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.

1. Children don’t really have a place that they can solidly call “home”.

When they are required to fill out a form and asked where they live, there is usually one space for one address on the form. A majority of our society reside in one main address and rarely spend 50% of their time at another. These children must constantly pack their bags and live out of a suit case swapping between homes, never feeling settled.

2. Time with Dad is put above breastfeeding.

Infants are being ordered to go on formula if the mother cannot express milk like a machine that is extremely unnatural. Others are ordered a time limit on how long they are to be breastfed for. The time with the parents is put above the nourishing benefits the baby gains from breastfeeding.

3. It attracts dads seeking to deviate from child support obligations.

Mens groups promote shared parenting for the primary purpose to deviate from their obligations with child support. They might use other terminology in their campaign plans, but reduction of child support remains the end result.

4. Maternal Deprivation.

Not only is maternal deprivation unnatural, but also harmful to children emotionally and psychologically. The long term consequences of maternal deprivation might include the following:

• delinquency,

• reduced intelligence,

• increased aggression,

• depression,

• affectionless psychopathy

5. Its completely Disruptive for the child.

Children cannot maintain regular friendships within their neighbourhood. They are constantly shuffled between houses where one parent might have a different bed time to the other, so added to the problem is midweek sleep disturbance and routine disruption.

6. Provides opportunities for stalking, harassment and violence.

Parents who were ordered not to see the children as a result of past violence seek shared parenting as an opportunity to continue the dominant abuser role. Court stalking has become a developed phenomenon in Family courts, where orders are deliberately used as a control mechanism. Some might see shared parenting as a pathway for full custody as a tool to hold the children ransom in return for the mothers full submission to ongoing violence.

7. They cant keep up with outside school activities.

For children subjected to a rigid shared parenting routine where they are undergoing week by week arrangements, find themselves missing out on activity’s that they were able to maintain prior to divorce. Most activities outside school require children to attend them weekly in order for them to get anything out of them.

For those lucky parents who are not forced to share parenting have the opportunity to negotiate arrangements around the children to avoid these effects. Most parents are forced in these circumstances and do not have the opportunity to negotiate on behalf of the children s needs. Some chose shared parenting because they felt that they had no choice.

Divorced Mother Speaks out

With the reforms in the Family Court that just keep getting worst, it is no wonder mothers do not have a leg to stand on when they try to leave a marriage and protect the children. Its easy for someone to say, “Well why didn’t you just leave?”, but enduring it is another situation. Women are well aware of the systematic place they have been discarded to in society when leaving a marriage. They know they will be criticized, blamed and even accused of false allegations. In this case, it wasn’t until someone died that Garry Francis was stopped. For over a decade, Christine had tried to seek help from hospitals, police and doctors to no avail. It is not known whether or not there she tried to seek help from family law proceedings as section 121 would have stopped her from being able to disclose that.

Former wife of Garry Francis Newman speaks out

• Nick Leys
• From:Herald Sun
• April 01, 2010 8:30pm

• Increase Text Size
• Decrease Text Size
• Print
• Email
• Share

• Video
• Video

The face of a killer

(6 votes)

The face of a killer

The man who murdered teenager Carly Ryan can be named and identified. Garry Francis Newman was today…

Views today: 845

Carly Ryan’s killer unmasked

THE former wife of the man who murdered Carly Ryan has spoken about the decade of abuse she suffered at his hands. See the video.

FOR 10 years “Christine” struggled to survive a brutal marriage to a man who was determined to break her.

The smallest indiscretion would be met with rage-fuelled bashings.

One night he sexually assaulted her when she was 15 minutes late from work.

He banned her from getting a driver’s licence and kept money from her so she could not escape. When she refused to keep working at a strip club, she claims he used his fists and boots to force her back to work.

And, she says, he tried to rape their daughter when she was just 13.

Fifteen years after leaving him, Christine, not her real name, has done a great deal to put the pain behind her. On Wednesday, however, it came rushing back when her daughter rang with the news that her former husband, Garry Francis Newman, was the man convicted of killing Adelaide schoolgirl Carly Ryan.

RELATED COVERAGE

• The face of a killer

• Sex, murder on his mindAdelaide Now, 1 day ago
• Blast for Carly’s killer Herald Sun, 1 day ago
• Fritzl begs raped daughter for cash Herald Sun, 15 Feb 2010
• Woman ‘kidnapped, assaulted’ Perth Now, 29 Jan 2009
• Divorce that stopped a nationAdelaide Now, 7 Dec 2008

“All of these years I have been waiting for something like this to happen,” she told The Advertiser yesterday as Newman started the first day of a life sentence. “I hope he gets everything he deserves in jail.

“I am worried about how many girls he has done this to.”

Now in her late-40s and living in suburban Melbourne, Christine says the system failed every woman who came into Newman’s path, right up to 14-year-old Carly.

To Sonya Ryan, Carly’s mother, Christine said: “I’m so sorry, no mother should have to go through this and I wish I could have stopped it.”

For a decade, from 1986, Christine said Newman’s true nature was ignored by his family, police, doctors and hospital staff.

In a darkened room Christine spoke of the sheer terror she was subjected to by a monster who had charmed her into marriage.

On one occasion she wanted to go shopping with a female friend.

When she told Newman she was going out, he grabbed her, beat her and dragged her into the bedroom. He sat on her and punched her until she was barely conscious.

She had crawled to the front door when Newman’s mother arrived and rang for a doctor.

Her daughter, who Newman once plied with alcohol and tried to rape rang Christine on Wednesday, almost hysterical. “I couldn’t make sense of her,” Christine said. “Finally, she said, `Have you seen the news? He killed Carly’.”

• Print
• Email

Where Do All Of The Perpetrators Go?

Just six days ago, a Laurence D’Alessandrowas found guilty of possessing over 16000 images of child pornography. It was deemed, “The very worst” “inhumane” and “evil”.

He was sentenced to 3 years jail. In 3 years time, this man will be out in our community, maybe already married with children or about to be married with children. We wont know. Some unlucky women and child may fall prey to such a predator in the future. With so many privacy laws protecting perpetrators, she may not know until its too late. If she makes the decision to protect the child and leave, he can still obtain unquestioned rights of access to the child through the family court. How that stands in legal terms of the Family court is “in the past”.

In a report from the Sentencing Advisory Council, the average rate of sentencing is an appalling figure on the value of a child’s livelihood:

Believe it or not, there is actually lesser sentence if the child is related to the abuser:

Considering the average jail term for incest being 4 years, the crimes that warrant higher sentences must be more abhorrent or are they?

1. A women is sentenced for 5 years over property investment.(source)
2. A man was sentenced for 3 years for denying the holocaust(source)
3. Copyright infringements are up to 5 years(Source)
4. Maximum penalty for juveniles caught stealing is 7- 8 years(source)
5. A man receives 7 years for taking bribes(Source)

So where do the perpetrators go?

Back into the community, into our unsuspecting lives, taking advantage of a legal system that is wholeheartedly supporting them. Again and again.

Child Abuse: Does Australia Really Take it Seriously?

The submissions for the shared parenting bill had many from mens groups that even doubled up in some cases, but also from child advocacy groups, womens groups that were rightfully concerned about the proposed changes.

The rates for child abuse in the past five years has tripled coinciding with the year Shared Parenting was introduced in Australia.

Five years on and children are in crisis. Over 15,000 Australian children are ordered contact where there is exposure to violence. With the recent hearing where a child was ordered contact with a registered sex offender, it is an outrage that the attorney general has decided not to change the laws. Just today, Australia’s worst sex offender was reported to be on the run for the second time. The carelessness of security however was a tip of the iceberg. Raymond Warford was sentenced 2.5 years in 1994 for both child abduction and abuse. He was then released and abused again. The next sentence was for 18 months. It was then revealed that he had attacked a three year old boy twice of which he was sentenced for 5 years.

Is it speculative to conclude that Australian key stakeholders such as the judiciary, lawmakers and politicians don’t care at all about children?

Melbourne’s Future Terrorist Group is Back in Black

Whilst the counter terrorism community was focusing on militant jihad cells, overlook was the extreme right wing group, “Black Shirts” is back in the media spotlight.

State leaders and scholars have often struggled with defining terrorism. Australia has legally defined terrorism as the following:

In Australia, what constitutes an act of terrorism is defined in Commonwealth legislation. The Criminal Code Act 1995 states that a terrorist act means an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. Further, the Act states that ‘the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:

i. coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or

ii. intimidating the public or a section of the public;

and where the action

(a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

(b) causes serious damage to property; or

(c) causes a person’s death; or

(d) endangers a person’s life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or

(e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or

(f) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to: (i) an information system; or (ii) a telecommunications system; or (iii) a financial system; or (iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or (v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or (vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system.

In 2002, before the inquiry into family law and the introduction of shared parenting the black shirts were in the media spotlight:

“The Blackshirts say that their only intention is to promote the sanctity of marriage, and they believe that to achieve this aim adultery should be punishable by death. Furthermore, they warn that if the law does not change they may resort to dragging adulterers from their homes and lynching them….Blackshirts, who must renounce any partner taken since the breakdown of their marriage, have picketed Melbourne’s family law courts for more than a decade, but only in the past year have they begun going for people in their homes….Despite having three separate exclusion orders imposed on them, they are expanding beyond their Melbourne base, according to Mr Abbott, and expect to begin activities in every state of Australia within the next 12 months. They claim to have as many as 300 members” – David Fickling, The Guardian, Monday 26 August 2002

“A Melbourne grandmother today told a court of her absolute terror when a militant men’s group demonstrated outside her daughter’s suburban home last year.

The County Court heard how the Black shirts, dressed from head to toe in paramilitary style garb, staged a series of demonstrations outside two homes in East Doncaster in September and November last year.” – Nick Lenaghan The Age August 6 2002

“Abbott says. “I’m very angry, but I don’t yell. I just make a list of men and women to die.”

The words are shocking, but Abbott does not seem to notice. He is consumed by what he sees as betrayal.

For Abbott, those who leave a marriage – and they are now mainly women – are evil.” The Age December 20 2002

“Smiling as he walked from the court, the most extreme figure in the men’s movement vowed to continue his vigilante action, and to launch a new political party. Despite looming prison time if he breaks the law in the next 18 months, Abbott said: “I’m not deterred in the least. It only strengthens my resolve.” –By Peter Ellingsen The Age October 3, 2004

“I’ve received emails and seen public statements over the years by extremist white supremacists, ‘fathers-rights’ activists, gay-haters and anti-Muslim bigots all of which could be seen as ‘expressing support for politically motivated violence’.

This report confirms that the planned anti-terrorism laws are targeted fairly and squarely at Muslims, even though there has yet to be any explanation as to why the existing laws are inadequate. Inciting or planing violence is already an offence under the existing Criminal Code.” Andrew Bartlett Bartlett’s blog NOV 2, 2005

So what does it have to do with shared parenting? Everything. Lindsay Jackel is the Victorian state director.of the Shared Parenting Council, the owner of the alias Manumit and also a recruiter of the blackshirts:

____________________________________________________________________

—–Original Message—–
From: Manumit Exchange [mailto:manumit@…]
Sent: 26 July 2002 17:41
To: Manumit Exchange
Cc: jeffface@…; fried@…
Subject: (AUS) Blackshirts

Some of you may have already heard a little about this group. Below is a
composite of various articles about the Blackshirt group in Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia, fwd fyi by way of background.

Additionally, several associated articles follow, and are in turn followed
by various commentary.

The group is organised and in your face. They are Dads who have lost
everything, have received no justice or fairness at the hand of a feminist
(family and magistrates) court and legal (government) system (when they
were taught in school that they would if innocent), have nothing to lose
and are frustrated and angry. Their hopelessness has turned to despair and
to depression. The Blackshirts offers them community and hope.

John Abbott, their leader, is known to me. He is both angry and committed.
He will not be deterred and, if necessary, will no doubt be prepared to be
a “martyr” to the cause.

—

Victoria is a southern state of Australia.
Melbourne is the capital city of Victoria.

_________________________________________________________________

After they caused terror into the lives of women, children and the elderly, they seized the moment by establishing a non profit organization no different to the non profit organisations that funded militant Islam, now black listed.

Amongst the mountains of commentary on the behavior of terrorists, many concur that targets are usually unprotected and easy. It is well established within the history of war strategies, that by targeting non-combative civilians mostly women and children provides a greater impact in their goals to instill widespread fear and traumatic impact.

Under the Howard government, the black-shirt leaders and members were gratified and rewarded for their acts and overlooked as terrorist despite many commentators struggling to define the variance. After the 9/11 attacks, state leaders have learned some very hard lessons about diluting the term and using it for political gain. It was only because, the previous prime minister was aligned with similar beliefs and values that this group was able to run riot on women and children, disseminate nearly all of the few protections available for the abused and even sabotage the humane culture that Australian society has taken so long to grasp.

Family Law and Family Violence: Band-aid For A Gaping Wound

According to the Herald-Sun, the chief Justice of Australian Family Court has proposed changing laws on mediation privacy. The current reasonable grounds for a practitioner to even suspect child abuse reflects the ongoing negligence towards victims of family violence. In fact the law is more tailored towards protecting perpetrators.

67ZA Where member of the Court personnel, family counsellor, family dispute resolution practitioner or arbitrator suspects child abuse etc.

(3) If the person has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a child:

(a) has been ill treated, or is at risk of being ill treated; or

(b) has been exposed or subjected, or is at risk of being exposed or subjected, to behaviour which psychologically harms the child;

“Ill treated” is not defined in the current family law act. This opens the floodgates for pseudo-abuse allegations where a protective parent is deemed abusive for discontinuing visits with the perpetrator.

“Psychological harm” refers often to parent alienation syndrome – A diagnosis that has never been scientifically recognized and largely rejected by the scientific community. The DSM committee has just recently rejected another call for its inclusion. It is no wonder when the creator of this syndrome promoted pedophilia and other abuses whilst deemed the protective parent as unstable.

So Australian Family courts are directed to pursue and punish the abused, than to protect them. The transfer of information is rather more of a compilation of pseudo evidence against the parent who wishes to protect the child. This is in reality about the avoidance of accountability so that the victim will be so traumatized and and entrenched in the pro-abuse culture, that there is little chance the victim will take legal action against the court. Protective parents also bring in far more revenue than the abuser as they are more likely to continue litigation providing court staff with a guaranteed financial future at the expense of a few deaths.

If you want help stop abuse in the family courts, click here.

Born Again Father

Photo by flickrolf

An ex – mens group member speaks out.

When “John” loss contact he was devastated. He tried every avenue that was available to him with no success. “Joining mens groups seemed like the only thing I could do and feel as though I was doing something worthy”. “John” attended meetings and reached out to others that felt the same pain. Some were still in mourning, while others channeled their anger into retribution.

After joining, his friends noticed that he started to change. ” I knew him for years and I never saw him speak down to women, but after joining this mens group – he became irritable and domineering to our female friends”. One day after a meeting, John bumped into a close female friend who was going through family violence and divorce. Despite being covered in bruises, he told her that she should return. “This was so unlike John, I had to do something”, recalled his best friend.

His best friend who also wishes to be unnamed, took him to meet a member of cult survivors. Whilst the mens group that John had joined was not religious, it resembled somepolitical cults that alienated their members from the rest of the world. Divided between two perceptions of how he was influenced by this group, he decided to question the leader about some of the information he was giving to the members. That was when the trouble started. He began to receive threatening phone calls and was accused of being a “feminazi”. “I had to pack up and leave”. Gathering his possessions, he moved far away from where the group was based and started yet again.

With the support of his friends and professional counselling, John was able to start again. John felt that he didn’t have enough room in his life for another relationship, but still felt a sense of emptiness. “Have you ever thought about fostering? There are lots of kids out there that would love to have a caring guy like you around?” suggested his counselor in their closing session. After screening and foster care training, John began taking kids in for respite care. He joined a carer network to swap strategies and connect with others who understood. He would care for young people who had no safe place to go and began to see them heal. After two years of being a respite foster carer, he has never looked back. “Its challenging, I have had holes in the walls and things go missing – but nothing compared to celebrating their achievements that we never even dreamed of when they started, worth more than gold”.

If you would like to find out more about fostering children in Australia, click here.

Tony Abbott: The Marriage Mafia

The polls have gone up in support of Tony Abbott, a sign of a troubled country. If the Australian Labour Party was not so diluted on the shared parenting laws, Labour would be taking the lead far away from Abbott. So what are Tony Abbotts plans?

Tony Abbott wants to:

1. Make Divorce hard
2. Choose who gets married
3. Chastise Women
4. Stop Abortions

In general, Tony Abbott is referred to as a conservative. In reality, what he intends on imposing is authoritarian. Australian human rights will be at an all time low.

Some of the other atrocities Mr Abbott plans are:

1. Death Penalty
2. Runaway Greenhouse effect
3. Create more Slush Funds

Steven Fielding

Stephen fielding doesn’t believe that everyone has the right to be married as basic human rights are set out. He believes that only heterosexual couples should be married. He has even compared gay marriage to incest. In case there are complaints, he is also one of the key ministers that has actively supported internet censorship. Senator Fielding was also a supporter of the shared parenting bill which resulted in thousands of children being exposed to family violence which was ordered by the Australian Family courts giving victims little escape. As for children of todays families having a future at all, Stephen fielding is also a climate change denier.

One shared parenting recipient used it to throw his daughter off the west gate bridge. Attempts to censor this case was foiled as worldwide coverage exposed tot he public that children were being forced by the courts into violent and dangerous situations.