with our son and all that goes with mother’s day. Knowing what had gone on
the night before did not make me feel at all good.

My father was, and is, recovering from a bout of cancer at the time and I
was on my way to visit him at Port Macquarie the following weekend and was
going to spend a week with him, I was on annual leave. Before leaving, I
asked my ex to not introduce the new boyfriend to our son. I explained to
her that it wasn’t good, especially for boys, to see their mother go through
a string of boyfriends. I took a train to my parents on the Saturday morning
and she took our son to Darling Harbour that afternoon to meet the new boy.
She then took him on an outing with him again on the long weekend Monday.

When I found out, I called my son on Monday, I was angry and told her she
was in fact whoring around with our son and that it was immoral to do so. I
got back the following weekend to discover that the new boy had visited her
home bringing along presents for our son, the ‘Back to the Future’ trilogy.
She tried to tell me that he just happened to have the dvd’s in the car and
that it was only a loan. I wonder how many 45 yo men carry the ‘Back to the
Future’ trilogy in their car.

Things have got to the point where we now hardly speak and she negotiates
contact with our son through him, an eight year old boy! – I hear her in the
background saying things like it’s Saturday between 10 and 6 or nothing. She
drove him on a 600 klms round trip a couple of weekends back to a funeral
for the sister in law of a close friend of hers, someone she hardly knew,
even though she knew other members of the family quite well.

Our son had never met this woman and his mother thought that it was better
for him to go and see people he hardly knew mourning a death than to have
him spend time with his father. Last weekend, the Saturday or nothing
weekend. She took him to a dinner with her auntie, her husband and her
auntie’s friend, all people over 65 years of age. The occasion? Her auntie’s
sister had died and they had come down from the Gold Coast for the funeral.
The dinner was a farewell to the auntie. Another more desirable event for my
son to attend than to spend time with his father.

When told that she’s messing our son up and that I, as a joint custodian of
our son, did not approve, her response is I will decide what is best for MY
son.

So I ask again – Do women own their children?


I have asked for the standard second weekend contact from the court. In view
of the latest goings on though, I will be altering the final orders that I
will be seeking to shared residence. A week in each home is what I want. He
would still attend the same school, etc.

We will see then if the courts agree that mothers, by virtue of their womb,
are entitled to behave as though they own their children. Or maybe it’ll be
pointed out to me that by virtue of my testicles, I can’t decide what is in
the best interest of my child.

It'll be pointed out to me that it’s ok to take your child on dates with
what amounts to a new squeeze, to put it nicely, and to take him to funerals
and wakes instead of my spending time with him. It’ll maybe be pointed out
to me that an eight year old witnessing strangers mourning is less damaging
for him than to spend time with a loving father.

I’ll keep you posted.

Rubens

Unemployed father denied sole residence of his son

In McMillan v Jackson (1995) 12 an unemployed father denied sole residence of his son because the trial court considered him a poor role model for his son was found to be the victim of gender bias. The child was originally handed over to his maternal great-grandmother whom the trial judge said may well wear the pants in her family.

It goes without saying that the child’s respect for his father as a role model will be immeasurably heightened if he perceives his father as the parent who is supporting him from his own exertions’ his decision also said.

The Full Court upholding the father’s complaint of gender bias ruled that it was wrong for one of its judges to say the child in question was at risk of welfare dependency because his father chose to be a full-time parent rather than a wage earner. The judgment found the trial judge‘s pre-conception that a father should be out working to support his son rather than staying at home to look after his day-to-day needs, played a significant part in the determination of the case. 13

In addition, the trial judge had failed to notify the father of his views during cross-examination. The appeals court noting that it had the obligations and responsibility to reflect community standards and opinions subject to the Family Law Act 1975 found that the judge was out of step with community values. 14

The Sunday Telegraph in 1996 15 reported on a residence case where the mother made a sexual abuse allegation about the father towards the child. Justice Joseph Kay found the mother to not be a believable witness and that she would try to deny any meaningful relationship to the children with their father. He further found that her behaviour was positively destructive to the emotional needs of the children and would psychologically harm them. He then awarded her sole residence because the husband lacked instinctive insight into the needs of children.

12 McMillan v Jackson (1995) FLC 92-610. See also, Sheridan and Sheridan (1994) FLC 92-517; In the Marriage of Kennedy and Cahill (1995) FLC 92-605 (judgement raised a reasonable apprehension of bias as trial judge did not disclose the existence of an intimate relation between herself and the solicitor acting for the wife).

13 ibid at 82,085

14 ibid

15 Sunday Telegraph (9^th June 1996) p 82