Friday, June 27, 2008
Please find copy of my letter to our Prime Minister, which I forwarded to him this week.
Could you please post it on your web site and forward it on to your contacts for me?
Look forward to speaking with you on air next week.
OPEN LETTER TO AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER, KEVIN RUDD
Peter van de Voorde 2008
Dear Prime Minister,
I would be delighted if you would please consider the following carefully, in the interest of the many thousands of dispossessed parents and children of Australia.
Sooner or later the tide is going to turn. It took many years for us to recognize the injustices perpetrated against our Indigenous populations, Slavery, Apartheid, Civil Rights etc, etc.
These injustices were ignored for many decades due to community ignorance. Unfortunately we are repeating the same injustices under another name on our own people, due to the same ignorance.
Saying SORRY to one deserving dispossessed group, while at the same time completely ignoring the dispossession taking place right under our noses, smacks of hypocrisy and ignorance.
I fully applaud your part in bringing about a long overdue apology to the stolen generation and the Indigenous population. The fact that it took 200 years for us to realize the damage we inflicted on this vulnerable group and denied them their fundamental human rights for so long, is an indictment of our level of compassion and empathy. Unfortunately during the 200 years of community ignorance, the voices of reason were ridiculed and brushed aside.
I plead with you to please take a look at what is happening today with compassion and empathy.
It is estimated that the stolen generation numbered approximately 50,000 children. We now know the horrendous ramification of this "Best Interest of the Children" policy debacle, ironically administered by someone with the offensive sickening title of "PROTECTOR OF ABORIGINES"
Sadly the figure of 50,000 children representing the Stolen Generation, pales into insignificance when compared with the current figures of forcible separation of children from their parents.
The latest ABS figures show that:
1. There are now almost 700,000 Australian children who no longer have any meaningful contact with their biological non custodial parents.
2. There are now 312,000 biological non custodial parents who no longer have any meaningful contact with their children.
These figures do not include the extended biological family members such as grandparents, uncles, aunties, cousins, etc, who are estimated to add a further 1.5 million people, who are also denied their ties of kinship with their much loved members of their families.
This is an estimated total of 2.6 million of the nations citizens now reduced to a "GENERATION OF THE DAMNED". This human horror, is administered by the current so called protector of the Best Interest of the Children, THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA.
Contrary to what is promoted by those who wish to continue with the current failed policies, no scientific evidence has ever been produced anywhere, to show that large numbers of non custodial parents are voluntarily abandoning their children. While individual examples can always be found of any reprehensible behaviour, these should never be allowed to be promoted as representing the behaviour of the majority group.
The voices of reason, who are endeavoring to bring these gross violations of human rights to the attention of the community, are again ridiculed and brushed aside.
It comes as no surprise that so many children are neglected and abused in our community. It occurs because checks and balances have been removed by allowing the forced removal of hundreds of thousands of loving parents from their children.
Perhaps you could explain to an anxious community, how responsible parents are supposed to meet their duty of care and responsibility obligations to their children, when the State is permitting the illegal removal of children from their non custodial parents with impunity???
I respectfully ask that you please consider the above together with my previous correspondence, and in the interest of all the disenfranchised members of 'THE GENERATION OF THE DAMNED' of this great country, hope that you are able to help bring about some relief to all those affected.
Our failure to act will undoubtedly produce a similar outcome for our community, as was the fate of the Indigenous community before us.
I very much look forward to a reply of my concerns.
Peter van de Voorde
Presenter and Researcher
DADS ON THE AIR, AUSTRALIA
+61 4286 48691
I have just read and signed the petition: "Global Action for Zimbabwe".
Please take a moment to read about this important issue, and join me in signing the petition. It takes just 30 seconds, but can truly make a difference. We are trying to reach 20000 signatures - please sign here:
Once you have signed, you can help even more by asking your friends and family to sign as well.
Thank you! Peter
Thursday, June 26, 2008
read more | digg story
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Each week, we send you a message designed to inspire, challenge, and equip you as a father. We work to make those messages relevant and on target, and in our continuing efforts to improve the ways we serve you and other dads, your feedback is vital! Please help us by completing a short survey on the fathers.com weekly email. Take the survey here.
Thank you for taking time to assist us.
For the children,
Monday, June 23, 2008
by Glenn Sacks and Jeffrey M. Leving
June 22, 2008
The image of fathers and fatherhood has taken a beating over the past several decades, and the media has been part of the problem. While there has been some improvement in the past few years, fathers are still frequently unfairly stereotyped.
For example, in April the Council on Contemporary Families issued a report on men and housework. CNN’s headline to the story was typical of most media-- "Report: Men still not pulling weight on chores.”
In reality, studies which account for the total amount of work that husbands and wives contribute to their households--including housework, child care, and employment--confirm that men contribute at least as much to their families as women do. What the CCF study actually said was that the amount of child care fathers provide has tripled over the past four decades, and the amount of housework men do has doubled. Moreover, men have accomplished this in an era where the average workweek has significantly expanded. The papers reporting the story barely noticed.
Ex-NBA Player Jason Caffey was widely vilified in April for being behind in his child support. Caffey had paid over 90% of what he was ordered to pay, but fell behind when his post-career income dropped, and was threatened with jail. Neither CNN commentator Nancy Grace nor Caffey’s other critics stopped to ponder the absurdity of calling a father who had already paid millions of dollars in child support a "deadbeat dad."
Similarly, in April Chandra Myers made national headlines when she took the unusual step of suing New York bakery worker Robert Sean Myers’ employers Sara Lee Bakeries and Bimbo Bakeries for allegedly failing to garnish his wages. Yet while Robert was labeled a “deadbeat dad,” the media didn’t even notice that a court had obligated Myers to pay $2,000 a month in child support for one child--on an income of only $1,600 a month.
USA Today financial columnist Sandra Block recently explained that widows receive significantly more social security benefits if their husbands delay retirement. She could have written, “Men, we know your wives and children appreciate the sacrifices you’ve made as family breadwinner, and delaying retirement will help ensure your loved ones are provided for.” Instead, Block wrote:
“If you want to make up for all the times you came home with beer on your breath, left your socks on the bathroom floor or gave your wife a DustBuster for Valentine's Day, hold off on filing for your Social Security benefits.”
She then adds, with some understatement, “Many men who are eager to retire may chafe at this suggestion.” You think?
In 2002, Clara Harris repeatedly ran over her husband David as his daughter begged Clara not to kill her father. She recently filed a suit against her former attorney, triggering a round of media reports on her case. Media outlets consistently referred to David simply as “Cheating Husband” or “Cheating Spouse.” At one point, 233 of the 354 news stories indexed on Google News, referred to David Harris as Clara Harris’ “cheating husband.” If an unfaithful woman was murdered by her husband, it’s doubtful that newspapers would disparage this victim of domestic violence by referring to her simply as “cheating wife.”
The reporting of the Britney Spears-Kevin Federline child custody battle also had some low points. Many headlines were similar to Yahoo News’ “Court awards Spears' kids to K-Fed.” Funny, we thought "Spears' kids" had two parents, not just one.
Research shows that dads matter. The rates of the four major youth pathologies--teen pregnancy, teen drug abuse, school dropouts and juvenile crime--are tightly correlated with fatherlessness, often more so than with any other socioeconomic factor.
The public portrayal of fathers is fairer now than it was a few years ago, and much fairer than it was during the 1980s and 1990s. Still, too much of the media reflexively buys into unfair, destructive stereotypes of dads as slackers, deadbeats, deserters, and louts.
This column first appeared in the Orange County Register (6/14/08).
© 2008 Glenn Sacks - All Rights Reserve
Glenn Sacks is a men's and fathers' issues columnist and radio talk show host. His columns have appeared in dozens of America 's largest newspapers. His radio show, His Side with Glenn Sacks, can be heard every Sunday in Los Angeles and Seattle .
My name is Andrew Cushen, and I am conducting a survey of New Zealand Political Blog Readers. This survey is part of my research toward a Master of Arts in Political Studies at the University of Auckland.
As the reader of a blog that features postings related to political news,discussion and debate in New Zealand politics, I invite you to participate in this survey.
Please follow this link:
This link will take you to the survey and also provide you with further information on how and why this research is being conducted. If you would like to ask me further questions about the survey or about my research in general,you will find my contact details listed on this page also.
I would appreciate it if you would complete this survey by Friday the 4th of July.
Thank you, Andrew Cushen
Sunday, June 22, 2008
By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor
Last Updated: 8:44PM BST 22/06/2008
Thousands of primary pupils were prevented from making Father's Day cards at school for fear of embarrassing classmates who live with single mothers and lesbians.
The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools "in the interests of sensitivity" over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households.
It only emerged after a large number of fathers failed to receive their traditional cards and handmade gifts.
Family rights campaigners last night condemned the policy as "absurd" and argued that it is marginalising fathers, but local authorities said teachers need to react to "the changing pattern of family life".
An Office for National Statistics report in April found that one in four British children now lives with a lone parent - double the figure 20 years ago.
The Father's Day card ban has been introduced by schools in Glasgow, Edinburgh, East Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway and Clackmannshire.
Tina Woolnough, 45, whose son Felix attends Edinburgh's Blackhall primary school, said several teachers there had not allowed children to make Father's Day cards this year.
Mrs Woolnough, a member of the school's parent-teacher council, said: "This is something I know they do on a class-by-class basis at my son Felix's school. Some classes send Father's Day cards and some do not.
"The teachers are aware of the family circumstances of the children in each class and if a child hasn't got a father living at home, the teacher will avoid getting the children to make a card."
The making of Mother's Day cards and crafts, in the run-up to Mothering Sunday, remains generally permitted.
But the Father's Day edict follows a series of other politically correct measures introduced in primary schools, including the removal of Christian references from festive greetings cards.
Matt O'Connor, founder of campaign group Fathers For Justice, said: "I'm astonished at this. It totally undermines the role and significance of fathers whether they are still with the child's mother or not.
"It also sends out a troubling message to young boys that fathers aren't important."
Alastair Noble, education officer with the charity Christian Action, Research and Education, said: "This seems to be an extreme and somewhat absurd reaction.
"I would have thought that the traditional family and marriage are still the majority lifestyles of people in Scotland. To deny the experience of the majority just does not seem sensible."
Local authorities defended the change, saying teachers needed to act "sensitively" at a time when many children were experiencing family breakdown and divorce.
A spokesman for East Renfrewshire Council said: "Increasingly, it is the case that there are children who haven't got fathers or haven't got fathers living with them and teachers are having to be sensitive about this.
"Teachers have always had to deal with some pupils not having fathers or mothers, but with marital breakdown it is accelerating."
Jim Goodall, head of education at Clackmannanshire Council, said teachers are expected to behave with common sense but be sensitive to "the changing pattern of family life."
South Ayrshire Council said children should not feel left out or unwanted, while City of Edinburgh Council said the practice on Father's Day cards was a matter for individual schools.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
A Father's Rights, the first film of Dickson, TN-based William Fain productions, is the true tale of a father denied the right to share the custody of his daughter. The first of three films on the production schedule of Fain Productions, it stars a cast of Screen Actor's Guild and independent actors living locally, including Karen Carlson, a prominent Hollywood film and television actress http://imdb.com/name/nm0137948/ now living in Tennessee.
Starting right from the birth of Seth’s daughter, the mother takes away his right as the father to even know anything about his daughter by not naming him on the birth certificate.
Heart wrenching in its intensity, Seth goes to court to battle his way to his daughter’s side.
A Father’s Rights is based on the life of William Fain. He battles each day to bring an end to laws that take away a child’s right to both parents. He wrote and produced this movie in order to show the inequality between parents created by certain laws and to hopefully inspire others to take up that same fight.
Rated for everyone with a little adult guidance.
"The film drew me in -- I laughed, got angry, nearly cried and cheered at the jury verdict. This is a must see movie for anyone that believes children deserve both
parents and their extended families."
A Father's Rights is only film I've ever seen that accurately portrays how truly challenging it is for good fathers to remain in their children's lives during ugly divorces.
Steven Ashley, Founder of the Divorced Fathers Network, author of Fathers Are Forever and The Long-Distance Dad
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Baby snatcher jailed 5 years
Woman took newborn in Sudbury
By THE CANADIAN PRESS
SUDBURY -- A woman who snatched a newborn from a hospital in Sudbury last November has been sentenced to five years in prison.
Brenda Batisse was arrested at a home in Kirkland Lake hours after abducting the infant from St. Joseph's Health Centre.
The 30-year-old pleaded guilty three weeks later to charges of abduction and endangering the life of an infant.
In passing sentence yesterday, a judge acknowledged that Batisse had been a victim of abuse, but the "enormity of the crime" warranted a prison sentence.
The judge also noted that the kidnapping was planned and committed against a "vulnerable victim."
Batisse's lawyer says an appeal would be filed immediately with a request to have her released on bail until the appeal is heard.
June 19, 2008
Spanking bill gets backing from Senate
By TIM NAUMETZ, THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA -- A bill that would expose parents to criminal prosecution for spanking their children has cleared the Senate, bound to reopen wounds still sore from a Supreme Court ruling four years ago.
Sponsored by Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette, the bill passed final reading in the Senate on Tuesday night.
Approval in the upper house followed debate and three days' of committee hearings at which criminal defence lawyers and the Canadian Bar Association argued against the criminalizing impact it could have on parents, as well as teachers and caregivers.
Hervieux-Payette, however, was backed by the children's-rights group that lost the Supreme Court challenge against a provision allowing parents and teachers to strike children for "corrective discipline." She said that if the Commons does not pass the bill she will continue to reintroduce it until it becomes law.
"What I'm saying is every citizen in this country will have their physical integrity preserved," she said in an interview yesterday, adding she believes she will get the support of Leader Stephane Dion to pass the bill if the Liberals form a majority government after the next federal election.
But even Hervieux-Payette's own caucus is divided over the legislation, which the Liberal Senate majority passed over Conservative objections with no recorded vote.
The bill proposes to eliminate Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which says any parent, schoolteacher or a person standing in the place of a parent "is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child" over the age of 2 and under age 13 "if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances."
In a split decision, the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that the provision "adversely affects" security of the person for children who would be protected by the Charter of Rights, but only to a limited extent that does not offend fundamental principles of justice.
The majority judgment also rejected arguments that spanking and striking children was "cruel and unusual punishment" and cited safeguards against abusive conduct against children.
June 19, 2008
Pastor calls horrific family murder-suicide a 'perplexing medical tragedy'
By James Stevenson, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Members of the Lall family (left to right) Rochelle, Joshua, Alison, Anna and Kristen are shown in a recent family handout photo. The family of a Calgary man at the centre of a disturbing domestic homicide says despite what happened his life's record will show he was a devoted husband and father.
CALGARY - A "perplexing medical tragedy" was behind the horrific murder suicide of a young Calgary family that left five dead, mourners were told Thursday.
Three weeks after Joshua Lall slaughtered his wife, two young daughters and a basement tenant, Pastor Miriam Mollering's brief summation of the horrific crime might be as close to an answer as anyone ever gets.
Mollering led the memorial in which hundreds of people gathered at a Calgary church to laugh, cry and pay their respects to the Lalls.
And despite their tragic end, all the stories told of a happy young family that never uttered a cross word in public and who all loved each other dearly.
A slide show depicted the family always smiling, going on hiking trips or ski lessons, carving pumpkins, playing soccer and blowing out birthday cakes
They heard of young, sensitive Kristen, 5, and her love of soccer. And there was much talk of her precocious three-year-old sister, Rochelle, who was always on the move
Police say Joshua Lall killed tenant Amber Bowerman first with multiple stab wounds, then went upstairs to kill his wife and daughters Kristen, 5 and three-year-old Rochelle.
He then turned the knife on himself, dying in the baby's room nearby the crib where one-year-old Anna was found unharmed the next day.
Police have offered no explanation for the "domestic homicide" and are still awaiting toxicology tests.
Rob Adamson, a friend a co-worker of Joshua's at the Calgary architecture firm where he worked, described him as "a friend to everyone and respected by all for his kind and gentle nature."
In the days after the tragedy, speculation was rampant that despite his outward appearance of normalcy, Joshua Lall's mental health was failing.
Family friend Dr. Katherine Kavanagh alluded to Joshua facing a potential mental illness in her eulogy, but didn't mention it by name.
""As we celebrate the lives of this loving family I'm sure that most of you have come to realize that we are here today because of a medical condition," she said.
"This medical condition could affect any one of us. However, unlike other medical problems like heart disease, diabetes, the majority of us probably do not know what the risk factors are, what the warning signs are, what we should tell our doctors, when and how to get some immediate help that we may need.
"If we could ask Joshua and Alison I'm sure that they would tell you that they thought they were doing everything right. And that they did not know or understand the gravity of the situation. The vast majority of us would have done exactly the same thing that they did."
The Lall's extended families issued a statement through Mollering, saying they were overwhelmed by the outpouring of support from the people of Calgary.
"And certainly together as families they desire to honour the lives of Joshua, Alison, Rochelle and Kristen by having this public service today," Millering said.
"So that together as a community, a city and a family we can help one another find hope in the midst of horrendous loss and despair."
A similar memorial for the Lalls was also held in Guelph, Ont., last week where the two met as students.
A funeral for Bowerman, a 30-year-old freelance journalist who had recently moved into the Lall's basement, was held two weeks ago
Fathers and Men's Rights Activist
Phone: (613) 237-1320 ext 2438
“For The Children”
Canadian Dads http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2256636649
Jeremy Swanson FRA: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=860360343&hiq=jeremy%2Cswanson
Disclaimer: The Distribution of this material is a public service and the views and opinions expressed here-in are the views and opinions of provider and not necessary those of the Distributor. While reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy, the Distributor accepts no responsibility and offers no guarantee.
Barbara Kay, email@example.com
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
I once sued a horse dealer for fraud. The evidence in hand was irrefutable, so justice-wise the case was a lock. Nevertheless, my world-weary lawyer, familiar with the presiding judge's record, told me I would likely torpedo my case on the witness stand. Stung, I protested I was truthful and knew my case backwards.
Precisely, he replied. This judge is a small town guy. You're too urban and obviously competent and articulate for his comfort. He'll assume you could have looked out for your interests. The defendant will play up her humble rural working life (she did) and he'll be sympathetic to her.
It was as he predicted, and I lost on a meaningless legal technicality.
One lesson of many I took from this misadventure -- the main one being that justice and judgments are two separate animals --is that although a judge must be knowledgeable in the law, he may also be a social idiot, with zero interest or ability in reading human behaviour, as well as blind to his own bias (the furious blushes that accompanied my opponent's lies, so outrageous they drew spontaneous gasps of incredulity from onlookers familiar with the facts, were ignored).
My case only involved money. Rewind my little vignette and play it out in family court where the right to parent one's own children is at stake. In 90% of disputed custody cases mothers walk away with "primary care" (in effect sole custody) of their children because, deservedly or not, judges feel sorry for them and find -- not a reason, which I learned by experience they don't actually need -- a technical or legal opening to issue the judgment they have already made in their hearts.
The introduction to a book presently nearing completion called Deadbeat Judges: How Courts Disenfranchise Fathers outlines the triple cause of the syndrome. In the absence of constitutional protection of parental rights, and masking their power-grab under the guise of "best interests of the child," courts.
Brown has seen it all: ignoring evidence, affidavits and expert testimony that favour the father have usurped disputatious parents' natural right to equal guardianship of their children. Add to that judges' superannuated impulse toward chivalry for the perceived underdog--virtually always the mother in their eyes--bolstered by a legal culture dominated by third-wave, anti-father feminism.
The result is a perfect storm favouring judicial activism for mothers: "Our Lords and Ladies reflexively defer to women in court, especially mothers. Motherhood is sacred; the role of our noble knights in shining armor on the Bench is to protect it at almost any cost."
I hasten to add that the eloquent author of Deadbeat Judges, Grant Brown, is particularly qualified to write this expose because, unlike the usual run of fathers' rights book authors, he has no personal axe to grind. He has never married and has no children, so cannot be called a "bitter loser," the usual fallback position of unsympathetic critics challenged by former litigants' unpalatable truths about the family law system.
Brown's indignation springs from his education in philosophy and ethics, and his experience as a family law lawyer, a profession he has recently abandoned because of the entire divorce industry's inherent gender iniquities.
Brown has seen it all: judges who aren't up to date on the facts of domestic violence, and so base rulings on myths and stereotypes; a "disconcerting proportion" of judges who don't know the law they are supposed to be applying or don't care to apply it when they do know; judges who ignore evidence, affidavits and expert testimony that favour the father; judges who defer "difficult" (i. e., mother-unfriendly) decisions until it is too late; judges swift to punish fathers for support payment lapses, but loath to impose consequences on mothers who flout access orders.
The six case histories Brown de-constructs are his own, therefore factually reliable, and they will make the blood of any fair-minded reader boil. But while the names of the disputants are altered to protect the children, the actual identities of the case judges are revealed. Since it is well nigh impossible to expose judges' negligence and unprofessional conduct in any other democratic way, it is time, Brown feels that demonstrably biased judges face accountability in the court of public opinion.
And public opinion, wherever it is concerned with real gender equity and the right of children to love and be loved by both their parents (in the absence of abuse), will find in these pages a damning indictment of Canada 's family law system.
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved
"Children have all rights, and Parents have none.
I have to see through the child’s eyes and decide what's best for him"
-Judge Harvey Brownstone 2007
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
read more | digg story
TV One report on proceedings;
Fathers Coalition member Ben Easton's view of proceedings;
I have been privileged this afternoon to witness an extraordinary part of New Zealand history. Auckland father and businessman Vince Siemer braved any valley of fear placing himself humbly before the Court in request that the Court determines a question as according to the law. The penalty and his sacrifice should he be held in contempt of Court is his freedom. The New Zealand Solicitor General has an application before the Court for Mr. Siemer to be subjected to an indefinite prison sentence.
I had missed most of the previous day and the final morning session of the two day proceedings having deliberately removed myself from the Auckland High Court. Mr. Siemer had directly and astutely argued with the presiding Justices, Justice Gendall and Justice Chisholm that he was entitled to call the Solicitor General as a his, and hostile witness. Both Justice Chisholm and Gendall had argued points that could be reasonably refuted and countered by Mr. Siemer, although neither judge had established an argument to outweigh the demand of New Zealand law and its responsibility to observe and be subservient to natural justice.
In the limited period I was able to observe this afternoon this point on the nature of “law” became the burden of the Court. Justice Chisholm promoted a hypothetical situation around the point fishing in legal ground as to how the difficult and complex issues before them could be compromised if judgment were of a certain type. Mr. Siemer rightfully pointed out that he was now accustomed to these discussions responding evenly that the law should not be entitled movement adding that he was indeed a law abiding citizen and if he could be instructed what it was he had done wrong he would in fact be able to comply. It was clear that both judges were unused to the harder ground of a lay litigant when standing to principle in a manner that no lawyer (with maybe the recent exception of Rob Moody Berryman vs. Solicitor General) has ever dared to tread. Mr. Siemer stood his ground. He states he has done nothing wrong.
On following the case I am fortunate to be familiar with these kinds of proceedings having been engaged in similar discussions before the bench myself. The reader can note that there are similar proceedings occurring in Feilding where I in the capacity of being of a father’s coalition am an indirect party. The Family Court has been narrowed into a criticism of its practice where it’s only possible escape seems to be to continue by advancing into greater and more horrendous unlawful practices in the blind hope that the growing adversity will simply fall away. The definition and interpretation demanded of the Court is the same in both proceedings. The Court is accountable to the law. The law must come first and its administrators a very distant if not lonely second.
Again in these proceedings as I did yesterday, I am drawn to concentrate on the comments of Justice Gendall. Justice Gendall advanced on Mr. Siemer his view of law and democracy in a challenge of the businessman, questioning him as if his actions, deeds and statement were a claim to be above the law. Again Mr. Siemer held to his very stable ground. He reiterated to the judge as he had claimed but a few minutes earlier that he was not a king or sovereign: He was a citizen obeying the law. While for some the judge’s comments may hold merit and the simplicities of authority provide them with the same confidence the judge demanded that his interpretation was the final determination of the law, the judge himself would be fool to heed his own statement of such self confidence.
The law’s purpose is to facilitate practice. Due process is the construction of that practice and in New Zealand due process is bound to natural justice. Natural justice is the practice of being fair. The problem the Court has is that Mr. Siemer is reasonably complaining that there are several naked examples where that practice of natural justice is the subject of compromise. Again I state that it was clearly apparent that the judges were unaccustomed to having to deal with such a staunch advocate to the nation’s principles.
In his closing submission Mr. Siemer made a clear statement to which all should pay attention. Naturally if justice can not be seen to be done then the result can only be chaos. This comment seemed to hit a note of recognition with the judges yet it is how deeply this mark of candid interpretation of “natural justice” scored with the judges as to how they will rule in their now reserved judgment. From the perspective of fathers who would rally to the call for support from this brave and valiant father it is impossible for him to be wrong. The judge has to be fair. Attempting to negotiate a judgment with the respondent as if a negotiation on what constitutes “the law” is a very far cry from a non corrupt judiciary in function in this country.
As one of those dads; Mr. Siemer has my unrelenting support. Under the national public demand of an adherence to natural justice, given the extensive examples in this and other strongly presentable cases the New Zealand judicial system may be holding tenuously on to a very thin thread of integrity.
Mr.Siemer was justifiably applauded as the judges retired.
Monday, June 16, 2008
read more | digg story
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Peters were flying to a debate.
Helen looked at John, and said, "You know I could throw a $1,000
bill out of the window right now and make somebody very happy."
John shrugged his shoulders and replied, "I could throw ten $100
bills out of the window and make ten people very happy."
Winston added, " I could throw one hundred $10 bills out of the
window and make a hundred people very happy."
Hearing their exchange, the pilot rolled his eyes and said to his
co-pilot, "Such big-shots back there.I could throw all three of them
out of the window and make 4.3 million people very happy."
Friday, June 13, 2008
Daily Mail (Britain)
10 June 2008
Half a million lonely old men pay price of the divorce boom
By Steve Doughty, Social Affairs Correspondent
Half a million elderly men lead lonely lives with no friends and no contact with their families, a report warned yesterday.
It found that one person in five with an elderly father is no longer in touch with him. One in four claims to be too busy to maintain contact.
Divorce and family break-up has left millions of men without ties to their children and with few or no family links, said the charity Help the Aged.
Retirement deprives many of the company of work colleagues and others are left alone by bereavement or their own poor health.
Of the million elderly men who live alone, half have no human contact and many feel trapped inside their homes. Amy Swan of Help the Aged said: “We are seeing the first real wave of the “divorce generation” hitting retirement”.
“As fathers were typically the parents who did not win custody of the children, many are entering later life with strained family ties”.
“Today, around half the number of older men living alone are experiencing some form of loneliness or isolation.”
The number of divorces tripled in the early 1970s after the liberal reforms of 1969 made ‘quickie’ decrees available for the first time and removed the question of fault in many cases.
Men who divorced in the early 1970s while in their mid-thirties will now be 70 years old and many have lost all contact with children who would otherwise be close to them.
While divorce rates remain high in 2006 there were nearly 133, 000 the effects of the growth of cohabitation and rapid family break-up from the 1980s are now beginning to have an impact on the lives of men who have grown old. A survey of 2, 000 respondents carried out for the charity and the Zurich Community Trust by ICM Research said one in five adults felt guilty at not seeing an elderly father more often, half would like to have more contact with their father and two in five live too far away to see him regularly.
Two in five, the survey found, do not intend visiting ageing fathers this Sunday, Father’s Day.
Miss Swan said: “Nothing can substitute human contact to combat isolation and loneliness".
“Whether its setting up a regular phone call, visit or even sending a letter, we can all play a part in helping alleviate the social isolation felt by so many older people.”
Jane Boulton of the Zurich Community Trust added: “Often just that little bit of contact and support makes someone feel able to retain choice, control and dignity in their life.”
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
To potential fathers - be warned the twisted Government encourages false malicious allegations and the feminazi police will hurt you big time. I do wonder how many dad's blown brains I have to clean up this year? What a hateful and sinister cesspit of agendas this country has become.
Police get new powers in domestic incidents
By BEN FAWKES - The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 11 June 2008
Police who attend suspected domestic violence incidents will have the power to issue "on the spot" safety orders lasting up to three days under tough law changes proposed by the Government.
The safety orders are part of a raft of changes announced by Justice Minister Annette King to the Domestic Violence Act and welcomed by support groups.
The safety orders would last for up to 72 hours and could be issued in circumstances where police suspected domestic violence but did not have enough evidence to make an arrest.
Other proposals include stiffening the penalties for breaching court protection orders, with a maximum penalty of up to two years jail to give judges an "appropriate sentencing range".
"When you get problems, often deaths, it is when you get breaches of protection orders," King said.
The courts would also be allowed to consider making protection orders on behalf of victims and access to counselling programmes for both offenders and victims will be improved.
The proposed law changes were currently being drafted and were expected to be put before Parliament within weeks, King said.
Chief Families Commissioner Rajen Prasad welcomed the proposals and said he hoped they would contribute toward a reduction in domestic violence.
"Better enforcement by the police and courts and better access to programmes will improve safety in families and encourage people to seek help to change their abusive behaviour."
National Network of Stopping Violence national manager Brian Gardner also backed the proposals, particularly the safety orders which he said had worked well in Western Australia.
"It gets the men out of the house and gives them time to cool down and allows the victims to think about what they can do to keep safe."
Allowing courts to impose protection orders would give financial relief to victims who he said were currently having to pay around $1500 "on a good day" to obtain a protection order, Gardner said.
But the proposals received a scathing response from the National Party, who said the Government was copying its own policies.
"We believe giving police the ability to issue on-the-spot protection orders for suspected victims of domestic violence will be very effective in putting their immediate safety first," National's law and order spokesman, Simon Power, said.
Violent crime had risen by 32 per cent under the Labour Government and Power said on-the-spot safety orders were first mooted by National Party leader John Key last November.
"On-the-spot protection orders are a good idea, we believe they will work, and are flattered Labour thinks so as well."
King said the initiatives pre-dated National's announcement and were the result of more than a year of research.
"The discussion paper went out in December last year ... it had been worked on for months before that."
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
read more | digg story
Monday, June 9, 2008
Great stuff, the family court is a destructive and sinister gravy train,a traumatic fractured family industry!
They view non custodial parents and children as a vulnerable file number, so they can leech the blood money from all the unnecessary heartbreak.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Fathers4Justice campaigners stage roof protest on Harriet Harman's house
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:41 AM on 08th June 2008
Two Fathers 4 Justice campaigners dressed as comic book heroes scaled the roof of Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman's house today.
The demonstration was intended as an "early Father's Day strike" against the Government over fathers' access to their children, the protesters said.
Fathers 4 Justice named the pair as Mark Harris and Jolly Stanesby, from south Devon, and said they were dressed as "Captain Conception" and "Cash Gordon".
Fathers 4 Justice
Two Fathers 4 Justice campaigners, dressed as comic book heroes, protest on the roof of the south London home of Harriet Harman.
Fathers 4 Justice named the pair as Mark Harris and Jolly Stanesby, from south Devon, and said they were dressed as "Captain Conception" and "Cash Gordon".
The group claimed that another two activists were inside Ms Harman's home in Herne Hill, south London, and had unfurled a banner from a bedroom window reading "A Father is for life, not just conception".
The campaigners said they intended to remain at the property until the Minister read Mark Harris's book, 'Family Court Hell'.
fathers 4 justice
The sign reads 'A father is for life - not just conception'
Fathers 4 Justice founder Matt O'Connor said: "Harriet Harman and the Government have refused all dialogue with F4J for the past two years.
"We are now resuming a full-scale campaign of direct action against the Government, its ministers and the judiciary. F4J is now the last line in the defence of fatherhood."
A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said: "We were alerted at 8.51am to reports of two males on the roof of a residential address in Herne Hill.
"Officers are currently in attendance at the location and are speaking to the men."
Saturday, June 7, 2008
The new element has been named *Governmentium*.
Governmentium (Gv) Has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called mo-rons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called pe-ons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second to take over four days to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 3 years. It does not decay, however, but instead undergoes absolute power reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more mo-rons to become neutrons, forming iso dopes.
This characteristic of mo-ron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever mo-rons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium -- an element which radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since though it has only half as many peons it has twice as many mo-rons.
Friday, June 6, 2008
http://insidecathol ic.com/Joomla/ index2.php? option=com_ content&task= view&id=3783& pop=1&page= 0&Itemid= 48#
Almost four decades after the "no-fault" divorce* revolution began in California, misconceptions abound. Even the many books about divorce, including myriad self-help manuals, are full of inaccurate and misleading information. No public debate preceded the introduction of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s, and no debate has taken place since. Yet divorce-on-demand is exacting a devastating toll on our children, our social order, our economy, and even our constitutional rights. A recent study
http://www.american values.org/ html/coff mediaadvisoryHtm
estimates the financial cost of divorce to taxpayers at $112 billion annually. Recent demands to legitimize same-sex marriage almost certainly follow from the divorce revolution, since gay activists readily acknowledge that they only desire to marry under the loosened terms that have resulted from the new divorce laws. Divorce also contributes to a dangerous increase in the power of the state over private life
Here are some of the most common clichés and misconceptions about modern divorce, along with the facts.
*Myth 1: *No-fault divorce permitted divorce by mutual consent, thus making divorce less acrimonious.
*Fact:* No-fault divorce is unilateral divorce. It permits divorce by one spouse acting alone for any reason or no reason. No "grounds" are required, and the involuntarily divorced spouse need commit no legal infraction, either criminal or civil. It is therefore forced divorce, meaning you can be divorced over your objections. (Some 80 percent of divorces today are unilateral.)
Even more serious, you can be forcibly separated from your children, your home, and your property, also through literally "no fault" of your own. Failure to cooperate with the divorce opens the innocent spouse to criminal penalties. No-fault divorce made divorce far more destructive by allowing the state to undertake court proceedings against innocent people, confiscate everything they have, and incarcerate them without trial.
*Myth 2: *We cannot force people to remain married and should not try.
*Fact: *It is not a matter of forcing anyone to remain married. The issue is taking responsibility for one's actions in abrogating an agreement. With no-fault divorce, the spouse who divorces without grounds or otherwise breaks the marriage agreement (for example, by adultery or desertion) thereby incurs no onus of responsibility.
Indeed, that spouse gains advantages. Courts therefore do not dispense justice against a legal wrong. Instead, every divorce is granted automatically, and the courts simply divvy up the goods -- including the children -- according to any criteria they choose, including separating the innocent spouse from his or her children without having to give any reason. Because the divorce creates work and earnings for judges, lawyers, and other court personnel, there is a strong incentive for these officials to reward the guilty spouse in order to encourage more divorces and more business for the courts. As Charles Dickens pointed out, "The one great principle of the . . . law is to make business for itself."
*Myth 3: *No-fault divorce has led men to abandon their wives and children.
*Fact:* This does happen (wives more often than children), but it is greatly exaggerated. The vast majority of no-fault divorces especially those involving children are filed by wives. In fact, as Judy Parejko, author of /Stolen Vows
http://www.amazon.com Stolen- Vows-Illusion- No-Fault- American/ dp/1591960223/ ref=pd_bbs_ sr_1?ie=UTF8& s=books&qid= 1212463971& sr=8-1
has shown, the no-fault revolution was engineered largely by feminist lawyers, with the cooperation of the bar associations, as part of the sexual revolution. Overwhelmingly, it has served to separate large numbers of children from their fathers. Sometimes the genders are reversed, so that fathers take children from mothers. But either way,the main effect of no-fault is to make children weapons and pawns to gain power through the courts, not the "abandonment" of them by either parent.
*Myth 4: *When couples cannot agree or cooperate about matters like how the children should be raised, a judge must decide according to "the best interest of the child."
*Fact: *It is not the business of government officials to supervise the raising of other people's children. The entire point of a marriage and family is for mothers and fathers to cooperate and compromise for the sake of children and provide an example to those children of precisely these principles, without which no family can operate. Allowing one parent to surrender both parents' decision-making rights over the children to government officials because of "disagreement" without any infraction by the other (who may "disagree" only about losing his or her children) -- negates the very principle of private family life and invites collusion between the divorcing parent and state officials.
Judges and civil servants are not disinterested. When we give government officials the power to make decisions about the best interest of other people's children, it may well become the best interest of the officials. Allowing them to control the private lives of citizens' who have committed no legal infraction by simply invoking"disagreement" gives them an incentive to reward the parent that is being the most disagreeable. That is precisely the reason for the runaway divorce epidemic.
*Myth 5:* Divorce must be made easy because of domestic violence.
*Fact:* Actual physical violence is legitimate grounds for divorce and always has been. So it does not justify dispensing with all standards of justice, which is what no-fault entail. On the contrary, openly false accusations of domestic violence and child abuse have become an industry in themselves, mostly to secure child custody. By dispensing with standards of justice for divorce, we have allowed them to be abandoned for criminal justice too. Thus "domestic violence" and "child abuse" are not adjudicated as criminal assault, and the accused seldom receives a trial or chance to clear his name. Instead he simply loses his children until he can prove his innocence, an impossible standard.
Most domestic violence and child abuse take place during and after family dissolution; very little occurs in intact families. So domestic violence is a red herring. Federal funds for domestic violence and child abuse now serve effectively as a subsidy on divorce in every state in America, encouraging spouses to bring false accusations and law-enforcement officials to reward them. This shatters another myth: that family law is the province of states.
No-fault divorce has exacerbated the divorce epidemic on almost every count. We urgently need an extensive public debate on divorce and the connected issues of child custody, domestic violence, child abuse, and child support -- precisely the debate that the divorce industry has suppressed for four decades.
Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family http://www.amazon.com -Taken- into-Custody- Fatherhood- Marriage/ dp/1581825943/ sr=8-2/qid= 1169683598/ ref=sr_1_ 2/102-0715661- 8120912?ie= UTF8&s=books
(Cumberland House, 2007)
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Peter van de Voorde. June 2008
In Australia, the Family Law Council, which is the Federal Government’s advisory body on family law matters, has called for the establishment of a Child Orders Enforcement Agency, along similar lines to the Child Support Agency.
Aggrieved non custodial parents who have been denied court-ordered access to their children, since the inception of a Draconian Family Law Industry, some 35 years ago and who have been calling for such measures to be taken for more than three decades, do not hold their breath. They have long ago lost faith in a system in which the scales of justice are tilted firmly in favour of custodial parents. Any suggested changes to what has been shown to be such a gross travesty of justice for so long, is viewed with great skepticism.
Alarm bells ring immediately when it is noted the council’s report, “Improving Post Parenting Order Processes”, was prepared by a committee of eminent judges, magistrates and legal academics who wrote the report under Patrick Parkinson, professor of law at the University of Sydney, whose term as council chairman has expired.
Hundreds of thousands of the nation’s victims of the Family Law Industry, both parents and children, have witnessed at first hand how the odds are stacked against them from the moment a parent becomes a Non Custodial Parent.
Where have the above judges, magistrates and legal academics been for the past 35 years? Why has there been such a deafening silence all these years from the above committee members? Were they not aware of what was going on or were they too busy plundering the family wealth from separating families? Did the eminent members of the bench not hear the cries of anguish from the non custodial parents and their children all these years, while they turned a blind eye to the forcible removal of children from non custodial parents by vindictive, and in many cases disordered and dysfunctional Custodial parents. Why for the past 35 years, have members of the bench refused to use the punitive measures at their disposal, in order to ensure that non custodial parents and their children remain connected following parental separation. Their failure to do so is a crime against humanity and an abuse of the rights of our Nation’s children.
For the past 35 years we have witnessed the mockery of a Family Justice System pretending to uphold the principle of equality and impartiality in what can only be described as a mal- administration of Family Law matters. Millions of the nation’s parents and children, who have had the misfortune to become victims of this Industry, have for the past 35 years protested against the way the scales of justice in Family Law are tipped heavily one way, in order to help maintain the frenzy of the Law profession and their mercenaries, in the pursuit of plundering the family wealth from unsuspecting separating parents.
The Laws governing Family law matters were drafted by Lawyers, with the main beneficiaries being the law profession and associated mercenaries, who have now joined in a growing melee to capture a share of these ill-gotten spoils. The law profession’s success depends on how much conflict and animosity is present or can be created, for them to mount an economically successful case. The sole custodial parent model following separation has provided them with a guaranteed high level of ongoing conflict, and by definition it has provided them with a lucrative economic outcome.
Family Laws which were drafted in the early seventies were supposedly designed to help solve the problems associated with the highly emotive issues of parental separation, especially the issue of child custody and the right and need, to ensure ongoing contact of non custodial parents with their children, unless it was unsafe for them to do so.
However whether by accident or by intent THE RELEVANT SOLE PARENT CUSTODY MODEL WAS ADOPTED, SO AS TO GUARANTEE FAILURE, with the resulting horrendous ramifications for all those who incorrectly believed that justice would prevail, and that by using the family justice system, at least enduring contact with their children would be ensured.
This effectively means that any Court Orders you may have obtained, mostly at great expense, have a totally different meaning depending on whether you have been made a custodial parent or a non custodial or contact parent. So there are two totally different outcomes for one set of Court Orders.
1. From the moment you are made a custodial parent, you have effectively been given absolute power and control over every aspect of your children’s life, can ignore the Court Orders with impunity, and can eliminate the other parent and extended family members out of the children’s life with ease. The methods used have been well documented for decades.
2. From the moment you are made a non custodial or contact parent you no longer have any say in any aspects of what happens in your children’s life. You are no longer able to protect them, love, support and care for them and you can be totally eliminated from your children’s life with frightening speed and ease. To add insult to injury, you can then be accused of abandoning your children and subsequently labeled a deadbeat parent.
The adverse impact of such injustices are further highlighted by the fact that if a non-custodial parent contravenes articles of the Court Order, such as not returning the children on time from a contact visit, the CUSTODIAL PARENT simply picks up the phone, calls the police and the offending parent is immediately labeled a kidnapper, hostage taker or child abductor, and set upon by various federal and local police agencies. The only cost incurred to the Custodial Parent is the cost of the phone call.
By sharp contrast if the CUSTODIAL parent decides to ignore and contravene the same set of Court Orders, and refuse to let a child have anything further to do with their non custodial parent even if they live in the same street, the non custodial parent’s only recourse is to take the matter back to the very Court which failed them so miserably in the first place. No simple phone call for them, but rather further expensive legal proceedings which ultimately lead to nothing, if a recalcitrant Custodial parent decides to ignore the directions of the Court. In their twisted logic the Industry reasons that to upset the Custodial parent would be detrimental to the “Best Interest of the Child”.
This is what the Family Justice Industry sees as an equitable outcome.
Following 35 years of silence, these eminent members of the Family Law Council committee, have now recommended that a “small, independent (enforcement) agency with offices in each capital city” would be the best way to respond to serious breaches of contact orders. They have suddenly decided that serious and willful disregard of parenting orders was a matter of public interest and that a child’s best interest was at stake when a parent breached an order that a court had deemed beneficial to the child.. They also belatedly consider that such breaches brought the Family Court into disrepute.
With their collective tongues firmly planted in their cheeks, they suggest these enforcement agencies would encourage parents to resolve disputes without litigation. But then true to form and making sure to protect the lucrative status quo of their Industry and in order to maintain the standard of living of their fellow members of the Law fraternity, they recommend litigation should be instituted against the offending parent in the Family Court with the aggrieved parent able to instruct a Lawyer provided by the agency.
The committee acknowledges their recommendations would be an expensive exercise, and therefore propose that extra funding be made available to legal aid commissions in order to help parents fund enforcement matters before the Family Courts.
To all those who have been a victim of this badly flawed system, it would appear to be nothing more than an attempt to create a growth in public funded ineffectual pursuits of enforcement of contravention orders in the Family Court. Perhaps there is a downturn in the numbers of aggrieved parents seeking justice from this farcical institution.
You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to recognize that a court which refuses to punish habitual offenders for contravention of their own orders, is going to do anything different just because the aggrieved parents are represented by legal aid Lawyers.
The eminent members of the Family Law Council Committee suggest that such legal actions in the Family Court as they recommend would ensure compliance. With all due respect eminent members, could you please explain how you see your recommendations ensuring compliance?????
This is all smoke and mirrors gobbledygook, designed to make it look as if they are a caring Court with “The Best Interest of the Children” at heart. However all the available evidence would suggest otherwise.
If this committee was even remotely serious at trying to resolve the ongoing flagrant contraventions of Court ordered Contact Orders, it would have been better to consider the proposal by Family Law campaigner Simon Hunt, of a “CONTACT RECOVERY ORDER” or (CRO)
Unfortunately all the available evidence shows that when practical commonsense suggestions are made to resolve this travesty of justice against non custodial parents and their children, it is either ignored or ridiculed by all those engaged in maintaining the status quo for their own self interests.
The following is an explanation of the CROs by Mr Hunt. I believe this would also be a practical and effective low cost mechanism to enforce Court Ordered Contact Orders
The Recovery of Contact Order (RCO) mechanism is a simple way of protecting children facing the separation of their parents and will prevent most custody cases from even starting (because there is no aggrieved party to initiate litigation).
Immediately enforceable Recovery of Contact Order (RCO)
Protecting children from having of their parents removed by the other upon separation.
That any parent denied equal parenting time of their child or children can apply for immediate relief by way of a Recovery of Contact Order (RCO) protecting the child's relationship with both its parents. The excluded parent would obtain the RCO from the police or the magistrate or district court clerks office. Like an AVO or Intervention Order the Recovery of Contact Order (RCO) would be effective immediately and immediately enforceable by the police. It would provide the applicant up to a maximum of seven days of contact with their child per fortnight (or less by agreement).
Like an AVO or Intervention Order the application would go to court within days so that the respondent party, the parent withholding the child or children, has the opportunity to oppose the order.
If he RCO is not opposed it stays in force.
If the RCO is opposed, the arguments and evidence of the respondent parent will be assessed by the court and a decision made to either;
i) dismiss the respondent's case,
ii) refer the matter to the Family Court or Federal Magistrates Court whilst making an interim order for the contact requested by the Applicant Parent up to 50% ie: 7 days a fortnight (or less as agreed), or partial or complete exclusion of the applicant parent. The court may also order that allegations of child abuse or neglect are investigated by an appropriates child protection agency.
Prior to hearing the RCO would be effective immediately and immediately enforceable by the police unless the withholding parent lays criminal charges of abuse or serious neglect with the police, in which case the matter would be heard by the Magistrate or District Court before restoration of contact (50% or less by agreement) can be enforced.
VERY YOUNG CHILDREN
RCOs would not be effective immediately or immediately enforceable when the child is less that one years old or is being breast fed but would none the less be promptly adjudicated by the Magistrates court.
FAMILY VIOLENCE Allegations of violence, be they genuine or contrived, would not be grounds to exclude one the child's parents when third party change over arrangements can be made.
+61 4286 486 91
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
A recent Australian study
http://www.theaustr alian.news. com.au/story/ 0,25197,23657729 -5013404, 00.html
showed that children who do not live with their natural biological father were between 17 and 77 times more likely to die from intentional violence or accident. These facts are corroborated by academics from around the world.
http://psych. mcmaster. ca/dalywilson/ 26-36.pdf
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Single mothers will be forced to name baby's father on birth certificate - or pay £200 fine
By James Chapman
3rd June 2008
Unmarried mothers will have to include the name of their child's father on birth certificates under sweeping changes to the law unveiled yesterday.
Men who claim they are being excluded will also get the right to demand a paternity test and be formally acknowledged on registers.
The Government proposals aim to give more children the 'security' of being acknowledged by both parents.
Under its plans GPs or social workers will be asked to corroborate claims that the woman or child would be at risk by naming the father, while those who say they do not know the father's identity would have to persuade the registrar they are telling the truth.
Ministers believe that making it a legal responsibility for fathers to register births jointly with mothers will also make it easier to settle disputes over child maintenance.
Fathers who refuse to be named and mothers who do not record the father's name are liable for a £200 fine.
Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell, who won a battle against Cabinet colleagues who opposed the plan, outlined the proposals in a White Paper.
Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman is understood to have expressed concern that the system would tar some children permanently by associating them with undesirable fathers.
But Mr Purnell insisted: 'It's crucial that from the day they are born, both mum and dad recognise the role they play in their child's life and how that shapes their child's identity.
'We want to ensure that while continuing to protect vulnerable women and children, we promote parental responsibility and child welfare by significantly increasing the number of birth registrations which hold the details of both mother and father.'
In 2005 275,000 babies were born outside marriage in Britain. Every year 50,000 have the father's name left blank on their birth certificate.
The white paper would still allow mothers to omit a father's name if they can prove exceptional circumstances - including domestic violence or abuse. Children born as a result of rape or sperm donation will also be granted exemption.
Opposition MPs accused the Government of sending out mixed messages on parental responsibility.
Tory work and pensions spokesman Andrew Selous said: 'The Government has completely failed to send a clear message on the need for responsible fathers in children's lives.
'The Government must start making this a political priority by removing the penalties on couples in the tax and benefits system, recognising the contribution of family breakdown to poverty and working practically to strengthen family relationships.'
Monday, June 2, 2008
Compare these common sense initiatives to the deranged measures manufactured by the radical feminist sympathizers, like the NZ Principal Femily Court judge - peter Boshier. This lost the plot judge has just implemented silly measures like making judges’ wear robes and wigs! What a wanker you are judge Boshier. Is that in the child’s best interests you twisted idiot? No wonder you view your Kangaroo Court as a lucrative fractured family industry!!
No wonder so many parents with young families are leaving this cess pool country packed to the brim with retard government officials and lying family court lawyers like Chris Robertson, Paul Finnigan, Adrienne Edwards, Tanya Cook, Siobhan McNulty, Tony Greig and twisted psychologists like John Watson and Michael Davidson.These people ride the gravy train and are responsible for the destruction of the paternal family and many future anti social behaviours in children. A NZ femily court file number pays good money for those low enough to leech the blood money from false allegations and litigation. How dare they call it a civil court, as the animals who work in it are devoid of a moral conscience and integrity.
May 30, 2008
PARENTS illegally kept away from their children by aggrieved former partners would have a new government agency to turn to for help under recommendations by the Family Law Council.
The council, the Federal Government's advisory body on family law matters, has called for the establishment of a Child Orders Enforcement Agency, along similar lines to the Child Support Agency.
The agency would respond to complaints from aggrieved parents denied court-ordered access to their children, determine whether the other parent had shown "serious disregard" for the court orders, and help institute legal action in the Family Court to ensure compliance.
The council's report, "Improving Post-Parenting Order Processes", was prepared in response to a reference from the former attorney-general, Philip Ruddock, but is now under consideration by the Labor Attorney-General, Robert McClelland. A committee of eminent judges, magistrates and legal academics wrote the report under Patrick Parkinson, professor of law at the University of Sydney, whose term as council chairman has since expired.
Breaches of court orders for contact between separated parents and their children - and the family law system's response to them - have been a source of complaint for many years, the report says.
Non-resident parents have complained about their former partners openly refusing to comply with a court order, moving residence to make contact difficult or impossible, and being absent when they call for their children.
Resident parents also report problems, including the failure of the other parent to collect or return the child on time, and failure to show up for visits.
About 2500 formal contravention applications - or complaints about breaches of parenting orders - are lodged annually with the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, but the report says this is an underrepresentation.
The council said litigants, who were frequently self-represented, were often left to "run the gauntlet of repeated applications" to the Family Court, and the cases took up a great deal of the court's time. "Experience has been that many litigants will drop out, which results in the particular children losing the benefit of the original orders and the recalcitrant party winning out in a war of attrition," the report says.
Serious and wilful disregard of parenting orders was a matter of public interest, it said. The child's best interest was at stake when a parent breached an order that a court had deemed beneficial to the child. As well, such breaches brought the court into disrepute.
The council said a "small, independent [enforcement] agency with offices in each capital city" would be the best way to respond to serious breaches. It would encourage parents to resolve disputes without litigation. But if this was not possible litigation would be instituted in the Family Court with the aggrieved parent able to instruct a lawyer provided by the agency.
Acknowledging the new agency would be expensive to set up, the council proposed providing extra funding to legal aid commissions to help parents fund enforcement matters before the family courts.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Just finished watching the classic movie Kramer vs. Kramer with my
7-year-old daughter. She bonded with 7-year-old Billy, as I bonded
with ad man Dustin Hoffman. We both had tears.
When I and others first started to protest gender bias discrimination
by Israeli family courts and child welfare (Revacha) a few laughed at
us - including Jeremy Wallach's Yahoo Raananalist.
Today, the Israeli Ministry of Justice has declared that the 1962 family custody law should be reformed, removing the mother as having custody by default.
Yes, this is a victory for our children, but just one of many battles
yet to come. The Knesset must now accept and adopt the Ministry of
Justice opinion and translate it into law.
But of even greater importance.
Parents need to work together for their children, to reduce conflict
which cripples them. They need to stop using their children as weapons.
They need to provide what every child psychologist has suggested -
providing the child with equal access to both parents.
Lastly, one thought.
I heard today of a mother who received a love bite from her young
daughter and turned around and struck that child in the face.
The child was merely asking for attention and love, while the mother
responded with violence. There is NEVER any excuse by any parent to
lift a hand to a child. None!
And if anyone on this list should ever witness such violence to a
child, they should warn the parent that they will file a complaint
with the police.
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=bquuAb3_ iyY
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=nBO5KdQaKjc
Fathers 4 Justice Israel
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/fathers- 4-justice- israel