Child Abuse Disclosure Causes Outrage

A situation where radio presenters fumbled upon a disclosure of rape has broken out in scrutiny and distaste for the show. Fathers Rights groups have condemned the mother for humiliating the daughter, despite they are to blame for the community attitudes towards rape. Peter Gregory of Fathers4Equality stated,

"What kind of a bitch is this woman!

She knew her daughter had been raped and yet she took her onto this show knowing full well that her daughter could suffer from this.

I'm sorry, but this disgusting excuse for a mother, should not only be howled down in the public arena, she should be charged with some child abuse offence."

Earlier he stated,

"We also need to remember the children who suffer parental alienation.
These children are convinced that the other parent is assaulting them in some way and they do what ever they can to remain with the abusive parent, even telling police or child protection workers detailed stories of the sexual (or otherwise) abuse, so it sounds very believable."

Note that he refers to the parent taking protective action as "abusive".

In every discussion, court judgment and debate on unsubstantiated child abuse, these men have dominated every spotlight to persuade the community that most of the time, children lie about this. We now have a culture that believes that the right thing to do is not report child abuse unless there is undeniable proof that it occurred. The President of Fathers4Equality even states in his own words in appealing to keep the law that asks for costs more often than not against victims,
"Proving that someone has "knowingly" made false allegations rather
than "mistakenly" or "recklessly" is quite a tall order. "

For protective mothers, they face an extremely challenging path in pursuing justice for thier child in these occurrences. The lone fathers association has even promoted a label that has no scientific credibility called, "Malicious Mother Syndrome". Another tactic to convince the community that a mother advocating on behalf of a child who has disclosed abuse is malicious.
It almost lingers into our community's subconscious that mothers are to blame regardless of whether they report or not. Yet once again, the person instigating the abuse has somehow avoided the spotlight, scrutiny and punishment. Maternal Deprivation, more popular than football has become a favorite male dominated sport where the game is set up so the mother is always the loser. The players are the shared parenting mob, the black shirts and other radical fathers groups. Since the 80s they have been playing this game, involving politicians, kicking all mothers in the spotlight and hiding the voice of children so that we as a community will respond with nothing but malice towards every mother and child when they seek help to stop child abuse. With all of the odds played against a protective mother, she has little opportunity but to conform to the current, "sweep it under the carpet regime" only to later endure the scrutiny and blame for a crime that she did not commit. The mother in this sport is not the other team - she is the ball in a game of hypocrisy and propaganda.

The fact that it took thousands of listeners outrage for the police to investigate, is a good indicator that these beliefs are also ingrained within the only body that can properly investigate and bring about justice for our children. Yet with such a confirmatory bias, more often than not police don't investigate when they need to and also face costs if they bring a matter to court without enough evidence. The odds that target mothers are impairing our children and young people. This young girl caught in a tragic set of circumstances making her disclosure on national radio, reveals how far one has to go just to be heard. In the abc report Minister of community services Linda Burney has taken a personal interest in the case. Yet there are 15,000 children in Australia that have been ignored along with their parents.

Her Course of Justice

DV Victims: Her Course Of Justice

0 Responses

In recent news, it has been reported that "women abusers" are on the rise. No doubt that the phenomena exists and it has never been doubted by domestic violence advocates. What has often sparked debate in the past is whether the majority of victims are women as reported by the world health organization that prompted the UN to launch a worldwide campaign against violence towards women. What anc news has not exposed is what we will expose here. There is a secret war going on between the survivors and the perpetrators. Every effort on an official level is sabotaged by those who intend to suppress this war on women.

Mens groups have glided in the lime light over the years dashing in and out of the spotlight particularly when it is revealed that their organizations have in fact supported perpetrators. In 1995 Lone fathers channeled its resources into supporting Keith Shew, a man who claimed Brisbane Domestic Violence Resource

Centre had discriminated against him as the perpetrator rather than a victim. He was denied access to the shelter that his wife was residing. Read More

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."

Stop The Responsible Fatherhood Bill

"All I ever wanted was supervised" a repeated phrase amongst family violence survivors.  The Family Court has come under recent scrutiny over unsafe contact and the controversial use of Parental Alienation Syndrome a diagnosis that has not been accepted by any scientific organization globally.  The bottom line is that children are ordered by the court to attend access visits where the parents are abusive.  If the mother objects, she risks losing the children altogether.  That is the state of not only the Family Court in Australia, it is an international problem.  

Until recently, there were few groups that were advocating for children and far too many groups advocating for such forced contact.  "Pro Contact" culture is really just being polite.  "Contact No Matter what" Cult, is more appropriate considering the facts that there is no limit as to who they wish children to have contact with.  

Cult definitions coined from 1920 onward^[1] refer to a cohesive social group and their devotional beliefs or practices, which the surrounding population considers to be outside of mainstream cultures. The surrounding population may be as small as a neighborhood, or as large as the community of nations. They gratify curiosity about, take action against, or ignore a group, depending on its reputed similarity to cults previously reported by mass media. -Wikipedia

Bizarre punishments against mothers are initiated by the courts if they do not comply without consideration for the impact that the children suffer.  

Some of these punishments include:

"Isolating The Child From The Protective Parent"

"Orders inhibiting the Child From access to Counseling"

"Removal of The Mothers Passport'

In cases where the parent has a mental health condition that is one of the leading causes of homicide, the protective action is often minimal.  Some orders are for the parent to take their medication and see their doctor, but left entirely to the device of the patient and the potential victims are left restricted by the court order and helpless to what might come about.  The Court evaluators who make the decisions that the judges often solely rely on are often untrained for these cases, but overtrained in the area of "pro - contact' and too well understand the terms of "maternal gatekeeping" "Alienation" and "False Memory Syndrome".  They believe that the child is not unsafe in relationships with sex offenders if they "just accept it" without the interference from mothers.  

This is due to the fact that in the early 80s, Dr Richard Gardner coined the term, "Parent Alienation Syndrome" and travelled the world with the help of Association of Family and Conciliation Courts(AFCC).  Many conferences were held indoctrinating lawyers, psychologists and judges into the belief that children are better off with abusive parents.  This belief was also supported by the international Child Emancipation, a lobby group for pedophiles.  

Cases where there is not enough evidence to support Family Violence are often referred to as, "False Allegations" and in most cases the victim is required to pay costs to the alleged perpetrator. This goes against studies that support the notion that in 95% of child abuse cases are true.  Clearly it is the interference that the victims receive during the court processes that leads to the lack of evidence that is able to be provided.  

Like the German Lebensborn organization, they said, "Best Interests" but the intention was to reintroduce laws that tie women to men and diminish any concerns regarding child abuse and violence against women.  The current family law regime reduces the value of children and mothers compared to men and promotes the cycle of violence continuing through to another generation.  Like a genetic disease, our children have been infected with family violence.  

The German Lebensborn organization was similarly cruel in its time.  In the context of the German welfare system, it was considered that it was the "best interests" of the child to be German.  By abducting babies of other origins for German families, "Best Interests of the child" was created to serve the purposes of racial intolerance.  Today in the context of Family Law, "best interests of the child" refers to the amount of time spent with a parent no matter how abusive they may be. 

Although there have been more efforts to protect mothers and children affected by family violence with the Violence Against Women Act and the introduction of the Protective Parent Bill, PAS is still alive in the US court system and have progressed to a point where they are supporting it through the "Responsible Fatherhood Bill".  Like best Interests, it is aimed at enforcing contact with fathers regardless of the rise to epidemic proportions of murder suicides.  In sect 2, "Findings" it states that the reason to provide fathers with billions of dollars in funding is due to:

6) Children who live without contact with their biological father are, in comparison to children who have such contact--

(A) 5 times more likely to live in poverty;

(B) more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom;

(C) twice as likely to commit crime;

(D) twice as likely to drop out of school;

(E) more likely to commit suicide;

(F) more than twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs; and

(G) more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.

(7) Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers.

  

The findings stated here is derived from a confirmitory bias. If you look deeper into the research, it becomes obvious that:

Children were economically abused by the fathers and the state for withdrawal of financial support of children.  It is in fact written in the convention on The Rights Of The Child:

 

Article 26

1. States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law.

2. The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of the child.

 

The "Violent males who grew up without fathers", were in fact infected prior to the separation by witnessing the actual violence.  According to Amy Coha:

• Boys who witness domestic violence are more likely to batter their female partners as adults than boys raised in nonviolent homes. Of the children who witness domestic abuse, 60% of the boys eventually become batterers.
• Sixty-three percent of boys age 11-20 who commit homicide, murder the man who was abusing their mother. In 50% of the time, if the wife (mother) is being physically abused, so are the children.

Teenage pregnancy is an old sexist phrase that draws the need to look at the pregnant women as the problem.  Contraceptives apart from the condom are directed at her as entirely responsible for the pregnancy.  According to Rape Abuse and Incest Network(RAIN):

Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

 

Victims of sexual assault are:⁷

3 times more likely to suffer from depression.

6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

13 times more likely to abuse alcohol.

26 times more likely to abuse drugs.

4 times more likely to contemplate suicide.

The fact that in some states, the perpetrator can apply to the Family Court to stop the abortion and continue these attacks on her suggests that women and girls are considered by the state as objects rather than human beings.  If such a bill were to pass, it would be a greater violation to the already eroded human rights of women and children.  

15,000 Children Forced Contact with violent dads

Calls for overhaul of family law system 

Article from: Sunday Herald Sun

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

Laurie Nowell

June 07, 2009 12:00am

CHILD welfare campaigners have called for an overhaul of the family law system, citing statistics they claim show courts have forced children to spend time with abusive or violent parents.

Campaigner Barbara Biggs says an analysis of the latest Family Court statistics shows courts are forcing children to spend time with parents they fear.

A recent speech by the Family Court's Chief Justice, Diana Bryant, appears to confirm this. But the Family Court has rejected the analysis.

The court says each case is determined on its merits and much of the contact between parents and children under the court's orders is supervised.

The court data shows children in at least 267 separated families in 2007-8 were forced to spend time with parents who the court deemed abusive or violent.

Of fathers before the court, a third were awarded less than 30 per cent custody and in 29 per cent of those cases it was because of abuse or family violence.

Of the cases in which women were awarded less than 30 per cent custody, abuse or family violence was the reason in 16 per cent of cases.

Ms Biggs claims up to 15,000 children might have had forced contact with violent parents over the past five years.

In a public lecture at the Queensland University of Technology in April, Chief Justice Bryant said: "In a third of litigated cases, the Family Court ordered that children spend 30 per cent or less time with their father.

"Abuse and/or family violence was the major reason why this order was made. In 9 per cent of litigated cases, the Family Court ordered that children spend 30 per cent or less time with their mother, the major reason being the presence of health issues."

A spokesman for the Family Court said: "Each case is judged on its merits and statistics tend to make it look as though they are all the same. You need to see the individual orders to properly understand the situation and before you can draw conclusions."

Australia's Family Court Money Trail

If you have ever accessed the court as a survivor of violence or a protective parent, you'll know what I mean when I say that they lick their lips at the sight of money.  Getting the child to the abuser is like hitting the jackpot as they know this will lock in the family courts financial future.  Lets face it, dead beat dads are bad for them as they know that they will give up when they have had their rampage against the ex.  Protective parents will keep litigating until they have lost everything.

An urban legend is spreading through Australia about the Federal Magistrates court having wild parties, snorting cocaine amongst other cocktails of indulgence to eliminate the pain of compassion and humanity at is worst.   It is called the "Debauchery house" and as the legend goes,   a lawyer who saw what they were doing and wrote about it in a book.  Just before he published it, he was called in for a meeting with a warning that he would be disbarred if he were to proceed and even when he altered it to fiction he was .  It might explain the recent reports of judges not even bothering to read the evidence, presenting disheveled in attire and requesting its litigants to "speak in simple terms'.  If this "urban legend" is true, we ask you to come forth.  We want names, we want any footage that you have acquired and any other evidence you have.  It is about time a change of culture occurred in the court, whether or not this urban legend is true.  We have a way of releasing this information without being affected by Australian Law and its treaties.  

It is about time victims of violence and child abuse receive true justice.  its about time that the lies and propaganda that surrounds a deep lack of transparency is exposed.  True justice has no place for those who seek to be, "above the law".  So lets begin with the information that has already been revealed.  There is a 5 million dollar black hole in the Federal Magistrates budget.  $60,000 of that was spent on fine bone china.  According tot he australian , the 5 million dollar black hole was associated with 16 magistrates.

The minimum fees that are charged between the two courts appear significantly different by a couple of hundred dollars.  At the Family Court, it is $1905 which includes initial application, final order application and two hearings.  This does not include the costs to file affidavits and other forms not mentioned in the fees and charges section.  In the Federal Magistrates court it costs $1367 for the same set of fees.  An average lawyer will cost you $3000 per hearing plus expenses for the time spent advising you and preparing the forms.  In February 2009, submissions for the access to justice inquiry was closed and leading up to that date, there were mainly internal submissions  or input from liaising organizations.  Just before the deadline closed, Child concern Australia and a few other organizations supporting women  and children submitted their concerns on the access to justice and thoughts about the proposed changes. Prior to this, media releases were on plans to axe the Family Court and divert its traffic to the Federal Magistrates.  This would have been a negative outcome for children and women affected by family violence.  The reason why the federal magistrates are so cheap is that they are for short court cases where everything is rushed through and family violence is ignored as a result of its processes.  Its actually a batterers paradise , where there is no time for him to be investigated, no time to delve into the history and an enormous pressure place upon the mother to give in to what may come of it including her or her children's life. Just rush through, threaten severe consequences if she does not obey her ex husband and "cha ching" get as much money out of it as possible.  At the very beginning, they pretend that they are going to look into family violence, but really its about gathering as much information from you so that you will become silent.  Snatching evidence must be part of the training as the reports of this is widespread.  They don't tell you this to begin with as it will ruin the "surprise" and most importantly those initial filing costs.  You must file relatively early for a final order, so this is also part of it.  Getting as many people through the doors is how the money reaches maximum income.  The very reason why the SPCA is supporting the Federal Magistrates Court is that it will reduce the visibility of victims and support the notion of false allegations which is a common reference to "unsubstantiated".  With haste and a drive to put as many couples in and out of this court system as quickly as possible, victims are invisible and their perpetrators have less time to keep the "charm" going without being found out.  With this system it is virtually impossible to substantiate allegations.  Once the final orders are rushed through to the end, a litigant cannot apply for three years.  

Stay tuned for more on Australia's Family Court Money Trail

REAL FREESTYLE M.I.A Paper planes beat....Real Song Comming Soon - L Dot

The Backlash: Fathers4Equality Attack Award Winning Journalist

  Caroline Overington is well known for winning the Sir Keith Murdoch Award for Journalism and the Walkley Award for investigative journalism for her coverage of the AWB scandal in November 2006.  In 2007, she received much criticism after an email joke with a minister went wrong and negative press was released against her with unsubstantiated claims.  Whilst journalism was never meant to be easy, Caroline persists in exposing some of the most difficult issues of our times: what goes on behind those Family Court doors.  Its all too easy to write complimentary articles on Fathers rights groups that are commonly known for their intimidation and contempt for women.  

There are times where it is frustrating to see undeserving sympathy amounted towards these bullies and as anyone who has braved against such behaviors know that it takes a lot of courage to stand up to them.  If fathers Rights had it their way, there would be no objection to violence against women and children, women would be forced without question to submit to their demands.  In an ideal FR world, DV deaths would be explained with an "accident" and children would be seen and not heard.  

There is an exception to that.  There are a few strong women and men who know that this is beyond ethics to the extent of cruelty that have ignored the constant intimidation, abuse and degradation to break the silence of these horrors.  Whilst we do not agree with all of the articles that Caroline Overington has written, her writing on the mothers and children's experience in Family Court matters reveals an underlying truth that has been overlooked by other journalists.  

Writing on the fathers rights side is like writing how banks are wonderful for taking the fees from pensioners or students.  Its a truth from a more powerful group that thrives upon exploiting the powerless.  

Caroline Overington has been the subject of hatred from the fathers rights groups since her series of articles about a mother who was isolated by a court order.  

Some of the statements in the Fathers4Equality group are:

"It is any wonder she is now spearheading a campaign for the violent seething bitch brigade" - Peter Fathers4Equality

"Caroline Overington continues her assault on separated fathers and their 

children." Tom Knoll

From: ashvani_patil

To: fathers4equality@ yahoogroups. com

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:20 PM

Subject: [fathers4equality] Deceptive-unbalance d article in "The Australian" - complain now

Deceptive & unbalanced reporting in "The Australian"

Parent law ties women to men - Caroline Overington - 29-May-09

* Read the Deceptive & unbalanced Article
* Now read the Judgment
* Comment Here
* Email your complaint to the editor

 She must be desperate to change these laws before her child custody hearing.

The Australian 3-June-09
Family Law experts slate shared-parenting
http://www.theaustr alian.news. com.au/story/ 0,25197,25580456 -26103,00. html

The Australian 3-June-09
'Flaws' in John Howard's parenting law
http://www.theaustr alian.news. com.au/story/ 0,25197,25579454 -601,00.html

Ash Patil - Fathers4Equality

An excerpt from "The Politics of Father Rights Activists – Do persistent critics of the Family Court behave in a way which stands up to scrutiny?"By M. C. Dunn,  reveals that such hatred is common:

Chief Justice Nicholson, HREOC Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward, even academics like men’s interest researcher Michael Flood are described as “the enemy”, “maggots”, labelled misandrists and often slandered using derogatory terms, sometimes with homophobic labels.  Occasionally post describe inflicting murderous desires on these individuals, particularly the Chief Justice and his colleagues (“If I could ask for my "Family Law Court Judge" (FLCJ) to be hanged”).  An example of the more extreme of emails was posted on a list moderated by a former State director of the SPCA that stated:

Posted 19/03/2004 Ozydads network

“>What about Magistrates like Lawrence of Rockingham WA who not only

>accepted false DVO's but re-established them for THREE MORE YEARS!!1

>I want to kill that cunt and god help him if I find his address”

 

Sometimes the FRAO e-lists and sites accuse the Courts of being like feminists who they see as dictators (“feminazis” or “feminazi puppeteers”) and who are accused of great crimes (“crimes against humanity”, “legal child abductors”).  Other hate rhetoric is aimed at professionals generally, especially lawyers, social workers and even police (“Lawyer-solicitor-barrister-judge scum mafia are riding on feminazi brainwashing ordinary taxpayers into believing they are neither well-paid thieves nor child abusers”). 

 

More hate speech and intimidation is reserved for single-mother and sole parents’ spokeswomen who are vilified, slandered, defamed and hated with ferocity (“face of feminazi evil”, “fucking fat slag blood-sucking liar”).   When the media allow these women to have a counter voice the hate-speech is sometimes escalated into threats and/or outright intimidation as posts on DOA escalated until FRAO, Fathers 4 Justice’s Australian Coordinator, Trevor Arthurson (who appeared in the same 60 Minutes program) sought to incite harm against Sole Parents’ Union President, Kathleen Swinbourne with a false allegation that stated “WE SHOULD REPORT HER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES [CHILD PROTECTION AGENCY] FOR THE WAY SHE TREATED HER SON” (DOA 30/5/04)."

Social Abuse: Mother Ordered to stay in isolated town whilst father roams where he pleases

Family Court forces mum to stay in isolated town after split 

By Caroline Overington

The Australian

May 29, 2009 07:23am

• • +
  • -
• Print
• Email
• Share

Bond ... a mother has been forced to stay in an isolated town by the Family Court. File picture

• Couple split after moving to remote town
• Court says mum cannot leave with daughter
• Dad wants her near and won't leave job

WIVES who follow their husbands to remote corners of Australia in search of work may find themselves stuck in their new home town, unable to leave with the children. 

The Family Court has ruled that new shared-parenting laws, brought in by the Howard government in 2006, mean that the right of a child to have a relationship with both parents trumps the right of a mother to return to her home state, even if she has lived in the new location for less than a year. 

In the most recent case, the court ruled that a 34-year-old mother could not leave an "isolated" town in northwest Queensland with her five-year-old daughter after her marriage broke down, because it would rupture the close relationship the girl had with her father. 

The case has prompted concern among family law experts that the shared-parenting law is effectively forcing people "back into failed relationships". 

Elspeth McInnes, a researcher in family law at the University of South Australia, cited research by the Family Law Councilthat suggested the right of women to relocate after divorce had essentially been lost, under the amendments to the Family Law Act. 

• 
  Duped dad wins custody of boyPerth Now, 19 May 2009
• Mother jailed for denying dad accessThe Australian, 5 May 2009
• Fathers fight backThe Australian, 2 Apr 2009
• Fathers praise access lawThe Australian, 1 Apr 2009
• Time's up, love cheats to be stripped bareNEWS.com.au, 1 Mar 2009

Your Say

Hooray!!!! At last. some common sense. I have been separated for 7 years and have a beautiful daughter in similar circumstances. I am also an Engineer. I pay a LOT of child support ...

(Read More)

Loving Dad of Adelaide

"Previously, judges were prepared to consider the idea that women or mums could go where there is extended family support for them and their children," Ms McInnes told The Australian. 

The mother in the northwest Queensland case, known in court transcripts as Mrs Rosa, got married in 2000 and had her child in 2002. 

She lived with her husband in Sydney until 2007, when he got a job as a mining engineer in a remote part of Queensland. The town is not named in the transcript, but is described as "isolated". 

The Rosas moved up as a family, but after eight months, the husband told the wife that the marriage was over, put her possessions in boxes, and put them on the deck. 

Mrs Rosa, 34, took their daughter back to her mother's house in Sydney but the father petitioned the Family Court for their return, saying he wanted to maintain a relationship with his child. 

During court proceedings, the mother argued that the father could quit his job and return to Sydney and share custody of their daughter in their home town. 

He declined, saying his job had become important and was "interesting". 

The court ruled that the mother could not leave northwest Queensland with the child. She argued that she was isolated and impoverished. She lives in a caravan, because it is the only accommodation she can afford. She appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, which upheld the decision on May 15. 

The federal magistrate said the mother's plan to move would have a "most serious and detrimental effect upon the very close and important relationship that exists (between the daughter and her Dad)". 

Family law academic Barbara Biggs said: "It's a dreadful situation, to force a woman to live in a town where she has no family and no work, and to say that's the only way the child can be raised."

Read more on this story at The Australian