Media Release: Family Court in Violation Of Human Rights Without Changes

“After the recent Family Law Campaign in Australia, demonstrated negligence of child abuse and Family Violence Victims, it became clear that changes were needed....” Family Court in Violation Of Human Rights Without Changes  Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 04:53:01 GMT  Publisher: Anonymums  Web Site: http://www.theanonymums.com  Email: anonymums@gmail.com  Country:  Views:  1  Press Release:   Fathers Rights Groups who campaigned for the current laws have made statements again to diminish victims  rights when accessing the Family Court. The president for Fathers4Equality stated in his press release, What  is more astonishing it seems is that unlike the parliamentary committee that recommended these laws in the  first place, the Chief Justice has not consulted widely before making such an extraordinary intervention (in fact  she has not consulted with any fathers groups at all).  One of the speakers at the Rally included a fathers rights advocate, Ann Blessington. Some of the attendees  were fathers who were concerned about child abuse in the Family Law. Not only were they consulted, one  contributed his story of concern for his child on the youtube videos as part of the campaign. The message was  clearly not about gender but of child abuse and violence that is constantly overlooked within the pro contact  framework. The consensus of Anonymums decided to support the promotion of the rally as it raised a lot of the  issues they had been raising for quite some time.  It is noted that The Council of The European Assembly has investigated UK Family Court for Human Rights  violations, The Assembly further notes that mothers have had their children removed because they were  victims of domestic violence or on the basis of medical evidence for which there had been no second opinion.  It was further stated, The Assembly further notes that England habitually gives judgment in family  proceedings without the judgment being in public (in conflict with Article 6). This Assembly notes that there  can be an argument for anonymity, but not for the reasoning of the court to be kept secret which means that  the court’s reasoning is not properly accountable..  At Present numerous cases have been decided upon with little external expert evidence and public judgement,  inviting opportunity for children to be at risk especially when dealing with Family Violence and Child Abuse.  Despite Parent Alienation Syndrome being largely debunked within the scientific community, it is well known  that these diagnosiss are ruling proceedings to the cost of children well being. Last year, a ruling was  debunked in Brisbane and the Family Consultant involved was disciplined. Parent Alienation Syndrome was  created by DR Richard Gardner and also promoted pedophiliac philosophies that were compared to the  Leadership council to a North American Man Boy Love Association(NAMBLA). He recommended that threat  therapy where the abused child is threatened with time away from the protective parent(mostly mothers) if  they continue to hold resentment about the abuser. Most legal practitioners refer to it as, Parent Alienation  but in most cases the outcome is the same. The laws are loose on what level of evidence and whose side the  judge takes and the culture of the court has been extreme upon the side of the accused with little  accountability for the outcomes.