A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element known to science. Its existence has been proved during the corrupt Liarbour Party reign , brawls in parliament, slavery charges,H2 , petrol prices,feminazis and other issues of the last year or two.
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.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
Five Myths about No-Fault Divorce
Five Myths about No-Fault Divorce
Stephen Baskerville
6/03/08
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
http://www.stephenbaskerville. net
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)
Stephen Baskerville
6/03/08
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
http://www.stephenbaskerville. net
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
More False Hope, For Parents Kept From Their Children
MORE FALSE HOPE, FOR PARENTS KEPT FROM THEIR CHILDREN
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)
POLICY
Protecting children from having of their parents removed by the other upon separation.
THE MECHANISM
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.
www.dadsontheair.net
dotafeedback@gmail.com
www.justisrecords.com.au
+61 4286 486 91
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)
POLICY
Protecting children from having of their parents removed by the other upon separation.
THE MECHANISM
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.
www.dadsontheair.net
dotafeedback@gmail.com
www.justisrecords.com.au
+61 4286 486 91
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Biological Parents Do Matter
Studies from around the world show that children raised by their natural biological mother and father fare much better than those who are not raised in a natural-parent family.
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
__._,_.___
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
UK Single mothers will be forced to name baby's father...
Notice how, again, the father is painted as the bad guy. Also, the story indicates that men have a right to demand a paternity test if they feel they have been excluded as the father. However there seems to be no right to demand a paternity test if the father thinks the woman is lying about him being the father .Meanwhile in New Zealand radical feminists like Cindy Kiro, Helen Klark and Sue Bradford are encouraging the removal of dad from the birth certificate. These bush pig radical feminazi maggots should be in prison not running a country into the ground,because they all have hateful agendas and are all infested with unlawful gender discrimination genes.
Single mothers will be forced to name baby's father on birth certificate - or pay £200 fine
By James Chapman
3rd June 2008
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1023664/Unmarried-mothers-forced-babys-father-birth-certificate.html
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.'
Single mothers will be forced to name baby's father on birth certificate - or pay £200 fine
By James Chapman
3rd June 2008
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1023664/Unmarried-mothers-forced-babys-father-birth-certificate.html
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
Australian Family Court shows good initiatives
Encouraging seeing that the Australian Government is prepared to do something about custodial parents who jeopardise Court orders. This is beneficial to the children caught up in the adversarial tactics world of the family court.
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.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/parents-kept-from-children-get-new-hope/2008/05/29/1211654221557.html
Adele Horin
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.
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.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/parents-kept-from-children-get-new-hope/2008/05/29/1211654221557.html
Adele Horin
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
Fathers - 4 - Justice Israel.
[fathers-4-justice-israel] Kramer Vs. Kramer - Child Custody in Israel - Please Forward!
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
Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Leyden
Director
Fathers 4 Justice Israel
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/fathers- 4-justice- israel
__._,_.___
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
Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Leyden
Director
Fathers 4 Justice Israel
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/fathers- 4-justice- israel
__._,_.___
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)