Showing posts with label Hague Convention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hague Convention. Show all posts

Every Right To Run...


  Recent articles have been floating around about enforcing family court orders.  One of the latest compared mothers as criminals which is no different to the treatment of African Americans for many generations until it got to a point where enough was enough.  If it were anymore barbaric to hunt mothers down like animals, they would be tying her to a ball and chain.  Yes, they have actually done that.  A mother in United States had a tagging device on her ankle for trying to follow one of the most most natural basic instincts: protect her child.   There is no real dissolution of marriage and there never will be until the international community begins to acknowledge some cold hard truths.

1.  Mothers are human beings who have risked her livelihood to ensure the well-being of her children so that they could enter this world.
2.  All mothers in our natural world will risk their lives and at times become fierce creatures to protect children.
3.  Our industrialized world, deplorable treatment of mothers and deliberate poverty contributes to the minority of harm that plagues the spotlight of our media
4.  The ongoing propaganda about fatherlessness is a major case of discrimination against single mothers and their children.     
5.  The ongoing genocide of mothers and children is a direct result of both discrimination and continued systematic attempts to enforce power over her.
6.  Perverting the human right to consent on marriage and dissolution of marriage is constantly being done by using the children as a tactic.
7.  Perverting the human right on the freedom to roam is constantly being done by using the children as a tactic to restrain her and isolate her from access to her culture(Another violation) and to her family.
8.  Children most often want to go and be with their mothers unless there is chemical factors that clash with her ability to mother. 
9.  When a mother is free from coercion, chemical factors and abuse; there is NO reason to deprive the children from her.
10.  Courts seldom investigate family violence. In fact they frequently hinder opportunities to do so.  The mother is on her own to prove her case and even if she proves reason to protect her child, exposure is often ordered by these courts and if she rejects the courts decision. She is subjected to jail, the child is punished and often deprived of her.  It is then no wonder why the highest numbers of parents absconding from everything and everyone they know are mothers with their children.

Sign this petition and stop these rogue practices happening in your country today. 

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.



Article from: Sunday Mail (SA)

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.  

Has the Family Court Ignored

After the Family Court Battle, has the Father missed visitation for

Banners

Anonymums Blog Button

Get this button and link us to your blog, website or myspace page:

Step One
Copy(Ctrl +C) the following code :
Step Two
Paste(Ctrl+V) it onto your blog, website or myspace page.

I Support Anonymums Banner

Show your support on your blog, website or myspace page:

Step One
Copy(Ctrl +C) the following code :
Step Two
Paste(Ctrl+V) it onto your blog, website or myspace page.

Anonymums Family Violence Fact Sheet

Anonymums Family Violence Fact Sheet
Free Fact Sheet on Family Violence and Family Court

Should the Family Court have a Protective Parent BIll?

Breaking the Silence

Battered Mothers Custody Conference interviews

Bookmark and Share