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.  

Dads in distress lose Funding

Some bias Articles have been going around about dads in distress losing funding, writing as if there will be no suicide service for men.  This is incorrect and misleading.  

It is no wonder dads in distress lose funding.  Under the guise of suicide prevention, dads in distress was a group that was part of the pro-contact force.  Promoting contact with suicidal fathers was irresponsible to say the least considering that fathers suicide in statistics include taking their children or their ex wife with them.  

The highest murder suicide statistics reside mostly within regions where there is a high suicide rate. He might have had a choice, but they didn't and it is careless to make a presumption that by hand the kids to someone mentally unstable will simply "cure" them.  The suicide stats the funding in the first base on had nothing to do with their organization.  The male suicide stats were mostly our indigenous population that also includes a high rate of violence and child abuse.   The Wesley Mission Reported:

INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS

• Approximately 86% of all Indigenous suicides are by males.9 (Only four States have indigenous death data considered to be of publishable standard.)
• Aboriginal suicide rates are possibly two to three times that of non-Aboriginal Australians.15

An area that the previous government had severely neglected.  

Dads in Distress supported Parental Alienation Syndrome also supported by the international pedophile and child emancipation.  Parental Alienation Syndrome  has not been accepted by any scientific organization in the world.  It is a formula to abuse children and maintain the silence.  It is no wonder it was largely debunked.  Dads in Distress still promoted this on their website whilst irresponsibly ignoring the fathers behavior that might have contributed to the child's resentment.  They were given nearly half a million dollars to damage children for the sake of "fathers rights".  Amore responsible organization has been there all along.  Often ignored by these groups, yet makes a significent contribution to all men, including our indigenous population in suicide prevention.    They are called mens line and their statement about family violence is:

"Mensline Australia believes the use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological or economic abuse in family and intimate relationships is always unacceptable and in some cases is against the law. We believe that any person using violence is solely responsible for their behaviour and we will work with people to accept that responsibility and connect with services in the community to facilitate behaviour change. In our work with callers we will take the appropriate steps to ensure the safety of the person experiencing abuse and will encourage them to seek suitable supports."

---

		Dads In Distress Dads In Distress claims to be a deticated support groups of men in Australia whose immediate concern is to stem the present trend of male suicide to the trauma of divorce or separation. Clearly they go beyond what is generally perceived as "support" and encourage the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome a debunked theory created by a psychologist named Richard Gardner. Dr Richard Gardner was a self published writer whom promoted pedophilia philosphies in his book such as:  "It is of interest that of all the ancient peoples it may very well be that the Jews were the only ones who were punitive toward pedophiles." Ibid. pp.46-47  Many child advocates are "charlatans, and/or psychopaths, and/or incompetents." Ibid. p.526  "It is _extremely_ important for therapists to appreciate that the child who has been genuinely abused may _not_ need psychotherapeutic intervention." Ibid. p.535 "-True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse (1992)
		Dads In Distress in Bega The Funding Dads in Distress were funded just under a million dollars to set up "support groups" in NSW alone.
		What they spent it on Advertised in a community page, as "Dads in Distress", some concerning material features under its advertisements:
		Displayed upon their site is advise that states, "Treat the child support agency like a robot, feed it one piece of information it will react. Feed it another it would respond again. Be polite and treat the operator with respect, it won't be long before these conversations will be quoted back to you in court. Make friends with your case manager, they may give you some useful tips(off the record)."
		It further states, "I think Sue Conner is completely unbelievable. Her work is incredulous. She is potentially Dangerous although not completely irrelevant."

Family Court Denies Negligence Again

Below is a power point presentation about the options for victims of family violence in the family court which also applies to fathers when their child is being abused.  

Uploaded on authorSTREAM by anonymums

Court defended over bridge death

• Font Size:DecreaseIncrease
• Print Page:Print

Caroline Overington | May 05, 2009

Article from: The Australian

THE Family Court cannot be held responsible for the death of a four-year-old girl thrown from the Westgate Bridge, says Chief Justice Diana Bryant.

In an unusual move just weeks before the accused man faces court on a murder charge, Chief Justice Bryant has moved to defend the role of the Family Court, saying it had only a peripheral role in the drama.

She criticised the "haste with which blame was sheeted home to the Family Court", saying it behoves the community to care for all children, and not to blame only some institutions. But opponents of the Family Court criticised the judge for commenting on a case before the courts.

It seems clear that the role of the Family Court will be examined, when the trial begins.

The parents of three were separated, the girl alone was thrown from the bridge.

In a recorded statement issued via police, the child's uncle said "various authorities have been made aware of our fear for the safety of the children and unfortunately no one would listen".

"We feel the judicial system has failed our family and will continue to fail other families until someone in authority starts to take action," he said.

Trish Merkin, speaking for a group trying to overhaul the Family Court, said the Chief Justice should wait "to see what the criminal courts say about this".

The children had been in a shared-custody arrangement for around two years, living week-on and week-off with each of their parents. The father went abroad to work for several months, during which time the children lived with their mother.

Upon his return, the couple returned to the court to work out a new contact arrangement. The girl was thrown from the bridge a day after the parents agreed to an arrangement that gave the father less time with his children.

In a speech on April 21, posted on the Family Court website, the Chief Justice said she could not understand how the "judicial officer who made the orders (is) responsible for what later occurred". "What is there to be gained from looking for a scapegoat or villain in tragic circumstances such as these?" she said.

"These simplistic theories of responsibility and attribution of blame, which are levelled at the most convenient scapegoat, are worse than mischievous.

"The Family Court's task is to determine on the balance of probabilities whether to order a child spend time with a parent (and if) the order would place the child at an unacceptable risk of harm."

Women's groups are lobbying to overturn changes to the Family Law Act, introduced by the Howard government in 2006, that require the Family Court to presume that contact with both parents is in the best interests of children in all cases, except where there is violence.

Dictatorship: Send The Child To The Father Or Else

Mother jailed for denying access to boy's dad

• Font Size:DecreaseIncrease
• Print Page:Print

Caroline Overington | May 05, 2009

Article from: The Australian

THE Family Court sentenced a mother to six months in prison for refusing to let a father see his 11-year-old son.

The mother, who cannot be named because it would identify the boy, spent 16 days behind bars before the sentence was stayed on appeal.

The judge, federal magistrate Jim Brewster, acknowledged that the boy would be "quite traumatised" by the idea of his mother, with whom he had lived since 2001, being jailed. But, he said, he wanted to deter other parents from acting the same way. Parents would not be permitted to "usurp the court and flout court orders" and decide a child could not have a relationship with the other parent.

It is believed to be the first time in two years that a mother has been sent to prison for refusing to provide a father with access to his children.

In 2007, soon after the Howard government's changes to family law were introduced, a judge jailed a pregnant woman for denying a father access to their child on Christmas Day, Father's Day, and the child's birthday, saying her actions had been "deliberate, calculated and malicious".

The Full Court of the Family Court has since ruled that the sentence in the latest dispute was too harsh, releasing the mother from jail, and putting her on a two-year good behaviour bond.

The parents were in a relationship between 1995 and 2001; the child was born in 1997. The boy lived with his mother between 2001 and 2007, when the father was granted access.

But he didn't see the boy at all during 2007 because the mother took him from his home state, NSW, to Queensland and then Western Australia, where she enrolled him in school under the name of her new partner.

It took police in three states, aided by federal officers, a year to find them.

Sending the mother to jail, the judge said it was "clear that it is not in (the child's) best interests that his mother should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment". But it was in the "interests of children in general that a punishment should be imposed which will act as a deterrent to parents acting in the way that the mother has done".

The mother told the court she understood that "not complying with the orders has made a bad situation worse".

"Shared Parenting" or Abusers Lobby, You Decide

Many Fathers attended the rally today in support of safer court orders.  The mens movements were given an opportunity to take part and promote abuse free contact.  Ann Bressington, known for her advocacy for fathers spoke in South Australia.  No other members were present to support the safety of children.  Instead, they perceived "safety" as an attack on their "rights" which really questions how much rights do these men believe they should have above children?  This is why I believe it is very relevant to now ask the question of the purposes of these groups.  "Pro Contact" is a minimal word to describe the behavior of these groups.  When there are groups that justify legislation that overlooks family violence and murder, they are not speaking for all men as all men do not justify such things.  They speak for themselves as abuser lobbyists.

This is an email from the secretary of The Shared Parenting Council of Australia:

From: Simon <email.hunt@gmail.com>
To: Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia <secretariat@spca.org.au>
Cc: fathers4equality@yahoogroups.com; Lone Fathers Association Australia <president@lonefathers.com.au>; Fatherhood Foundation <info@fathersonline.org>;F4E-Melbourne@yahoogroups.com; Senator Steve Fielding <senator.fielding@aph.gov.au>; "president@fathers4equality-australia.org" <president@fathers4equality-australia.org>; James Johnson <james0448@hotmail.com>; John Hirst <j.hirst@latrobe.edu.au>; John Stapleton <john.stapleton@gmail.com>; James Adams <jadams@fairfaxmedia.com.au>; Matt Norman <mattnorman@theactorscafe.com>; "Bawden, Matilda" <matilda.bawden@parliament.sa.gov.au>; "richard.bosi@lionheart.com.au" <richard.bosi@lionheart.com.au>; Richard Hillman Foundation Inc <webmaster@rhfinc.org.au>; Traks <traks@tpg.com.au>; Yuri Joakimidis <joakimidisyuri@yahoo.com.au>; norsaint publishing <norsaintpublishing@gmail.com>; "Nowell, Laurie" <nowelll@heraldsun.com.au>; Phil Noonan <p.noonan@bigpond.net.au>; ian kay <iankay-tmf@bigpond.com>
Sent: Sunday, 3 May, 2009 12:34:17 PM
Subject: [fathers4equality] Re: Press release

Wayne,

Good to see this initiative in response to what is clearly a crisis for children and their fathers in this country.

 

Shared parenting after separation / divorce is being attacked on the basis that its unsafe for women and children.

 

These people - the industry - are making a national call for children to be denied there fathers if they are being accused of "Family Violence" (in all its forms) regardless of whether or not it can even be proved. I thought everybody knew that allegations of DV were standard procedure in the great majority of Custody hearing before the Family Court. The lawyers have been telling us this for years. 

 

I've been saying for some time that we need public forums - public meetings that give the media access to the truth of whats going on. Looks like we've been beaten to the line, by organisations that can so easily engineer publicity and media support.

 

However, our advantage is truth - very powerful but it needs to be exposed. We need public meetings with speakers URGENTLY

 

The media needs access to the truth of whats going on - at present they have next to no access to the truth, mainly  because they rely on the press releases they get from vested interest (including "experts) in the industry and are no longer paid to do 'investigative journalism'. 

Regards

Simon Hunt

FLAG

2009/5/3 Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia<secretariat@ spca.org. au>

The SPCA is planning a  series of press release about the deteriorating position we find ourselves in with respect to Domestic Violence and any watering down of the current FLAct.

 

Have you a statement or have any of your groups statements we can quote in relation to the following news items

 

http://www.familyla wwebguide. com.au/news/ pg/news/view/ 636/index. php&filter=

In the published guide there is no mention of how they court is to deal with unproven allegations or in other words “false allegations”

 

http://www.familyla wwebguide. com.au/news/ pg/news/view/ 635/index. php&filter=1

and

http://www.familyla wwebguide. com.au/news/ pg/news/view/ 631/index. php&filter=1

 

and

The Chief Justice comments today

 

Just a recapture of what May Day is about:

FAMILY COURT MAYDAY! RALLY & PETITION 10.30 FOR 11 a.m. Sunday 3rd MAY 2009

Global

Basic Info

Type:

Common Interest - Beliefs & Causes

Description:

In memory of all the children who have died at the hands of their parents following Family Court involvement....RIP And the children who continue to be forced into contact with violent or sexually abusive parents by the Family Law Act which is failing to protect children. SEE DETAILS OF THE RALLY IN YOUR CITY on Sunday, May 3 BELOW.  And sign the petition here: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/family-court-of-australia-amendments.html

Contact Info

Email:

Recent News

TO SEE ALL 14 YOUTUBE VIDEOS OF THE CAMPAIGN, INCLUDING 6 PARENT STORIES, PROFESSIONALS PERSPECTIVE, JOURNALISTS CALLING FOR CHANGE, CHILDREN'S STORIES AND DRAWINGS OF DISTRESS:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=barbbiggs&aq=f

OUR GOALS 
Safer Family Law Campaign (SFLC) is a national campaign dedicated to giving Australian children and parents the fundamental human right; to be safe.

We are a group of concerned Australian self-help groups, parents, legal experts, academics, domestic violence workers, men's anti-violence groups, health professionals, journalists, authors, counselors and members of the public from all over this country who are seeing consistent failures in the Family Law system to protect children.

CSFLS seeks changes to the Family Law Act and FCA practice where:

(1) primary focus on safe outcomes for children takes precedence over ‘time spent’ principles, especially in cases where Domestic Violence (DV) and/or child abuse is raised; and such matters being raised must be investigated;

(2) recognition that violence to a parent is also abusive to the child of that parent;

(3) a new, discrete unit is formed within FCA to carefully manage investigation of cases where these matters are raised;

(4) all professionals responding to family separation in FCA, including mental health professionals, judges and legal experts in the field advising/representing clients, must receive continuing accredited training in DV and child abuse;

(5) family (including children) or contributing professionals' concerns suggesting DV and child abuse require that all evidence held by any governmental, police, law, medical and/or other agencies pertaining to the parties' and children's well-being must be sought out and included for review by this new FCA special unit; and

(6) that these records be connected on central police and court systems at local, state and federal levels, and;

(7) if, on the balance of probabilities, DV/abuse patterns are found to exist, or to be likely to exist, then any contact orders/agreements must detail how children’s safety is to be supported; and if such DV/abuse patterns are considered on expert opinion to be likely to strongly endanger children’s physical security or psychological health, then even occasional contact with the offending parent or parents may be disallowed as safe, and;

(8) in such cases the primary focus on safe outcomes for children must include plans for recovery from such trauma in parenting agreements or orders, and merely the passage of time should not be taken to suggest such DV/abuse patterns will be reduced or stop causing harm to the child, and;

(9) checks and balances are put in place to review FCA orders remain safe over time; and

(10) That 'blanket secrecy' laws be altered to allow more free speech and media and academic review regarding the Family Law Act, FCA, DHS and DOCS culture.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN THE SUNDAY MAY 3 EVENTS

QLD

SILENT RALLY
Venue: THE LAW COURTS COMPLEX,
304 George streetBrisbane
Time: 11am
Contact the co-ordinator at:
happyandblessed@hotmail.com


NSW

Venue: Cook & Phillip Park, Yurong St East Sydney (near Aquatic Centre)
Time: 10.30am for 11a.m. Sunday May 3 

Liz Mullinar - founder Mayumarri healing centre will MC the event

Prof Lesley Laing Sydney University - speaker

Speaker - A mother who has lost children in a murder suicide will speak out for the first time about how a court 'expert' said she had mental problems when she alleged abuse by her ex-partner.

Speaker: Barbara Biggs journalist/author/ rally instigator 
www.barbarabiggs.com.au
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Biggs

Cat Gander, Head 
Women's Refuge Movement NSW

Robyn Cotterell-Jones, Executive Director
Victims of Crime Assistance League Inc NSW


VICTORIA

Venue: between the children's maze playground and Rathdowne St, Carlton, next to the Museum: Rathdowne St entry or cross park from Nicholson on foot
Time: 10.30 for 11a.m. start Sunday May 3

MC: PHIL CLEARY Commentator and advocate for action to prevent violence against women, after his sister was murdered by her former partner 

SARAH VESSALI – LAWYER Private practitioner working predominantly in the area of family violence and family law. Previously principal lawyer at Women's Legal Service Victoria for almost 8 years.

DIONNE FEHRING whose two very young children were murdered by her ex-husband five weeks after he was given custody, despite his threats and a history of domestic violence. 

JEN JEWEL BROWN Council of Single Mothers and their Children, journalist, Vic rally and campaign coordinator

CHARLES PRAGNELL child protection expert since the 1960s, is highly concerned over “Parental Alienation Syndrome” theory in Family Law proceedings forcing many Australian children to suffer continuing abuse and even death. 

SPECIAL GUESTS include fine emerging singer/songwriter/guitarist FIONA MCKENZIE

A clothes line of little red clothes will be raised to represent 20 children whose lives have been lost in family violence since 1996. White flowers will be pinned to the clothes to celebrate and honour these children. 
Wear red for power wisely used and in sympathy. 

Further info: Jen Jewel Brown 0408 898 338 jenjewelbrown@fastmail.fm

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Venue: Steps Parliament House
North Tce Adelaide
Time: 10.30am for 11a.m.

Rally Details: email Rina Russo at rinarusso@dodo.com.au

MC - Ann Bressington Independant MP

Ann O'Neill, founder Angelhands - Adelaide speaker
A mother who lost her children in a murder suicide at the hands of their father.

Ilsa Evans, Academic/Author of Broken, a book on domestic violence patterns

Professor Freda Briggs - National spokesperson
Emeritus Professor, Uni of SA

Rina Russo Co-founder MACSA - MC and South Australia co-ordinator

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Venue: Princess May Park, Fremantle (cnr Cantonment & Parry and Adelaide Streets, behind Clancy’s)
Time: 10.15 for 10.30am start Sunday May 3

Email contact: ahartwig@womenscouncil.com.au

MC - Ann Moore Chairwoman of the Women's Council for Domestic & Family Violence Services (WA)

Speaker - Carolyn Harris Johnson, Academic/Author of Commonwealth Prize-winning
book Come With Daddy (2005), interviews with seven mothers whose children were murdered by their fathers following family breakdown including

Speaker - Michelle Steck, a journalist mother who lost one child in a murder suicide 16 years ago after being pressured to agree to consent orders despite a history of domestic violence. After a second marriage, she has now been in the FCA for eight years with her four children.

Speaker - Tanya, a mother who was stabbed 31 times by her husband but is still unable to get a 'no contact' order under existing Family Law legislation will tell her story of escaping death at the hands of her ex-husband who still wants to see his seven children.

Angela Hartwig, Executive Officer
Women's Council for Domestic & Family Violence Services (WA)

IN MEMORIUM20 CHILDREN WHOSE LIVES HAVE BEEN LOST IN FAMILY DISPUTES SINCE 1996

• 1996 - January 25: Peter May shot and killed his three children, Lisa eleven, Andrew eight, and Natalie seven during a contact visit. On the same day, he also killed his wife and her parents. May's history of domestic violence was commonly known and reported,
• 1998 – October 23: After Ronald Jonkers lost custody of Aaron DeBaugy 5, Ashlee seventeen months and David seven, he poisoned them by carbon monoxide in their car on a contact visit in Perth,
• 1999 – August: WA four young children were gassed along with their father Mark Heath after a family court dispute,
• 2000 - Rhonda Bartley was shot dead by her ex-partner in Berri while attending a court ordered contact handover of their baby daughter,
• 2001 - September: Mikaylah Green eleven weeks, Taylah Pringle eleven months and Jackson Merrott six, were smothered by their father on a contact visit in Sydney,
• 2002- Ana Hardwick 35 is strangled by her former partner after the family court granted her custody of their eleven and eight year old children,
• 2004 – April 26: Jessie Dalton nineteen months and Patrick Dalton thirteen weeks were smothered by their separated father Jayson Dalton after a family court order to him to return the infants to their mother Dionne,
• 2005 – 4th September: Robert Farquharson killed his sons Jai ten, Tyler seven, and Bailey two, by driving them into a dam in Winchelsea, south-west of Melbourne on Fathers' Day contact visit,
• 2008 – May 9: The body of three year old Imran Zilic, was found after his father threw him down a mine on an access visit,
• 2008 – January 3: Christopher McEwen allegedly raped and then killed his daughter Rhiannon McEwen on Bribie Island on New Years Eve. The matter of the children's residency was before the Family Court in 2004 where the father was given residency of all three children. It is not known to this writer if it was by consent. However, this father was cleared by a psychiatrist to leave a Brisbane hospital's mental health unit just nine days before he allegedly raped and murdered his ten-year-old daughter. Queensland Health did not report the man – who had spent two weeks as an involuntary patient in the hospital's mental health unit – to the Department of Child Safety. Given this man's mental condition, the question is how in 2004 was it that he obtained sole custody of his four children aged between six and ten?