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.  

Australian Mothers Under House Arrest

Divorced mums forced to stay put

• Font Size:DecreaseIncrease
• Print Page:Print

Caroline Overington | June 01, 2009

Article from: The Australian

NEW laws governing the custody of children are being used to prevent mothers from moving even a short distance from the family home after a divorce, according to experts in the field.

Non-custodial parents - usually fathers - are able to use the laws to claim that such a move will deny their children the right to spend "substantial and significant time" with both parents, as required by the new law.

In one case, known in court transcripts as Crowe, a father was able to get the Family Court to restrain his former wife from moving the children's home to "any place outside a radius of 30km from the Sydney GPO".

The new law requires the Family Court to presume that the best interests of the child are served by a meaningful relationship with both parents.

Two recent studies of the impact of these provisions confirm it is now harder for parents to get permission to leave town with the kids, even in cases where the wife is at extreme disadvantage.

The Australian last week reported a case where a mother was prevented from leaving a remote town in far north Queensland with her five-year-old daughter, despite having lived there for less than a year, and being confined by high rent to life in a caravan park.

In a paper presented to a lawyers' symposium in March, David Alexander said: "It is now a relatively simple matter for the non-residential parent to claim that even a short-distance relocation will preclude substantial and significant time (with the child)."

Similar conclusions were reached by family law expert Patrick Parkinson, in the Australian Journal of Family Studies.

His analysis "indicates that it is harder for a primary caregiver to relocate than before the 2006 amendments".

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

Family Court nod for Skype

• Font Size:DecreaseIncrease
• Print Page:Print

Caroline Overington | April 13, 2009

THE Family Court is allowing mothers to leave the country with their children, provided they agree to sign up for the internet-based video telephone service Skype.

A compulsory subscription to Skype, which allows parents to see their children on the computer screen while talking to them, has been a feature of 10 Family Court cases this year. 

One judge has said the technology was helping to mitigate the "tyranny of distance" arising from divorce and forging "meaningful relationships" between children and their parents, wherever in the world they live. 

In one recent case, known in court records as Bletch and Douglas (2008), a mother was allowed to move with her nine-year-old son to the US after developing a "unique communications skill" that landed her an "elevated media profile", a $450,000 book advance, and interest from American talk shows. 

But, she was told, she had to "ensure that whilst the child lives with her in America he has reasonable access to a computer which has a Skype program installed, together with a webcam, in order that the child may communicate with his father by that means or by email at times which the child and his father may mutually agree upon". 

In Bradley and Bradley (2009), a mother was permitted to return to her native Sweden with her two children, after her marriage ended. 

The judge acknowledged the distress this would cause the children's father, saying "communication with the children will be difficult" since they would be living on opposite sides of the world, but this "can be managed with Skype, video and trips". 

He ordered the mother to "obtain a computer which has internet access installed, including a webcam and Skype" within 14 days of her arrival in Sweden, and to provide the father with the children's email addresses. 

In Rossi and Rossi (2008) both parents were ordered to "each set up at their own expense as soon as practicable, but within eight weeks, a computer with internet connection and a webcam and Skype". 

In Garth and Hope (2008) federal magistrate Stewart Brown said Skype was a "cheap, accessible and effective way" for children to stay in contact with their absent parent. 

"Although it is no substitute for direct physical contact, these media, in my view, dilute to a significant degree some of the tyranny of distance," he said. 

But not all judges believe that Skype can facilitate a meaningful relationship. 

In Cales v Cales, Justice John Cohen refused a mother's petition to move from Sydney to the Hunter Valley, saying "real rather than virtual closeness" to their father was more important to the children than her desire to move. The mother told the court the "Skype program could be used, so the children could see (their father) while speaking to him, and the children would enjoy contact with (their father) in this manner". 

Justice Cohen disagreed, saying "the reality of all types of communication other than face-to-face is that they are inferior, and only a default choice". 

"I consider the children's need for, and right to have, optimal real contact with their father as much more important" than the mother's desire to live a rural life. 

In Irish and Michelle (2009), a case in which children were removed from the care of their mother in Tasmania and ordered to live with their father in Melbourne, Justice Benjamin said there was "no reason why the children cannot maintain contact with the other parent via telephone, Skype and email". 

At the other end of the communications revolution, a public service official based in Canberra used Skype to give up his battle to prevent his former wife from moving to Gippsland with their daughter. 

His message to his wife, read out in court, read: "Hello, please feel free to relocate to (Gippsland) with (the child). 

"I have no interest, time or energy for this matter to be played out in a court of law. 

"Please note that (the child) repeatedly said that she does not want to move to (Gippsland) in our Skype conversation today. 

"However, I hope the move and your new job in (Gippsland) becomes all you want it to be and wish you the best of luck and success." 

Story Tools