Family Court Money Trail: Blood Money

"Affirms that the term "violence against women" means any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life, and including domestic violence, crimes committed in the name of honour, crimes committed in the name of passion, trafficking in women and girls, traditional practices harmful to women, including female genital mutilation, early and forced marriages, female infanticide, dowry-related violence and deaths, acid attacks and violence related to commercial sexual exploitation as well as economic exploitation" -Elimination of Violence Against Women

In the first article of the Family Court Money Trail, the greed of the courts culture was the focus. Currently, the amount of money that is reared in supports a court that enforces contact with violent parents. School started this year in Australia with a five year old girl that was thrown off the bridge after the father was granted shared parenting. A mother was killed after she was ordered by the court to return to UK with her child. Who could not forget pumpkin? The 3 year old found wandering around a train station after her mother was brutally murdered. Perhaps if the court had taken his previous violence serious, pumpkin might still have had a mother today. Think about it. How much did the judge earn to write of her mothers life so cheaply? How much money did the Darcey's lawyer earn to pressure her mother into signing the orders that led to her death? Meanwhile, the family courts, the lawyers and court reporters are raking it in. They call it, "income" - I call it, "Blood money".

Lets not forget the services surrounding the courts that file letters to go with affidavits, assist with parenting plans and "help strengthen families". They are the "Family Relationship Services", the "Parenting courses" and the "Dads programs". Despite one third of the female population, there are few family programs that have been funded to assist domestic violence victims. Support services in family programs now overrepresent men and women staying with them.

In the Community Investment Program, the programs targeted mostly young women and parenting:

However there was more funding and more programs available specifically for fathers. This includes the notorious "Dads In Distress" who promote the junk science, "Parent Alienation Syndrome". They further diminish the notion that it is mostly women experience violence and so already have the values and culture that is not responsible in services for violent men:

According to the Ausdv Clearinghouse there are concerns regarding the reduction of funds to domestic violence services that are crucial to women:

Lang (2002b) has acknowledged that working with men

can take resources away from women’s empowerment

and can detract from working with women. Most

advocates of preventive work with men emphasise that

this work should not take scarce resources away from

women. However, given limited funding, the reality is

that gender mainstreaming and targeting men has led

to women’s services being cut back (Charlesworth 2000;

Sawyer 2003; Bacchi 2004).

$100 million has been allocated to fund family relationship services. In the media

release it states:

"The funding will support a range of measures such as early intervention services including counselling, skills training, mediation, as well as post-separation services including family and couples’ counselling, specialized family violence services, dispute mediation and parenting support."

Below is a list of the Family Relationship service programs funded under the, "Community Intervention Program" that does not mention any funding for specialized family violence services:

In the media release announcing the program it states;

"The projects include a strong focus on supporting vulnerable children and families, and building cohesive and strong communities."

On one of the organizations site it funds contains a statement on its website asserting that women and children are the property of men:

Yet in article 2, the convention of the rights of the child states,

Article 2

1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.

A much more elaborate system in United states stemmed from a similar system we have here today, where mens programs began to dominate with a drive to ensure that children became the property of fathers in custody outcomes and that all such challenges concluded in their favor.

Australia is not so far behind America in the child custody regard, however the potential for programs and services to be used to privilege men in favor of custody regardless of their behavior is high. Considering that there is already some evidence of this occurring especially in cases where there has been child abuse and or domestic violence. Reports that services masquerading under the guise of mens behavior change led by mens rights advocate are prevalent.

According to the National Alliance For Family Court Justice funding of community programs were misused,

"The National Alliance for Family Court Justice, has lobbied against deadbeat and abusive fathers for many years and for reasons including their fraudulent use of federal Department of Health and Human Services fatherhood programs for funding their custody litigation."