Mentally Ill Father had sole Custody, before he killed

The Courier mail writes a disturbing account of institutionalized negligence towards a ten year old girl who is now dead at the hands of her father.  What is missing is the factor that this man with a known mental illness was given sole custody and that Queensland department for Child Protection had written several reports of concerns about the mother and very little for the father.   

The report itself is missing the family courts decision that led to the mother losing custody of the children.  What I can tell you is that the current custody regime in the family courts are so father inclusive that they would even hand children over to fathers with psychotic symptoms, criminal records of violence and sex offenses.  I have sited court documents myself where this had occurred.  The mother was bullied into unsupervised visitation or faces losing her children altogether.  The father had a medical history that included impulses to kill a nurse that he had never met.  The child is still recovering from a skull fracture that had occurred during his care.  Not only were her concerns ignored, there were attempts on the children's lives and of the mother.  The mother is still lives in fear for her children's lives and I don't blame her. 

 In the west gate bridge tragedy that led to Darcey Freeman's death, there were concerns raised by the family over two years leading up to the incident.  The father's sentence has not been released to the public.  Another mother had raised concerns after an extreme history of violence was held against her will until she signed the consent forms. It is appalling to hear of these accounts.  A major insult to injury is the censorship of these crimes.  The common excuse the court provides is that the censorship is to protect the children, but in reality it enslaves children into a culture of organizational abuse and silence.  Even the children cannot disclose their cases as adults and risk the same penalties as parents do for public disclosure.  The law even covers a constraint upon those who research their cases and the researchers themselves are of the courts choosing.  The closed court breeds a culture that lacks accountability and transparency towards the families who access them.  The cases that you see in the media are carefully selected and often protects the court more than the children from the public scrutiny that otherwise would occur.  

A children's service worker had reported that they had not seen one father denied access since the Australian shared parenting regime began in 2005.  A close view of the Family Institutes publications and rarely is the subject of gendered violence or child abuse.  Instead there is an overwhelming amount on publications that focus on the father or on shared parenting.  The child Protection clearinghouse also runs out of the institute which may or may not reflect upon the trends of negligence that run through this system as well.   The Australian Family Court Chief Justice Nicholson had often boasted upon the Magellan Project that claims to effectively deal with child protective matters "in  timely matter".  Most abuse cases do not reach this court procedure and from the judgements, I am not seeing how the court is making a genuine effort to protect children.  More often than not, the protective parent has been punished for their concerns and rarely do take the much needed action on child abuse and intimate partner violence cases.  Even the evaluator of the program was unable to make a reflective evaluation on the cases due to the lack of data available.  After the current chief justice had made a statement that there was no record of Darcey's families notifications, her file was "stolen" in her unlocked car.  The former chief Justice had spoken t the media about Darceys case being in "contempt of court", despite having over one hundred eyewitnesses.

What has been a major concern for protective parents, mostly mothers is the constant use of Parent Alienation Syndrome(PAS) when it is not a syndrome, does not exist in the diagnostic and statistical manual and has been debunked largely in the scientific community.  Most practitioners in the Family Court will often use it in the term of Parent Alienation(PA), but revert back to Dr Richard Gardner's original formulation and ideas related to this term.  What is most disturbing is that Dr Richard Gardner had used the theory of Alienation as a means to promote not only the philosophies adopted by pedophile lobbyist organizations, but also the strategies they use to groom and entrench the child into the abuse.  He claimed that victims of domestic violence were at the most risk of projecting animosity against the perpetrator toward the child as an explanation of the negative feelings harvested toward the abusive parent.  He not only describes the parent as mentally ill and obsessive in their pursuits to divide the father child relationship, he recommends that the child be completely removed from the parent until the child learns to "love" their abuser.  

Some of his statements try to convey that the child is better off being abused and that the mother should be punished for interfering.  Like Kinsey and his pedophile diaries, Gardeners theory spread like wildfire and his books became worldwide sellers.  Gardner based some of his work upon his books.  Alfred Kinsey is well known for his movie and his best seller, "sexual behavior in the human male".  Well known as a pioneer in the area of human sexuality research, was also the myth he created that children experience orgasms.  Later debunked and exposed for obtaining surveys from pedophiles that abused over 200 children, was table 34 which interpreted violent screaming as an "orgasm".  Gardner became well known amongst family law practitioners as the man who identified PAS. 

 The AFCC assisted in promoting his theories worldwide providing seminars to judges lawyers and psychologists.  He referred to sexual abuse as a witch hunt in the title of one of his books and took little responsibility in screening abuse cases.  What had transpired from his influence was many custody reversals in cases worldwide.  The Fathers Rights Movements have promoted it as a syndrome and some have even advocated for "deprogramming centers".  Despite being discredited, many researchers have made attempts to remerge the theory by producing more methods in screening victims for the abuse, but the outcomes have remained the same despite the forty years of research on family violence.  False allegations by public perception is a majority in the family courts and in actual fact it has been recorded as low as 2%.  It is no wonder the family courts research, its cases and outcomes are heavily guarded.