Archive for April 2010
Safety: They’re not asking for much
Some mothers work and some mothers spend many unpaid hours caring for their children. With the growing amount of mothers continuing in the workforce, it is obvious that child support or welfare payments were not the incentive. A majority of the working mother population use day care and after school care with the comfort knowing that the carers have been screened for a criminal background. We expect in a first world country that our children receive the highest amount of care and in most cases they do. Some of the experts caring for our children have been trained into enhancing the learning of our children, so that the time they spent away from their family is also progressive.
Posted via email from australiansharedparentingdebate’s posterous
The Politics of Child Abuse
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.
-Albert Einstein
If one were to summarise all abuse case outcomes, it would be factual to establish that child abuse is only recognised as criminal when it has not been perpetrated by the state or its actors.
In both the child protection and the family court system, cases where the government is responsible for the abuse go unchallenged by the public and independent organisations. This is because both laws surrounding children restrict publication. The argument for restriction is that it “protects” the names of the children involved. In ABCs Law Report titled “Restrictions on media coverage of child protection and family court matters“, journalists raised cases where the child abuse was not being addressed. The story with the cases and a variety of commentary provided an evidential backdrop on the reasons why suppressing deaths and abuse of children is not being protective. It highlighted how the government had misused children’s rights as a means to a political end.
The inquiry into family law was purely based on politics as most of the submissions were from men’s groups. All of these groups requested laws aligned entirely with their own interests. When groups against child abuse began to appear regularly in the Australian media spotlight, men’s groups responded with political blackmail:
I know that separated groups, fathers’ groups in particular, shared parenting groups can conjure up over a million votes and that’s something that I think the Government will take into account. – Michael Green
No doubt, that men’s groups have influenced the general population to believe that men are far more disadvantaged than children and women, that their rights must be taken into consideration above all others. This is reflected in the survey findings on community attitudes on violence against women. Some members of society even believe that it is ok to rape. It should not be a reason for politicians to see it as an opportunity to lower the rape law bar so that they can appease the growing population of rapists. There needs to be a point where popularity is not the drive for our leaders.
Posted via web from australiansharedparentingdebate’s posterous
Its not shared parenting: Its dads getting full custody
Some may wonder as to why members of the shared parenting council often celebrate, commend and applaud the removal of a mother from a child's life. That's because if they straight out said that they want all fathers to get full custody, no one would support them. Shared Parenting is merely a tool for that and does not reflect the consistency in care that was provided for the children before separation. Shared Parenting is a pathway for full custody.
Posted via email from australiansharedparentingdebate’s posterous
Why Shared Parenting is Extremely Selfish
A great amount of disinformation is going around stating that those who reject shared parenting for children are “selfish”. In this article there are several key points where this notion is clearly not true.
Peace For Women and Children
So much has been written about what women and children don’t want. The purposes of this article is to write about what we do want. Peace sometimes can be confused with passiveness. That is not real peace. Real peace is without oppression, hate and violence. If peace were an ideal, the declaration of human rights would not have been realised. It would have gone down in history as a collective”pipe dream”. Awards for the nobel peace prize would never have been given. It is a reality that everyday, there are people working towards bringing out true peace to all people.
True reason for problems of "fatherless" children
Australia’s Family Court Triage System
We don’t get much news on the Family Court because of the secrecy provisions. Few researchers are allowed access to court records. Fewer statistics are made publicly available and are often selective no different than the climate deniers research where years were purposely removed to convey propaganda. What we do know is that there is a very small portion of children being protected from child abuse and an even smaller portion of women protected from family violence. “No Contact” cases are as low as 6%, despite 98.5% of fatal crimes committed against children were by a family member.
The Family Court Could Save Lives
Asia (from left), Jarius and Grace Osborne with their grandmother. The family wants the children returned to the Waikato for burial. (source: nz herald)
A recent tragedy in Melbourne could have been avoided, but victims of family violence know that they cannot be protected by the courts. Only a tiny fraction of family violence victims were given the grace to go into hiding and provide a stable upbringing for their children.
“My heart breaks because . . . he had tried to commit suicide with an overdose of tablets (six months ago). Weren’t they concerned about the welfare of the three children if the father was doing that?”
“I was threatened from him. He had threatened me when I moved to Australia that if I was to take the children back to New Zealand – he took their passports, everything away from me,”
In some cases, emergency court proceedings have been made to protect children and others have been made to pursue children when the parent has absconded with the child. When this mother raised this with the police six months ago, an emergency order could have been made.
The Secrecy Law Scandal Part 2: The John Aster Files
In part one of the Secrecy Law Scandal, we revealed that John Aster had written publicly, “they had not found child porn in 9 years”. We asked a question as to why such a statement would be made. In the chat box below, John Aster reveals how he was not only charged for child sex abuse images, but how the court allowed him to enter a plea bargain where he received no jail time:
Mr Aster has connected himself with Safer Family Law Campaigners and Mens Groups . He has started a few face-book groups designed to attract parents from both groups and offers to assist members often asking for court documents and copies of evidence from court cases. Evidential photos of child abuse often contain graphic images that may be misused by Mr Aster. After some parents received this information upon his disclosure and began to alert other parents, he proceeded to launched a disinformation campaign where he attacked the members of Mako for their campaigns in requesting the media releases on child predators:
Court Like Communist China
Australians are well aware of Chinas censorship laws among other human rights atrocities committed in China. The Department primarily responsible for censorship in China is called, “Central Propaganda department”. All information that is against Chinas communist beliefs are censored and those who speak out are persecuted for such actions.
In a thesis by Amanda Shea Hart, “Children Exposed To Domestic Violence: Whose ‘Best Interests’ in the Family Court?” are some disturbing revelations contrary to Chisholm findings. In the Chisolm report, he stated that no research has found a gender bias in family court proceedings and based a lot of his assumptions upon the Wingspread family violence conference, a conference highly recommended by mens groups. Her findings are consistent to anyone who takes the time out to read more than ten judgement of family court cases involving family violence. The following common statements are used towards mothers who raise abuse or family violence in Family Court proceedings: