Busted relationships and busted Family Laws

Eric Frei · 16th April 2011, 08:37 AM

Anyone who has ever been through a divorce or seperation involving children where a party has decided to be belligerent and dishonest knows how the law will side with women regardless of fact or evidence.

Here's a cruel yet typical case, where the victim of the false allegations has now been ordered by the courts to not see his kids.

Fury at ruling in custody battle | Herald Sun

Quote:

April 16, 2011

A MOTHER found by the Family Court to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children has been given custody of them.

The father, deemed "principled" and with "much to offer his children", has been effectively banned from seeing his daughters.

The case will spark renewed debate about family law and the issue of shared parenting.

The father, who we will name "Bill" because he cannot be identified for legal reasons, is described by a Family Court judge as no threat to his daughters, a successful parent who is "courteous" and "intelligent".

The same judge found the mother, whom we will call "Jasmine" and who abandoned her first daughter at two and spurned the child's subsequent attempts at reconciliation, had displayed "dreadful", "cruel" and "malicious" behaviour.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

But the judge still ruled that because of time spent apart, the children had become estranged from their father and it was in their interests that "the children spend no time with the father".

This was at odds with a ruling in February 2008 that Bill should have contact with his daughters.

But in last month's ruling, the judge said: "The necessity to preserve the children's physical, emotional safety and welfare is overwhelming. However unsatisfactory this outcome is for the father, it is the outcome most aligned with the children's best interests.

"In addition, it is the only outcome which will afford the girls the peace they require now while permitting some possibility of a relationship between the father, (the children) and their siblings in the future, however long term that may be."

But the judge added: "It is a sad fact in the family law jurisdiction that a determination which is most consistent with the best interests of the children can appear to reward bad behaviour on the part of one parent and work in apparent injustice for the well-motivated best performing parent."

Bill has not seen his daughters since April and has not spent extended time with them since August 2005.

He says the estrangement was largely a result of false allegations of sexual abuse of the children made against him by his former wife.

The custody ruling in the Family Court last month came after a seven-year battle over access to the girls, now aged nine and 11.

It followed a criminal trial in 2007, when Bill, 55, was cleared of the sexual abuse allegations. The trial judge found them totally false and threw the case out.

The ordeal has cost Bill his home, his job and about $450,000 in lost income and legal costs. He has faced court 70 times to clear his name and try for some form of access to his children.

"It has been a nightmare. All I wanted was to be part of my children's lives - to try to give them a good start in life," Bill said.

"But I am denied that because of the malicious way in which my ex-wife has acted and because of the credence the legal system has given her lies and falsehoods.

"The family law system needs wholesale change. There appears to be no testing of evidence in court and it seems that often lies and fabrications are immediately accepted as fact.

"It's a disgrace and, as far as I know, it doesn't happen in any other legal sphere."

Bill's case follows the case of "Steve" last year, in which the court accepted his good character, but banned him from seeing his daughter for seven years because it was believed the mother would "shut down" emotionally if he were allowed to see her.

In another case last year, a father, "Mick", was jailed for sending a birthday card to his daughter in breach of a court order and was locked up again for taking a walk in a park - near where, unknown to him, his daughter was playing.

Debate over the operation of family law has become heated over the past year with a new campaign seeking to overturn amendments to the Family Law Act brought in by the Howard government that have established the principle of "shared parenting" and effectively given fathers a better chance of having greater access to their children in custody disputes.

Historian and Family Court critic Prof John Hirst questions the underlying principles in family law.

"The Family Court by law has to make the children's interests paramount in divorce cases. Everyone thinks this is wise and proper, but to elevate one principle above all others can produce terrible results," he said.

"To stop mothers being tempted to make accusations of sexual abuse and so keep children to themselves, the law should state that any parent making false accusations of this sort will lose the right to be chief carer of the children. If a mother has so turned the children against the father that they don't want to see him, for a time at least the children should be taken into care.

"Even on the present test of child's best interests, it is hard to see how a child will benefit from being left with such a mother. She has burdened the child with the story that her father abused her.

"Then when the child comes of age she will discover that the mother's accusations were false."

Jeff Darby · 16th April 2011, 10:16 AM

Stuff like has been reported in post above really gives me the shytes..!!!! Emotional blackmail of any sort, false accusations, Daddy done this, OR, is this, or Mummy done this, needs to be left out of the equation.

ALL parties NEED to realise that BOTH the Father and the Mother has EQUAL RIGTHS 50% for MUM, 50% for Dad. This should echoe into all aspects of there yearly schedule: Holidays 50/50 if there are days that pop up unexpected, well rotate them, Mum gets one, Dad gets the next and so on.

Honestly whats so hard about this! Niether party should have more rights than the next! I have lived this in the bad old days when all this first came in to being, when if you were the Father god help you cause no one else was. The key to this is simple...50% to each party.

But like many simple solutions....some can not see them!!

Eric Frei · 18th April 2011, 03:40 PM

Often men are stereotyped into being the violent, aggressive, abusive etc. It's a common card played, and the system kicks into full gear for the women.

I doubt the system gives a crap if it's the other way around and here you can see how a nasty, lying deceitful woman played the game and won whilst destroying some-one elses life.

Here's another fresh one out as we generally only hear of the bad men cases and women are perfect, not!:-

Car mum on attempted murder charges - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Quote:

A woman is facing attempted murder charges in the wake of a car smash in Adelaide.

Police say a car hit a tree in Nelson Road at Ingle Farm on April 8.

They have now arrested and charged a woman, 32, from Adelaide's north-eastern suburbs with three counts of attempted murder.

Police will allege she drove her car deliberately at a tree in an attempt to kill herself and her three children.

The children were treated in hospital for minor injuries.

The woman is to face the Magistrates Court.

Eric Frei · 18th April 2011, 04:03 PM

Here's a PDF document about parental alienation by a Dr.

PAS = Parental Alienation Syndrome

Some excerpts:-

Quote:

The vilification of the targeted parent often expands to include that parent’s complete extended family and network
of friends. Cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents—with whom the child previously may have had loving
relationships—are now viewed as similarly obnoxious. Loving grandparents now find themselves suddenly and
inexplicably rejected. The child has no guilt over such rejection, nor does the programming parent.

Quote:

I have been testifying in PAS cases since the early 1980s. I have made recommendations along these lines in
many cases. Not once has a court gone along with any of these six recommendations. On occasion, a court will
threaten to implement one of these measures for getting alienating parents to comply with the court-ordered
visitation schedule, but not once have I been in a case when a court has actually done so. Alienating parents
know well that courts are not likely to come down heavily upon them for violating a court-ordered visitation
schedule. Without such consequences, they continue to program the children. They know well how to "work the
system." They violate court-ordered visitation schedules, and they know that they can most often do so with
impunity. They recognize that the courts are slow, and that time is on their side. The longer they have access to
the children, the more deeply entrenched will become their PAS symptoms.
This is the most common sequence, a sequence I have repeatedly seen: The alienator successfully alienates
the children. The target parent goes to court (the time gap between the onset of the alienation and the court
hearing is often a year). The trial drags on over a few weeks or a few months. The court orders an evaluation
(often the evaluator is someone who may know little, if anything, about the PAS). The evaluation takes four-to-five
months. Five-to- six months later there is another court hearing, at which point the judge orders therapy for
everyone. (And the therapists may know nothing about PAS either.) The alienator does not go, nor does the
alienator bring the children. The alienator recognizes that he (she) can do so with impunity. The alienated parent,
in desperation, decides to bring the case back to court. By this time another six-to-nine months may have
elapsed. Another hearing is scheduled six months to a year later. By this point, in typical cases, the PAS has
become even more deeply entrenched in the children’s brain circuitry, and the children, by this time, have been
alienated for three years or more (23). Back in court, the judge decides that the original evaluation is too old and
orders a new evaluation. Sometimes this may be an update of the earlier one, and sometimes a new evaluator is
brought in. In either case, the judge takes the position that any evaluator will do and is not concerned with
whether the evaluator has any knowledge at all of the PAS. This takes another six months to a year. The new
evaluator recommends more therapy. After the third or fourth round, the children are in their teens, and the judge
(by this time the fourth or fifth one) throws up his (her) hands, claiming that there is nothing that can be done with
teenagers. At that point, the children have become permanently alienated, and the judiciary has basically joined
forces with the alienating parent in bringing about this all too common tragic result (24). At any point, had the court
seen fit to impose the aforementioned sanctions program, it is highly likely that the PAS would have been
prevented (in the early stages) and reversed (in the moderate forms, and even in some of the severe forms). This
tragedy is being played out daily in courts of law throughout the United States, Canada, and many countries
abroad.

It is in this realm that the judiciary has failed in its obligation to serve children’s best interests and to protect them
from abusers. In the PAS situation, the abusers are the PAS indoctrinating parents. Poisoning a child to hate a
loving and dedicated parent is a form of emotional abuse per se. It is important to note that courts have been very
eager to impose the same sanctions on parents (usually fathers) who renege on their financial commitments to
their spouses and children. However, the same sanctions are rarely imposed when courts deal with PAS
alienators.

Quote:

Indoctrinating parents are the primary initiators of PAS in their children. The children, in order to protect
themselves from rejection from their alienating parent, contribute to the expansion and intensification of PAS
campaigns of denigration. Lawyers who work within the adversary system, although they are doing what they
were taught to do in law school, that is, zealously support their clients, are playing an active role in promulgating
and entrenching the PAS. They join the coterie of supporters and enablers that surround PAS indoctrinators.
Some even do this when they recognize that their client is a PAS indoctrinator. Although such lawyers may get an
A+ from their law school professors, they get an F- from this medical school professor. They are contributing to
the corruption of youth, the poisoning of young minds, and the attenuation and even destruction of the important
parent-child bond

Done it · 18th April 2011, 10:08 PM

At least this one got caught out.

Belly dancing sinks NYC woman's disability claim - Yahoo!7

A New York City woman who was getting $850 a month in alimony because she was supposedly disabled and unable to work had her payments slashed after her ex-husband spotted online photos of her belly dancing.

Brian McGurk went to court after discovering a blog that showed his 43-year-old ex-wife dancing at a gallery.

In other Internet postings, she wrote about dancing vigorously for several hours every day.

Dorothy McGurk told the court that the dancing was physical therapy for injuries she suffered in a car accident in the mid-1990s.

A county judge didn't buy it — and reduced her payments to $400 per month.
The judge also ordered her to pay her ex-husband's legal fees and 60 percent from the sale of their home.

Eric Frei · 20th April 2011, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Frei

Often men are stereotyped into being the violent, aggressive, abusive etc. It's a common card played, and the system kicks into full gear for the women.

I doubt the system gives a crap if it's the other way around and here you can see how a nasty, lying deceitful woman played the game and won whilst destroying some-one elses life.

Here's another fresh one out as we generally only hear of the bad men cases and women are perfect, not!:-

Car mum on attempted murder charges - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

She's charged with 3 counts of attempted murder. I'd like to know if she was separated, single mother, married etc. Seems she had mental health issues.

Mother who drove into tree 'tried to kill her children' | The Australian

Quote:

April 20, 2011
A MOTHER who police allege tried to kill herself and her three children by driving her car into a tree has been charged with attempted murder.

Detectives arrested and charged the woman with three counts of attempted murder on Monday after the crash in an outer Adelaide suburb last Friday.

The four occupants of the car sustained minor injuries in the crash, were treated in hospital and have since been discharged.

It is understood the woman had a history of mental health issues, including schizophrenia.

Family contacted yesterday declined to speak to The Australian but expressed their concern over the impact of the case on the children's lives.

In recognition of this, a suppression order was made yesterday in Holden Hill Magistrates Court by magistrate Derek Sprod to protect the identities of the mother and children.

A bail hearing has been scheduled for April 28.

olyman · 21st April 2011, 08:31 AM

doesnt near every woman,,have mental issues??? cripes!!! and with the first bitch,,she had the kids,,and the nefarious judge sided with that trash..and wasnt a damn thing i could do about it,,then she moved out of state,,BEFORE the div was finalized [against the law] and the 1/2 cent sheriff of this county--wouldnt go after her,,because him and ex fil were buds!!!!!! no shit!!!!!! and for those of you--who may not believe this,,ive got news for you---------------amd eric knows what i speak of,,tho hes in aust,,and im in usa!!!!!!!!!!! he ONLY reason..some people are alive,,is some things,,are against the law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and my kids,,still worship the hag!!!!! and the one now..is a "reformed" drug user--guess what mental issues she has?? sheesh!!!!!!!!

Eric Frei · 21st April 2011, 09:14 AM

We did not need scientists to tell us this:-

Men more black and white than women

Eric Frei · 14th May 2011, 10:08 AM

15 hours left to vote

So far 28,590 people have voted. The question is:-

Poll: Is a protest of this magnitude ever justified?

The result is 63% say YES.

This is a determined man screwed by typical bureaucracy, about the only people who would agree with the state of current family law are lawyers and women.

Read more: Bridge stunt chokes city

Garry Brockley · 14th May 2011, 07:24 PM

Good on him there is little if any support for ex service people who have seen combat and the civilian authorities have no idea what they need. taking a mans children just because he suffers from PTSD is insane, they need help not penalising.

jmcg.insight.gardens · 18th May 2011, 11:36 PM

I vote for family laws being overhauled, more in favour of men, they get a bad deal.

I watched my brother whom I care for, denied access, pay through the nose for child support for my nephew, whilst she was living in another relationship and between them would have been earning a huge amount of money.

She refused for him, or any of my family for that matter, seeing his son for four years.

Family court does not adequately address many issues, the suffering that men go through over their children must not be ignored any longer. They count too.

My brother finally got to see his son through me having to befriend the ex, which was not easy, it was all about her, what she could get, bad mouthing my brother, b.... .

My brother was not strong enough emotionally ( he's still a man though) to go through the family court process, I wanted to help him, but he couldn't afford it anyway, she would have played it for everything she could anyway.

My brother went through huge debt and emotional suffering because of this woman, it makes my blood boil. His debt from child support is finally over, but he has changed from the fun loving guy he was to a different person. I wish I still had my old brother back, for his sake.

I think the child support system needs to be addressed too.

There was a good ending to the story, my nephew is now a grown young man, loves his Dad, and is a great guy.

But nothing will give my brother back the happiness he used to have before it all.

So many of my bloke friends have gone through bull as well.

Time for change.

Bowani Siam · 19th May 2011, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Frei

15 hours left to vote

So far 28,590 people have voted. The question is:-

Poll: Is a protest of this magnitude ever justified?

The result is 63% say YES.

This is a determined man screwed by typical bureaucracy, about the only people who would agree with the state of current family law are lawyers and women.

Read more: Bridge stunt chokes city

However Eric, all the women I know (including myself) are BIGTIME in favour of reform, so I would argue that the only people who agree with the current state of family law are lawyers and biatches.

I voted YES in this poll (I love polls...) As I was sitting in traffic in the CBD that day, I was wondering why we weren't going anywhere and cursing some idiots who I presumed had got into a bingle on the road (pay attention you bloody drivers). When I finally got to work and I discovered the cause of the hold-up I was only too happy to have sat in the ute listening to The Kinks while some dude hung banners off the Coathanger if it meant serious attention towards the issue of one-sidedness in custody agreements.

I think everyone knows someone (usually a man) in this situation, like Julie's bro. The mother who has been granted primary custody is 'kind enough' to 'allow' the father to see the kids. Like she is doing him a favour. WTF?

Eric Frei · 19th May 2011, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by very_sarcastic

the only people who agree with the current state of family law are lawyers and biatches.

Thank you for refining this answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by very_sarcastic

I think everyone knows someone (usually a man) in this situation, like Julie's bro. The mother who has been granted primary custody is 'kind enough' to 'allow' the father to see the kids. Like she is doing him a favour. WTF?

If you cannot afford going to court you will not get them, only a court order will work. There is no other piece of paper in this country that can do that. So for all those men who cannot afford it they go without.

Children over 12 years of age can be appointed a specialist children's lawyer and go where they please. If the primary carer has had sufficient time to brain wash the child with PAS then no doubt the child will not want to go see the dad.

Birds of a feather flock together so the biarches get their information from other biarches, who tell them of all the tricks and delay tactics they can deploy as seen in the opening post.

Before you can go to court you have to do 3 sessions of mediation, so they drag that out and there's no compliance, they just show up without any documentation making outlandish claims that are way off what Federal Family Law allows. Then when mediation fails and you get your certificate you can go to court.

But those are just hearings and if there is no resolution reached by the parties after the judge makes his best effort then a trial is set .... which means bring your barrister and lawyer, so you are looking around $12K a day.

It's a very busted system.

jmcg.insight.gardens · 20th May 2011, 01:01 AM

It's no doubt flawed Eric, it needs addressing.

I know men that have lost their houses over it due to court costs, and still are fighting their see their children. Good men that would do anything for their children.

The main people that win are the Solicitors and Barristers, going home with a big fat pocket at the end of the day.

Yes, there are delaying tactics that cost big dollars, but you can put yourself through, this is one legal system that supports the Applicant or the Respondant defending themselves. It just needs to be researched on how. Most of these cases are linked to Legal Aid that supports only one party, the other can then not claim it, it's first in, best dressed. The other party can defend their case themselves, this can be researched through the office in the court house. The family court system must support the party that does not get legal aid. If you are too well off for Legal Aid you can defend your own case. I've researched this, big time. This goes through to Federal Family Court. A Respondant or Defendant can ask that the child have their own Solicitor, this can be set by the court at no fee if the Registrar decides the case has merit, this can sometimes help fasten the process, as the child gets their own say, better than just the Child Psycologist report.

Ultimately the psycologist has the final say, not the Judge, whom has to take the lead from the child Psycologist, as to the best interest of the child. They are human and can get it wrong, so the child having their own Solicitor gives them more back up in Court. I've helped a few mates with this process.

Whole thing needs an overhaul, everyone knows someone that has been screwwd over by this system. Whole thing sucks, then if the B.... party, ( can be men too you know, not just women) want to use the system they can use it to break people, usually always pushed by a greedy Solicitor (I do not know how they can sleep at night).

Something needs to be done. BIG TIME.

If anyones stuck in this, got to get smart.

Yes, children can be brainwashed, but they are also very resilient, take my brothers case, that happened, but we worked through it over time, they do work it out, in time. They do. My nephew was convinced his father didn't care, a lot of love and support from the family got him through that, now he has a great understanding with his Dad. Loves his socks off. hehe. He also was never told anything bad about his Mum, it's important to keep the negative away from them, children want to love both their parents, and be loved by them. I had two parents that hated each other, divorced when I was a sprat, that hurt me more than anything. I was in the middle, copping it from both sides, not a good way to grow up, hurt both me and my brother.

There are also Mens Support groups in most areas for family court issues, there is one here, they help you with the legal know how....

if any ones in this system look for one to help, usually free.

Eric Frei · 13th June 2011, 05:17 PM

More about the bridge protester, he can see his kids now apparently.

Sydney bridge protester pleads not guilty

jmcg.insight.gardens · 23rd July 2011, 12:40 AM

might sound a bit cliche but this is example of the support groups out there. This one can help with Family Court info or help you gain legal advice or advocacy. There are others as well. Some men find support groups and forums helpful.

D.I.D.S

Dads in Distress 1300 853 437

Australia

Eric Frei · 2nd April 2012, 07:58 PM

Couple of recent articles ....

Are you too focused on your kids? | Herald Sun

Quote:

Are you too focused on your kids?

Kamahl Cogdon
From: Herald Sun
April 02, 2012 12:00AM

IS your child's happiness your main focus? Then it's time you grew up, says family counsellor Jenny Brown.

The Growing Yourself Up author says parents need to stop obsessing about their children and start focusing on themselves - for their own and their child's sakes.

"The key to being a grown-up parent is to take away your focus on making your child's happiness a project, and putting the focus back on being a clear-minded, principled adult,'' Brown says.

"It's when the parent takes time to clarify their principles, think about their job description, think about what they're in control of and what they can't control in their child.''

The Family Systems Institute director says focusing on yourself is the best way to ensure your child grows up happy and self-reliant.

"It's definitely not selfish. It takes a lot of thoughtful effort to be a strong, loving presence for a child,'' she says.

"And, paradoxically, when parents can stop worrying about how they can make their child happy, their children grow up with so much more breathing space and that's what breeds resilience and a happier child.''

So why do today's mums and dads focus so much attention on their children?

Brown says it because they've become more anxious about raising children and have "outsourced'' much of their parenting wisdom to self-help books and experts.

"While there's a lot of good expertise out there, it has the effect of parents losing confidence in their own common sense and ability to be a thoughtful, guiding presence for their child,'' she says.

Brown says it's possible today's parents are trying to reverse the hands-off parenting approach they grew up with.

"Perhaps they're thinking they were not given the attention they would have liked and they may well have swung too far in the other direction,'' she says.

Some parents use children to fill a void in their relationship, Brown says.

"If parents are not working to resolve their difficult issues and insecurities with each other, it's really easy for parents to put too much focus on to their children,'' she says.

"It's uncomfortable to stay with the adult stuff and children can really easily fill that intimacy void.''

Brown says addressing any issues in this partnership is a key to becoming a grown up parent.

Another step is to stop couching your language around your child. Instead, you should take an "I position'' to communicate what you are willing and not willing to do.

For example, when a child shows off a painting they've done, a parent who focuses on the child might say, "you are so talented, you might be famous one day''.

Whereas, a parent taking the "I position'' might say, "I'm really interested to have a look at your painting and I can see you've enjoyed doing it''.

Another example Brown cites is the child who asks their parent for help with homework.

A mature "I'' response would be, "I'm willing to have a look at your homework and be a sounding board, but I'm not willing to take over and do it for you''.

Brown says this approach has benefits for child and parent.

"The child doesn't become dependent on praise or direction from others to be able to manage life's challenges and opportunities. That's a really good outcome for children,'' she says.

"And the parent feels steadier and more confident. When you focus on changing your parenting style according to how your child is feeling and behaving, it takes you all over the place, as far and wide as the child's moods change from one minute to the next.''

Together you should

Enjoy time together and time apart

Treat each other with warmth and respect

Be kind and affectionate

Tolerate the other being upset with you

Disagree without harming your relationship

Take responsibility for your actions

Respond thoughtfully, not anxiously

Together you shouldn’t

Feel uncomfortable with separation

Need the other all the time to be happy

Expect the other to make you feel good

Try to avoid conflict by not voicing views

Mind-read or speak for the other

Think more about the relationship than your own responsibilities

Be anxious

growingyourselfup.com.au

Parents need a lesson | The Courier-Mail

Quote:

Parents need a lesson

by: Kylie Lang
From: The Sunday Mail (Qld)
April 01, 2012 12:00AM

ASK teachers what they like most about their job and most will say, working with children. Their least favourite part? Dealing with parents.

And it's not just the hotheads - extremists who lose control when they watch their children play sport, turning games into brawls requiring police intervention, as occurred in a recent Wynnum-Manly and Waterford under-15s rugby league clash.

It's also parents who keep their emotions a little more in check, yet still manage to overstep the mark and make the job of educating children more complicated and challenging than it already is.

I'll give you a few examples.

A group of Year 12 mothers turns up to a boys' college on the last day of school to watch the seniors eat lunch together for the final time. They are affronted when asked by a school administrator to leave. They think they have a right to be there. They don't.

A Year 5 teacher advises a student that she needs to do more reading at home. The next day, the girl's mother fronts at school and abuses the teacher for upsetting her daughter.

A parent phones his son's Year 8 teacher and argues so strongly about the C grading of a history paper that the teacher is left in no doubt as to who actually wrote it.

A father takes umbrage with a school's hair policy and claims his boy is being treated unfairly for being told to cut off his rat's tail.

He takes his complaint to the media (and is indulged with coverage).

These are all true stories, and perhaps you identify with one or two of them.

When I was telling a colleague on Friday that I now know everything there is to know about the horrific life of a battery hen, she countered with: "Well, I've just written an imaginary diary entry about travelling around the Northern Territory with an indigenous tribe - I'd better get a good mark."

It's natural, biologically predetermined even, for parents to nurture, protect and defend their children, but there's a fine line between defending and denying, between helping and meddling, between nurturing and indulging.

Leading child and adolescent psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg says we are in danger of raising a marshmallow generation.

Not only are many parents reluctant to set limits and enforce consequences when children make bad choices, now there is a chunk of the parenting population with "an almost pathological desire to protect children from disappointment and failure", presumably because they are frightened of challenging them or putting too much pressure on them to succeed.

But the simple reality is this: Important life lessons are rarely free of pain, grief or anxiety.

We might ache to take our children's place and spare them the suffering, but we'll only be harming them in the long run.

Siding with children caught breaking the rules, be it over a hairstyle, cheating in an exam or smoking dope on school grounds, teaches them that they are somehow above the law. And we all know where that can lead.

When we excuse bad behaviour, we deny children the valuable opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and learn from their mistakes.

I'm not saying we should blindly follow the dictates of authority - it is healthy to question and to challenge - but we should do so with respect and a motivation other than getting our kids off the hook.

Dr Carr-Gregg says if we take away the capacity for children to develop resilience and face adversity, the result will be a generation of young people incapable of assuming adult responsibility.

"They will have no idea how to handle the routine challenges of life, making them risk-averse, psychologically anaemic, and riddled with fragility and anxiety," he says.

Too many parents pack their kids off to school and expect teachers to return them at the end of Year 12 with a sparkling academic and sporting record, an army of great friends and a firm career path.

But when teachers ask parents to support them in their efforts, they are often met with hostility and denial (my child wouldn't do that!).

A recent US study found that of all the challenges new teachers face, handling parents is the toughest.

It outstrips concerns about class control, funding and testing requirements.

Anecdotal evidence would suggest it's no different here.

A friend who is deputy principal at a Queensland state high school says: "The biggest problem we face in educating children is their parents.

"They either want to do everything for their kids, including lie for them, or they show no interest in being involved at all.

"Even the best teachers find this draining.

"Burnout is increasingly common."

Is it any wonder good teachers are leaving the profession for one that usually demands much less and pays a whole lot more?

Eric Frei · 16th May 2012, 10:40 AM

Interesting case on at the moment. Anyone watching the news lately would know of it.

4 daughters who resided in Italy until their mum took them on a holiday to Australia which was supposed to be for 4 weeks, but she stayed, I think 1.5years now. Mum and dad are clearly separated/divorced.

The dad got a Court Order (International) for the kids to return to Italy. The Australian Court honoured the order.

Of course the kids are now being hidden so they cant go. And now the media jumps in .... "oh poor kids etc".

What concerns me is how the media accepts it as OK for a mother to take 4 kids to another country so they do not see the father! And what sort of mother thinks that is acceptable?

It is totally unacceptable what she has done.

Also, she can move back to Italy too.

And now the media hype, and please Prime Minister help me it's not fair (boohoo). Help you basically kidnap the kids and brainwash them with your crap. What the kids are doing on TV is out of control too, not sure what the defamatory implications are but certainly disgusting behaviour.

It is pretty standard in Court Orders for living arrangements to allow both parents access, anyone moving with the kids too far away which makes it harder for the other parent to see the kids is doing the wrong thing and Court Orders cater for that. Was an old trick by women to grab the kids and move state etc so the dad could not see them, then they get MAXIMUM CHILD SUPPORT and milk not only the father but the system for every cent.

So why is it that in this case the mother is seen as an angel? Certainly she shouldn't be. She could have lived in Italy nearby and both parents had access. But doing what she did is so wrong it is not funny.

Not sure how the system works in Italy but there's nothing new in women getting AVO's etc on the Ex's here so they cannot see the kids, it's like standard procedure in the woman's "How To Be A Bitch Manual". Many men have to jump through a whole heap of hoops because a woman's word is accepted at face value, "Oh he abuses the kids, he this, he that". They ring cops, they ring child welfare, they take kids to doctors and psychologists always crying the same ole wolf story .... ask the men and they'll tell you I am not making this up. Then judges ask for evaluations and reports, assessments are made and the man is cleared, often judges say "there's no evidence of abuse" and the woman go off their rockers.

Lets see what happens in this case, it will be very expensive for the woman to fight this, especially on Australian soil, already one child has a barrister, they are like $10K per day.

Here a child requires parental consent to get a passport to go overseas, be careful if consenting to your Ex taking your kids overseas for a "holiday".

Yep, the system is busted.

Mum to go to court to keep daughters in Australia | The Australian

Quote:

May 16, 2012 8:41AM
THE mother of four girls on the run from authorities will appeal to a Queensland court today to keep her children in Australia.

The girls are in hiding with a relative after their mother failed to meet an overnight deadline to put them on a plane to Italy to live with their father.

The case of the Sunshine Coast girls, aged nine, 10, 13 and 14, became public after their mother said they were being dragged back to Italy against their will.

The mother accuses the father of being abusive, while the father says the mother abducted the children from Italy and fled with them to Australia.

The girls were ordered by the Family Court to board a flight to Italy from Brisbane last night, but their mother showed up at the airport without them.

“I don't know the whereabouts of my children,” she told the ABC.

She said her eldest daughter had been granted a court order staying proceedings in her case.

The mother said she would return to court this morning seeking to overturn an order that her daughters must return to Italy.

The girls have gone on national television saying they feel safe with their mother, and do not want to live with their workaholic father.

They have written letters, reported in the media, begging him to allow them to continue living in Australia with their mother.

The mother yesterday appealed for Prime Minister Julia Gillard to intervene. Ms Gillard said she felt for the family, but politicians should not involve themselves in Family Court matters.

Mother arrives at airport without daughters

Quote:

07:00 AEDT Wed May 16 2012
A mother of four sisters on the run from police has made an emotional plea at Brisbane airport amid an international custody dispute with the girls' Italian father.

The 32-year-old Sunshine Coast mother also said she would get to plead her case in the Family Court this morning, after her grandmother fled with the girls yesterday.

The mother arrived at Brisbane International Airport last night with a relative and four friends and visited the Emirates airline counter where she told reporters she wanted to comply with a court order.

"The orders were very vague, they said that I needed to present the children within 12.01am," the mother said.

"Unfortunately I'm unable to hand over the children — I don't know about their whereabouts."

The mother also spoke about how difficult the last few days have been for her and her girls, aged nine, 10, 13 and 14, who she says are being forced to return to Italy to live with their father against their will.

The girls also wrote emotional letters begging their father to leave them alone and let them stay with their mother, the Courier Mail reports.

The mother says her lawyers filed a last-ditch application yesterday to overturn the March decision that ordered her children return to Italy.

The mother said she would need to appear in court today but did not say whether her girls would be present.

"I will need to appear with or without the children," she said.

In the letter to her father, the eldest sister wrote that he was ruining her life.

"Please stop this now and let us live here with our mum, I do not feel safe with you," she wrote.

Her nine-year-old sister wrote that she felt "much safer" in Australia, and "need my mummy".

The mother has said she fled Italy two years ago with the aid of Australian officials to escape her marriage and start a new life.

The Family Court had ruled that her children had to return to Italy by midnight on May 15.

The mother said she could not comply because her 70-year-old grandmother had taken the girls into hiding.

The girls recorded a video plea, broadcast on A Current Affair, saying their father was abusive and they did not want to live with him (Video: Watch A Current Affair's exclusive interview with the mother and girls).

But the girls' father, his lawyers, the Family Court, and Queensland's Department of Communities and Child Safety are not backing down and have engaged police to find the children.

Eric Frei · 17th May 2012, 04:37 PM

And slowly the facts come out. And as expected seems the mother is full of BS. And how stupid the media must feel now, creating an incident in favour of the mother who frankly abducted those children and is in CONTEMPT OF COURT.

And if you read between the lines clearly the children have been brainwashed. I'll highlight in bold where the between the lines parts are.

How an Italian fairytale became a tug-of-love nightmare | News.com.au

Quote:

May 17, 2012 12:00AM
SHE was 16 when she went to Italy and fell in love, the stuff of fairytales.

The teenager had left behind the beaches of the Sunshine Coast to learn Italian and study the country's art and culture, planning to learn as she lived as the guest of a local family in a small village.

After that first whirlwind year, she married the family's son and the newlyweds set up home in half of the family's villa. It was 1996.

In June the following year, the couple's first child was born, a daughter. She was followed by three surviving sisters while the couple's third daughter died as an infant due to birth abnormalities.

Now the sisters and their mother are at the centre of a tug-of-love case gripping the nation as they beg the Family Court not to send them back to their father in Italy. Back in Australia in the bosom of their mother's family, they are living on borrowed time - with the patience of the court running out.

The mother has said the girls are hiding with her grandmother. In effect, they are being held to ransom.

In March, the Full Bench of the Family Court ruled the mother had to take her daughters back to Italy under the laws of the Hague Convention, which dictate children have to be returned to their "home country" for the matter of custody to be determined, unless there are exceptional reasons.

Without those reasons, the hands of the judges are tied if the countries involved are signatories to the international convention which governs child abduction - as are Australia and Italy.

Over and above the mother's emotional pleas, the top court's three judges upheld a decision by a single Family Court judge that there were no special circumstances and the mother had never meant to return to Italy, despite evidence she told her daughters and their father they were only coming here for a holiday.

The court said the onus was on the mother to prove to them the father had consented to his girls living permanently in Australia, and she had not been able to prove that.

Their story, as it unfolded in court, shows the fairytale ended at least five years ago when the couple separated.

Justice Colin Forrest said that after the death of their third child, the father became depressed and spent time in a psychiatric hospital, which contributed to the deterioration of the couple's relationship. The judge said that after a "serious incident of domestic violence", the mother moved out of their half of the family villa and into an apartment in the village, taking her daughters with her.

The couple divorced by consent in November 2008, sharing joint custody of their daughters who were to live with their mother and visit their father one afternoon a week after school until after dinner and each weekend.

As the mother became "increasingly desperate" to bring the girls back to Australia, she even suggested that her former husband accompany them - but he refused.

Contrary to the mother's claims that she fled Italy with "the assistance of Australian officials", Justice Forrest said the Australian Embassy in Rome repeatedly made it clear to her that her daughters could not live in Australia without their father's permission.

During a meeting, her ex-husband was persuaded to sign for the girls to obtain their Australian passports, witnessed by a friend of the mother who claims the ex-husband knew it was not for a holiday, but forever.

The husband denies this.

With return tickets paid for by her family, the mother left Rome airport with the girls on June 23, 2010, scheduled to return on July 20.

She told the court she had only bought return tickets because they were cheaper than one-way - and not because she was pretending it was only a holiday. The return leg was later cancelled.

The husband's evidence was that on July 18, his ex-wife rang and "told him to prepare himself for bad news and that she and the girls were not going to be returning to Italy".

Justice Forrest, who found both the mother and father had exaggerated parts of their evidence, said he was "inclined" to accept the mother had been subjected to emotional, verbal and physical violence - but he did not accept she would not be properly protected by Italian authorities if she returned to Italy to fight the custody battle there.

A psychologist who interviewed the girls in Brisbane earlier this year told the court that they did not report any physical violence from their father.

"He does say that the older three girls describe their time in Italy spent with their father as unpleasant and not particularly fun, whilst the youngest child, 'seems to have conserved only beautiful memories of her time in Italy spent with her father'," Justice Forrest said.

"With all due respect to the mother, in all of these circumstances, although I am concerned that the father's authoritarian style of parenting might not create the ideal environment for a completely healthy development of these four young girls, I cannot find on the evidence that is before me that returning the girls to Italy, where their ongoing parenting arrangements can clearly be the subject of further consideration in the courts of Italy, places them at a risk of physical or psychological harm that can be described as reaching the level of 'grave'."

So sucked in are the emotional! The children were abducted, now hidden for ransom (let us stay) by relatives and the media supports this? Shame on the ignorant media, perhaps the producer is female.

Seems the courts have done the right thing so far, there was shared custody in Italy and the children are Italian not Australian and the matter should go before an Italian court, the mother is in breach of Court Orders.

Eric Frei · 18th May 2012, 08:11 PM

And for the case in the media it just gets better.

Fugitive sisters: Mother sacks legal team as government agency wants closed court | The Courier-Mail

Quote:

Fugitive sisters: Mother sacks legal team as government agency wants closed court

by: Jasmin Lill and wires
From: The Courier-Mail
May 18, 2012 5:55PM

THE mother of the four girls who are on the run has sacked her lawyer in the Family Court this afternoon.

The woman - who did not turn up to court today - terminated her previous solicitor and engaged new lawyers in Sydney.

The court was expected to hear evidence from the girls' great aunt and grandmother today in a bid to find out where they are in hiding.

The hearing was closed to the public so witnesses could give their evidence freely.

Earlier, lawyers applied to close a court where relatives are due to give evidence on the whereabouts of four sisters at the centre of a bitter custody dispute

The girls are in hiding trying to avoid an order that they return to Italy, where their father lives.

The girls' maternal grandmother, great-grandmother and aunt have been summonsed to give evidence in the Family Court in Brisbane on Friday about where the children are hiding.

Lawyers for Queensland's child safety services have applied to have the evidence heard in a closed court.

The aunt is present at the court, but so far there's no sign of the great-grandmother.

A lawyer acting for the grandmother appeared by phone from Victoria, asking that she be excused from giving evidence due to illness.

But the judge said a medical certificate stated she was capable of giving evidence by phone, and ordered the woman to be ready to do so this afternoon.

The court has adjourned to consider the application to have the evidence heard behind closed doors.

Now if you watched the news you may have seen all the HYPE and even protesters (ALL WOMEN) carrying on.

I'll go right out there in saying this, and sure some will hate it, others will nod and some will say he's right on the money.

This is a typical case of where the mother has now taught the daughters of the disposability of fathers, relationships and pursue what suits you best (the ME ME ME SOCIETY). It is not rocket science to any man who has gone through this or similar. Nor is it anything new the tactics here EXCEPT the idiotic media backed this woman.

She pleads, she uses social media and has taught her kids to do the same. Personally I hope she gets binned and has to repay the fathers legal costs and fees for coming to this foreign country to enforce an existing order. This mother is out of control and the children have been conditioned by her.

Jeff Darby · 19th May 2012, 09:00 AM

This sort of thing is not right, the Mother manipulates the children, the Law, the Judge with their not too secret weapon....bursting into tears on demand trick...when will it truly be fair to both sides of the equation ??? just because your relationship with the Mother/Father breaks down it does not mean you dont love your children any less !. I believe in 50/50 co operative custody with no outside interference from the new squeeze. The only time I believe a party should be denied their right to access is when there is a real threat to the safety of the babies...imo. this type of thing is heart wrenching all round.

these women groups seem to be full of men haters and the media has its place but not trial by media!!!

Eric Frei · 19th May 2012, 09:37 AM

Where is the line drawn for internet and media? I mean a kid, encouraged by a mother at say 12 years old is writing trash on Facebook etc, perhaps defamating and lying about the father.

Think about the implications in all of this, children do not have the experience and dexterity of knowing what is or should be PRIVATE and what is to be said in public. The media published names, letters etc in addition, to do what? Certainly not to enforce the law but to create sorrow and pity for a rampant mother who took Italian conceived and born children without consent to stay here. She is playing the victim but is the perpetrator.

Who remembers the story about Melissa Hawach?

The father took the kids to Lebanon from Canada via Australia where he was awarded full custody. She got him charged with kidnapping. HE got awarded full custody in Lebanon .... in the end she hired paid Mercs and abducted the kids back.

So what is it that this woman is doing that makes her so high and mighty? She is abducting the kids, I guarantee if the man did what this woman is doing he'd be in jail already. One rule for men and another for drama mama crying women.

Remember that if the youngest child is 9yo now when this happened she would have been just 7yo or maybe 8yo etc. I wonder if there is any research done into the relationship failure rate of kids who go through this sort of thing, I cannot see the kids learning to accept, tolerate, cooperate .... rather see the message being, "when your done with something just dispose of it, like I did your dad".

The conditioning women do is subtle. I live in units, plenty of single mums around here and many are man haters. The other day a dad dropped his kid off up near the front gate. The kids maybe 10yo and wandered down the drive then started to play with the other kids, dad left. The mum came out and spotted the kid, called him over and started the typical rubbish they do, "are you OK? He shouldn't have done that, I just cannot understand your father not bringing you down here to the door, anything could have happened, he just doesn't get it". Yeah, that is the sort of things they do, those subtle messages sway the psyche. If she had an issue she should have not made mountains out of molehills with the kid but rang the father discreetly and asked him to make sure he sighted the kid going inside or to the mum, that simple, the kid wouldn't have even known. The kids do not need a 30yo or 40yo friend they need a parent, seems so many are hell bent on being the kids best friend rather than a leader/parent, sometimes dishing out some tough love is what is needed, men have less trouble dishing that out especially if the other parent does little then one parent is left to correct the imbalance, then the other undermines the effort and there goes more swaying of the psyche.

Eric Frei · 22nd May 2012, 05:59 PM

The 4 girls have been found, and now a legal load of squabbling (LOL typical women

).

In comes child safety and all the other do gooders that suck it all up, so darn good in Australia for this type of bullshit and frankly, it is pathetic. The Barristers and Lawyers are getting paid regardless of the outcome.

Sisters In Italy Custody Dispute Found

Quote:

Custody-battle children remain in Australia for now
Staff reporters
May 22, 2012 - 4:05PM

Update: The children involved in an international custody dispute may be able to remain in Australia until as late as August before being forced to travel to Italy with their father.

The High Court in Brisbane today heard an urgent appeal by the family of the four sisters, which is fighting to keep the children in Australia with their mother.

Police finally located the girls last night, a week after they went into hiding to avoid being returned to Italy with their father in order to settle custody issues.

Gim Del Villar, a barrister for the Department of Child Safety, told the High Court this afternoon the department would not remove the children from Australia until the High Court matter was finalised.

''My client is willing to give an undertaking not to remove the children,'' he said.

That could be as late as August if it is decided the case should go before the full bench of the High Court.

The High Court will reconvene in Brisbane on Friday morning to hear further submissions from both the Department of Child Safety and the children's family.

In the meantime it is understood the children will stay with a family member, approved by the Department of Child Safety.

Tony Morris QC, the barrister acting for the girls' great-aunt, said he intended to challenge a law preventing children seeking their own legal representation in Family Court matters.

He said he would be advising Attorneys-General in each state and territory of his intention to appeal the law, which he said had denied the sisters natural justice.

"Just as my clients weren't heard in the first instance, they weren't heard by the full bench of the Family Court," Mr Morris said.

Mr Del Villar, meanwhile, argued the application by the girls' great-aunt should be thrown out, saying children in Family Court matters could only be heard under exceptional circumstances.

"It has not been suggested by any submissions that there have been exceptional circumstances," he said.

The family blamed an informant for revealing the girls' location last night.

The girls' great-grandmother, who cannot be named, said police had raided a property on the Sunshine Coast last night and had taken the children, aged 9, 10, 13 and 14.

"Someone has put us in, told the police," she told AAP this morning.

"I am frozen. I am in shock. They've got the girls now and I don't know where they are.

"I'm shaking."

The Sunshine Coast Daily reported the girls were found hiding in Buderim.

Last week, a Family Court judge in Brisbane refused to hear an application for a stay of proceedings after the girls' mother failed to put them on a plane to Italy as ordered by the court.

The mother said at the time she did not know where the girls were.

However the judge, who cannot be named for legal reasons, refused to hear the family's application for a temporary reprieve to stay in Australia because he suspected the children's relatives were in contempt of court in helping the children to hide.

"I do not for one moment even begin to consider that the girls are in hiding without the help of ... persons unknown to the mother," he said.

A post on a Facebook page set up on behalf of the girls and operated by a relative of the children said this morning that the children had been found when Maroochydore police knocked on the door of a home where the girls were staying.

''The children have been found,'' the post said this morning.

''The Maroochydore Police came [and] knocked on the door where they were staying.

''[They] told the great-grandmother someone had rung and told them where the children were.''

Solicitor Giovanni Porta, who represents the children's father, said is client had found out about the children's discovery last night, describing it as ''great news''.

The girls' mother, who according to court documents met her husband during a study tour in Italy at age 16 and married him at age 17, had moved out of the couple's family villa in 2007 after the death of the their third daughter.

Under a 'consensual separation agreement', the pair shared custody of their remaining four children until the mother brought them to Australia, purportedly on holiday, in June 2010.

Their father has since invoked the Hague Convention, an international treaty against child abduction, in an effort to have them returned until custody issues could be settled under Italian law.

Legal experts last week told brisbanetimes.com.au the girls were not being forced to travel to Italy to live with their father, as reported in some sections of the media, but rather to have the case heard under Italian jurisdiction.

"The decision is for the children to return to Italy in the company of the mother if she chooses, and for the father to pay for the expenses of the children and the mother to return to Italy," Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland president Deborah Awyzio said.

Ms Awyzio said, as a signatory to the Hague Convention, Australia must show "a respect for other countries' laws, to avoid people taking matters into their own hands and deciding which country's law suits them the best for their particular situation".

Following the failed stay application last week, the children's mother sacked her legal team before announcing plans to appeal the case to the High Court.

- with AAP

16th April 2011, 10:16 AM	#2
Jeff Darby Moderator - Previously known as JayD Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: TreeWorld, Sydney Australia Posts: 2,059	Re: Busted relationships and busted Family Laws Stuff like has been reported in post above really gives me the shytes..!!!! Emotional blackmail of any sort, false accusations, Daddy done this, OR, is this, or Mummy done this, needs to be left out of the equation. ALL parties NEED to realise that BOTH the Father and the Mother has EQUAL RIGTHS 50% for MUM, 50% for Dad. This should echoe into all aspects of there yearly schedule: Holidays 50/50 if there are days that pop up unexpected, well rotate them, Mum gets one, Dad gets the next and so on. Honestly whats so hard about this! Niether party should have more rights than the next! I have lived this in the bad old days when all this first came in to being, when if you were the Father god help you cause no one else was. The key to this is simple...50% to each party. But like many simple solutions....some can not see them!! __________________ Member: Australian Tree Association Join the Australian Tree Association...Have your voice heard ! Arboriculture, A life long study for some, a passing phase for others © Jeffrey J Darby 2011

18th April 2011, 10:08 PM	#5
Done it Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Australia. Posts: 780	Re: Almost done! At least this one got caught out. Belly dancing sinks NYC woman's disability claim - Yahoo!7 A New York City woman who was getting $850 a month in alimony because she was supposedly disabled and unable to work had her payments slashed after her ex-husband spotted online photos of her belly dancing. Brian McGurk went to court after discovering a blog that showed his 43-year-old ex-wife dancing at a gallery. In other Internet postings, she wrote about dancing vigorously for several hours every day. Dorothy McGurk told the court that the dancing was physical therapy for injuries she suffered in a car accident in the mid-1990s. A county judge didn't buy it — and reduced her payments to $400 per month. The judge also ordered her to pay her ex-husband's legal fees and 60 percent from the sale of their home.

21st April 2011, 08:31 AM	#7
olyman Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: iowa--usa Posts: 122	Re: Busted relationships and busted Family Laws doesnt near every woman,,have mental issues??? cripes!!! and with the first bitch,,she had the kids,,and the nefarious judge sided with that trash..and wasnt a damn thing i could do about it,,then she moved out of state,,BEFORE the div was finalized [against the law] and the 1/2 cent sheriff of this county--wouldnt go after her,,because him and ex fil were buds!!!!!! no shit!!!!!! and for those of you--who may not believe this,,ive got news for you---------------amd eric knows what i speak of,,tho hes in aust,,and im in usa!!!!!!!!!!! he ONLY reason..some people are alive,,is some things,,are against the law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and my kids,,still worship the hag!!!!! and the one now..is a "reformed" drug user--guess what mental issues she has?? sheesh!!!!!!!! Last edited by olyman; 21st April 2011 at 08:35 AM.

21st April 2011, 09:14 AM	#8
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,993	Re: Busted relationships and busted Family Laws We did not need scientists to tell us this:- Men more black and white than women __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Palm and Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

14th May 2011, 07:24 PM	#10
Garry Brockley Bayside Tree Care Brisbane Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Brisbane Aus Posts: 1,641	Re: Busted relationships and busted Family Laws Good on him there is little if any support for ex service people who have seen combat and the civilian authorities have no idea what they need. taking a mans children just because he suffers from PTSD is insane, they need help not penalising. __________________ My business:- Brisbane Bayside Tree Care

18th May 2011, 11:36 PM	#11
jmcg.insight.gardens Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Mannering Park, Australia Posts: 623	Re: Busted relationships and busted Family Laws I vote for family laws being overhauled, more in favour of men, they get a bad deal. I watched my brother whom I care for, denied access, pay through the nose for child support for my nephew, whilst she was living in another relationship and between them would have been earning a huge amount of money. She refused for him, or any of my family for that matter, seeing his son for four years. Family court does not adequately address many issues, the suffering that men go through over their children must not be ignored any longer. They count too. My brother finally got to see his son through me having to befriend the ex, which was not easy, it was all about her, what she could get, bad mouthing my brother, b.... . My brother was not strong enough emotionally ( he's still a man though) to go through the family court process, I wanted to help him, but he couldn't afford it anyway, she would have played it for everything she could anyway. My brother went through huge debt and emotional suffering because of this woman, it makes my blood boil. His debt from child support is finally over, but he has changed from the fun loving guy he was to a different person. I wish I still had my old brother back, for his sake. I think the child support system needs to be addressed too. There was a good ending to the story, my nephew is now a grown young man, loves his Dad, and is a great guy. But nothing will give my brother back the happiness he used to have before it all. So many of my bloke friends have gone through bull as well. Time for change.

20th May 2011, 01:01 AM	#14
jmcg.insight.gardens Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Mannering Park, Australia Posts: 623	Re: Busted relationships and busted Family Laws It's no doubt flawed Eric, it needs addressing. I know men that have lost their houses over it due to court costs, and still are fighting their see their children. Good men that would do anything for their children. The main people that win are the Solicitors and Barristers, going home with a big fat pocket at the end of the day. Yes, there are delaying tactics that cost big dollars, but you can put yourself through, this is one legal system that supports the Applicant or the Respondant defending themselves. It just needs to be researched on how. Most of these cases are linked to Legal Aid that supports only one party, the other can then not claim it, it's first in, best dressed. The other party can defend their case themselves, this can be researched through the office in the court house. The family court system must support the party that does not get legal aid. If you are too well off for Legal Aid you can defend your own case. I've researched this, big time. This goes through to Federal Family Court. A Respondant or Defendant can ask that the child have their own Solicitor, this can be set by the court at no fee if the Registrar decides the case has merit, this can sometimes help fasten the process, as the child gets their own say, better than just the Child Psycologist report. Ultimately the psycologist has the final say, not the Judge, whom has to take the lead from the child Psycologist, as to the best interest of the child. They are human and can get it wrong, so the child having their own Solicitor gives them more back up in Court. I've helped a few mates with this process. Whole thing needs an overhaul, everyone knows someone that has been screwwd over by this system. Whole thing sucks, then if the B.... party, ( can be men too you know, not just women) want to use the system they can use it to break people, usually always pushed by a greedy Solicitor (I do not know how they can sleep at night). Something needs to be done. BIG TIME. If anyones stuck in this, got to get smart. Yes, children can be brainwashed, but they are also very resilient, take my brothers case, that happened, but we worked through it over time, they do work it out, in time. They do. My nephew was convinced his father didn't care, a lot of love and support from the family got him through that, now he has a great understanding with his Dad. Loves his socks off. hehe. He also was never told anything bad about his Mum, it's important to keep the negative away from them, children want to love both their parents, and be loved by them. I had two parents that hated each other, divorced when I was a sprat, that hurt me more than anything. I was in the middle, copping it from both sides, not a good way to grow up, hurt both me and my brother. There are also Mens Support groups in most areas for family court issues, there is one here, they help you with the legal know how.... if any ones in this system look for one to help, usually free.

23rd July 2011, 12:40 AM	#16
jmcg.insight.gardens Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Mannering Park, Australia Posts: 623	Re: Busted relationships and busted Family Laws might sound a bit cliche but this is example of the support groups out there. This one can help with Family Court info or help you gain legal advice or advocacy. There are others as well. Some men find support groups and forums helpful. D.I.D.S Dads in Distress 1300 853 437 Australia

19th May 2012, 09:00 AM	#21
Jeff Darby Moderator - Previously known as JayD Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: TreeWorld, Sydney Australia Posts: 2,059	Re: Busted relationships and busted Family Laws This sort of thing is not right, the Mother manipulates the children, the Law, the Judge with their not too secret weapon....bursting into tears on demand trick...when will it truly be fair to both sides of the equation ??? just because your relationship with the Mother/Father breaks down it does not mean you dont love your children any less !. I believe in 50/50 co operative custody with no outside interference from the new squeeze. The only time I believe a party should be denied their right to access is when there is a real threat to the safety of the babies...imo. this type of thing is heart wrenching all round. these women groups seem to be full of men haters and the media has its place but not trial by media!!! __________________ Member: Australian Tree Association Join the Australian Tree Association...Have your voice heard ! Arboriculture, A life long study for some, a passing phase for others © Jeffrey J Darby 2011

19th May 2012, 09:37 AM	#22
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,993	Re: Busted relationships and busted Family Laws Where is the line drawn for internet and media? I mean a kid, encouraged by a mother at say 12 years old is writing trash on Facebook etc, perhaps defamating and lying about the father. Think about the implications in all of this, children do not have the experience and dexterity of knowing what is or should be PRIVATE and what is to be said in public. The media published names, letters etc in addition, to do what? Certainly not to enforce the law but to create sorrow and pity for a rampant mother who took Italian conceived and born children without consent to stay here. She is playing the victim but is the perpetrator. Who remembers the story about Melissa Hawach? The father took the kids to Lebanon from Canada via Australia where he was awarded full custody. She got him charged with kidnapping. HE got awarded full custody in Lebanon .... in the end she hired paid Mercs and abducted the kids back. So what is it that this woman is doing that makes her so high and mighty? She is abducting the kids, I guarantee if the man did what this woman is doing he'd be in jail already. One rule for men and another for drama mama crying women. Remember that if the youngest child is 9yo now when this happened she would have been just 7yo or maybe 8yo etc. I wonder if there is any research done into the relationship failure rate of kids who go through this sort of thing, I cannot see the kids learning to accept, tolerate, cooperate .... rather see the message being, "when your done with something just dispose of it, like I did your dad". The conditioning women do is subtle. I live in units, plenty of single mums around here and many are man haters. The other day a dad dropped his kid off up near the front gate. The kids maybe 10yo and wandered down the drive then started to play with the other kids, dad left. The mum came out and spotted the kid, called him over and started the typical rubbish they do, *"are you OK? He shouldn't have done that, I just cannot understand your father not bringing you down here to the door, anything could have happened, he just doesn't get it". Yeah, that is the sort of things they do, those subtle messages sway the psyche. If she had an issue she should have not made mountains out of molehills with the kid but rang the father discreetly and asked him to make sure he sighted the kid going inside or to the mum, that simple, the kid wouldn't have even known. The kids do not need a 30yo or 40yo friend they need a parent, seems so many are hell bent on being the kids best friend rather than a leader/parent, sometimes dishing out some tough love is what is needed, men have less trouble dishing that out especially if the other parent does little then one parent is left to correct the imbalance, then the other undermines the effort and there goes more swaying of the psyche. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Palm and Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist*

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fergie busted!	windthrown	Non Tree Related chat	2	24th May 2010 07:17 PM
Dumb tree poisoner caught on video\| Busted	Eric Frei	General Tree Chat	4	2nd September 2009 01:03 AM
UK tree surgeon busted £565 for carrying tree waste	Eric Frei	Non Tree Related chat	17	26th March 2009 06:43 AM
Gold Coast Council Bribes Busted \| 5 in court	Eric Frei	Non Tree Related chat	0	22nd July 2008 04:27 PM