False Allegations are a small factor in the Family Courts
| Even one of the strongest family violence critics admitted that in a majority of child abuse cases had substance in it. |
anonymums
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) – May 12, 2009 – DR Richard A Gardner, the man who coined the term Parent Alienation Syndrome stated, “The vast majority ("probably over 95%") of all sex abuse allegations are valid”. Gardner, R.A. (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics (pp. 7, 140).
Like the recent report about St John’s Ambulances “Hush Money for sex abuse victims” fathers rights will have us all believe that most mothers and children are liars when it comes to allegations in the Family Court.
This was not true for Cassandra Hasanovic who died at the hands of her ex partner. The Family Court ignored her pleas and ordered her to return resulting in her death. The Founder of the Anonymums Collective Stated, ”The falsely accused are among the privileged in the family courts, they can obtain costs and are not required to provide much evidence as the court rules upon the level of substantiation”.
In the National Plan to reduce Violence against Women and Their Children it was stated, “The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006, however, represents a potential obstruction to a just and integrated response to family violence in Australia”.
Members of Anonymums not only agree to this statement, they understand the grave consequences that surround this lucrative bill.
Even the Prime Minister said, “As a nation, the time has well and truly come to have a national conversation – a public national conversation, not a private one – about how it could still be the case that in 2008 so many Australian women could have experienced violence from their partner…
It is my gender – it is our gender – Australian men – that are responsible.
And so the question is: what are we going to do about it?
…There are no circumstances in which the threat of violence against women is acceptable. There are no circumstances in which the thought of violence against women is acceptable.
That on violence against women, we have simple, clear policy in two words: zero tolerance.”
“It’s a move in the right direction and will save the government compensation money in the long run” a spokesperson for Anonymums stated.
The Founder of Anonymums added, “When Diana Bryant said “Family Violence is the Core Business of the Family Court”, many victims have begun to wonder why such force was imposed upon them in a system that is meant to protect them from such things. Take “Family Violence” and “Core Business” out of this phrase and it becomes clear what she meant when she said this. Family Violence Victims held captive by the court and perpetrator means that the protective parent will guarantee a great deal of money. The message becomes clear, “To protect your children, save your life – We will need the children’s home, life savings and anything else you have”. Either way, the victim is cornered by a bunch of legal clauses and unless they can produce more than what is required for a homicide, the child or the intimate partner violence victim is at the abusers mercy”.
The Australian Human Rights Commission made the Following Statement about False Allegations,
“HREOC is well aware of the concerns of some individuals and community organizations that false allegations of family violence are regularly made. For example, i n its submission to a review of legislation regarding protection orders, the Lone Fathers’ Association states that protection orders “are employed as a routine separation procedure” by women to force their husbands out of their homes, without any violence having occurred, “and/or as a vindictive retaliatory act”.
HREOC would caution against accepting this contention uncritically. There is no doubt that Family Court proceedings often are accompanied by allegations of domestic violence and the use of protection orders. However, this may reflect the fact that domestic violence often escalates when couples separate. Australian data demonstrate that women are as likely to experience violence by previous partners as by current partners and that it is the time around and after separation which is most dangerous for women.”
This was in 2005. It’s been four years since this was noted and many lives at stake, some are embedded upon gravestones, a remembrance of a time when children were once again seen and not heard.
Like the recent report about St John’s Ambulances “Hush Money for sex abuse victims” fathers rights will have us all believe that most mothers and children are liars when it comes to allegations in the Family Court.
This was not true for Cassandra Hasanovic who died at the hands of her ex partner. The Family Court ignored her pleas and ordered her to return resulting in her death. The Founder of the Anonymums Collective Stated, ”The falsely accused are among the privileged in the family courts, they can obtain costs and are not required to provide much evidence as the court rules upon the level of substantiation”
In the National Plan to reduce Violence against Women and Their Children it was stated, “The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility)
Members of Anonymums not only agree to this statement, they understand the grave consequences that surround this lucrative bill.
Even the Prime Minister said, “As a nation, the time has well and truly come to have a national conversation – a public national conversation, not a private one – about how it could still be the case that in 2008 so many Australian women could have experienced violence from their partner…
It is my gender – it is our gender – Australian men – that are responsible.
And so the question is: what are we going to do about it?
…There are no circumstances in which the threat of violence against women is acceptable. There are no circumstances in which the thought of violence against women is acceptable.
That on violence against women, we have simple, clear policy in two words: zero tolerance.”
“It’s a move in the right direction and will save the government compensation money in the long run” a spokesperson for Anonymums stated.
The Founder of Anonymums added, “When Diana Bryant said “Family Violence is the Core Business of the Family Court”, many victims have begun to wonder why such force was imposed upon them in a system that is meant to protect them from such things. Take “Family Violence” and “Core Business” out of this phrase and it becomes clear what she meant when she said this. Family Violence Victims held captive by the court and perpetrator means that the protective parent will guarantee a great deal of money. The message becomes clear, “To protect your children, save your life – We will need the children’s home, life savings and anything else you have”. Either way, the victim is cornered by a bunch of legal clauses and unless they can produce more than what is required for a homicide, the child or the intimate partner violence victim is at the abusers mercy”.
The Australian Human Rights Commission made the Following Statement about False Allegations,
“HREOC is well aware of the concerns of some individuals and community organizations that false allegations of family violence are regularly made. For example, i n its submission to a review of legislation regarding protection orders, the Lone Fathers’ Association states that protection orders “are employed as a routine separation procedure” by women to force their husbands out of their homes, without any violence having occurred, “and/or as a vindictive retaliatory act”.
HREOC would caution against accepting this contention uncritically. There is no doubt that Family Court proceedings often are accompanied by allegations of domestic violence and the use of protection orders. However, this may reflect the fact that domestic violence often escalates when couples separate. Australian data demonstrate that women are as likely to experience violence by previous partners as by current partners and that it is the time around and after separation which is most dangerous for women.”
This was in 2005. It’s been four years since this was noted and many lives at stake, some are embedded upon gravestones, a remembrance of a time when children were once again seen and not heard.
# # #
Anonymums are:
A collective deticated to creating awareness and action towards improving the family court system.
We seek integrity in uphold of the law without discrimination, humiliation, degradation or oppression.
We seek to expose those who would continue to lobby for systematic abuse.
We will not tolerate opression, nor will we tolerate trivialised child abuse or corruption.
We will not tolerate violence towards anyone
| # # # + Share This Article |  |
Email to a Friend Previous News Next News
| Issued By | : | Anonymums | |
| Contact Email | : | Click to email (Partial email - @gmail.com) | |
| Phone | : | (888) 203-6750 | |
| City/Town | : | Canberra | |
| State/Province | : | ACT | |
| Zip | : | 4000 | |
| Country | : | Australia | |
| Categories | : | Legal, Government, Family | |
| Tags | : | family court, family law, child abuse, shared parenting, children s rights, family violence, child custody, law reform | |
| Last Updated | : | May 12, 2009 | |
| Shortcut | : | www.prlog.org/10234710 |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment