One Big Happy Family

Up until earlier this year a very public death of a child sparked outrage in Australia, the Attorney General, the Chief Justice and the Shared Parenting Council were one big happy family.  All were working in synchronicity to contain concerns about Australia's shared parenting bill.  Outside the family court, few were aware of the Shared Parenting Councils views on violence against women and children and even fewer were aware of what the actual laws entailed.  One law required women to prove to the court that they, "reasonably feared" the perpetrator with the court appointed psychologist and very little weight given to outside professionals even if they had been supporting the family for a number of years.  


Other barriers included the bizarre, but frighteningly common ban on sending the child to counsellors or specialists trained to investigate child abuse.  These are the daily happenings of the family court that only those who have set foot in are truly aware of.   In the wider community, such practices are absurd to say the least and something that one would expect from a third world country.  The shared parenting councils website was funded by the child support agency as part of a pilot program to ensure that parents could access information about the changes.  What users of the forum did not expect was the deplorable treatment of women and clear discrimination that was made against them.  Thankfully, this was raised and agreed upon among other mothers in another online forum that this site was a fathers rights website attempting to sabotage and exploit victims of family violence that were forced to endure the court system.  What was also bizarre, was the relationships between the Family Court and the Shared Parenting Council that further polarized women and children's experiences.  Below is an email from the members of the shared parenting council asking the other to run it past Diana Bryant. 


 Click on the image to read it properly:
  

In the forum, is another example of where one of the members called the chief justice and the other member is insulting him, but describing her as someone who knows her well.  


Click on the image to read it properly:

Although fathers rights groups have made it clear that their preference is for Philip Ruddock, below is a photo of the shared parenting council and the attorney general:

Below is a response from the attorney generals department regarding family relationship centers after the family relationships hotline was established.

Clearly, there is a good reason as to why mothers and children are not confident about the proposed changes.  Many tricks were used in past reforms to divert mothers and children's rights from becoming a reality.  The submissions for the shared parenting bill were doubled by the same group of people and their families to create the illusion that there were more than there were.  It is a reason why mothers groups will continue to pressure key stakeholders in ensuring that they will provide adequate protection from victims of family violence.  

Convicted Sex Offender Granted Custody of Four Children

For some time, politicians have been avoiding the topic of how far they will go in handing the children over to the father. The situation here speaks for itself. Whilst the article does not draw attention to previous cases like this, it is not uncommon for courts to allow convicted sex offenders unsupervised contact with children. For as long as the courts, family reporters and children's lawyers rely upon the junk science of Parental Alienation Syndrome(also referred to as "Parent Alienation"), cases like these will continue to rupture the lives of children.

Pedophile granted child custody

Article from:

• Font size:DecreaseIncrease
• Email article:Email
• Print article:Print

DAVID NANKERVIS

June 13, 2009 11:30pm

A FAMILY Court judge has granted custody of four children to their father - a convicted pedophile and rapist.

The mother of the four youngsters, all aged under 15, requested custody at a recent Family Court hearing in Adelaide.

The unsuccessful application was made not long after the children's father was found guilty in the Adelaide District Court of multiple sex offences against a minor.

A transcript of the Family Court hearing shows the presiding judge was aware of the father's convictions and that he was on bail awaiting sentencing.

Further details, including the names of the family, cannot be legally reported. The mother and her current husband also both have criminal records.

However, child support groups have condemned the idea that a convicted pedophile could be granted custody of any child.

Victim Support Service SA said the community would be "alarmed" at a situation where a pedophile was allowed to care for children.

"Our organisation would be worried too about that, and we would want to know about the reasoning and rationale behind such a decision and what steps are in place to protect any child in such circumstances," the service's chief executive Michael Dawson said.

"I would think it is inappropriate for someone with a previous history - through conviction of crimes against children - to be provided with the opportunity to supervise children.

"From my personal experience, I've never heard of any such case before."

The Australian Childhood Foundation also expressed serious concern about the risks pedophiles pose to children, particularly in an unsupervised environment.

"Convicted pedophiles can't work as a teacher, be a foster carer or footy coach, because society recognises that past behaviour is the best indicator of future risk," foundation chief executive Joe Tucci said.

"So as a matter of principal, children shouldn't be in unsupervised contact or custody of an adult with convictions for sexual assault against children."

Mr Tucci said courts should err on the side of caution and treat convictions of sexual assault against children as a "red light" when deciding what is in a child's best interest.

A spokeswoman for the Family Court said judges could only award custody of a child to those parties who applied for it.

"If a judge has concerns about a child's welfare, they cannot make an order that a child be put in the care of the state," the spokeswoman said.

"A judge can ask but not compel a state welfare department to intervene if they believe a child is at risk of abuse or neglect."

The Department of Families and Communities said the Family Court may advise it of any "child protection concerns (the court has) about a child".

"Families SA assesses the notification like any other and takes action if necessary," a department spokesman said.

"Also, the Family Court may make a formal request that the Department of Families and Communities become a party to a case.

"If DFC accepts the request and becomes a party, it then makes representations to the court about what is in the best interests of the child or children."