Professor Challenges courts behavior on child abuse

Professor Freda Briggs, challenged the courts on their reactions to child abuse with recent decisions resulting in sending children to abusers.

Professor labels courts ignorant and naïve

Posted Apr 12 2010, 07:43 PM by Lawyers Weekly

Child protection expert, Professor Freda Briggs, has slammed Australian courts for their ignorance and naivety in child sexual abuse cases, calling for statutory training of all family court judges and magistrates.

As a member of the National Council for Children Post-Separation (NCCPS) expert advisory panel, Briggs said Australian courts are now becoming renowned worldwide as turning a blind eye to paedophiles and child sexual abuse within the family.

She adds that, according to police experts, Australia’s reputation for handing out soft sentences has resulted in paedophiles purposely travelling to Australia from other countries where they would face a 25 year sentence for a similar offence.

Expressing concern about Australia’s approach to the issue of child protection, Briggs said there is an alarming lack of understanding and knowledge among family court judges and magistrates regarding child sexual abuse and its ramifications.

Briggs is concerned about the number of children who are being ordered by family court judges into residency or contact with parents who are acknowledged to be child sex offenders, placing the children atrisk of abuse.

According to Briggs, judges and magistrates need to be made aware, on a continuous basis, of the most recent research findings regarding child sexual offenders, their modus operandi and the effects of abuse on children.

Providing examples of how this lack of knowledge amongst the family courts of Australia has led to a number of offenders being given less than appropriate orders, Briggs quoted Californian Judge Peggy Fulton Hora, who recently expressed amazement that Australia does not impose mandatory training for newly appointed judges.

“The need for mandatory education has never been more obvious than in recent weeks. First, a family court judge in Tasmania thought it was appropriate to make little children responsible for their own protection from a convicted child sex offender who was acknowledged to be a risk.

“Seemingly the judge thought that daylight protects children from sexual abuse…Clearly this man needs to be educated about the grooming methods used by child sex offenders,” Briggs said in a statement.

Giving other examples highlighting the need for training and education, Briggs emphasised that judges need to “learn about domestic violence and its effects on children’s brain development” and that “only around 1.8 per cent of reported child sex offenders are convicted in this country”.

Endorsing and supporting Briggs’ concerns and calls for training, the NCCPS has asked for the AttorneyGeneral to address this issue immediately.

---

Filed under: child abuse, family courts

---

Related Articles

• Churches lobby against child victim time limits

---

Share

Del.icio.us Facebook Digg LinkedIn Mixx Yahoo! Newsvine

Childrens Apartheid

Children post separation with orders of the Australian Family Court are alienated from the rest of the world. They are tied to a culture that has lived on beyond the 19th century, beyond the concerns of the outside world. If it were not a culture of the courts, it would have been torn apart by the public eye and deemed easily as a “cult”. It is everything Australia has been trying to move away from. With a history of violence towards the stolen generations, Australia’s White policy and of course its protectionist past that locked down the borders from every angle. Its not that Australia does not have a history of Human rights atrocities, it is that its leaders have always been good at diverting the subject and refocusing the issues.

Now more than ever, Australian Children of divorced parents live lives no different to the transient instutionalized foster kids. We all know now how unfortunate their experiences were, the wrongs that were done towards them when Kevin Rudd apologized to the grown children who were abused in homes. Apart from a few politicians who have spoken against the current arrangements, no lessons have truly been learned. This generation not only are forced to endure human rights abuses perpetrated against them, they must also fight for this to never happen again. Since the shared parenting bill, children have never been so divided. Its no longer the clashes of subcultures, but the war between the remembered and the forgotten, the divorced and the intact and of course the free from the chained.

Those who have not endured the torment of growing up in a home ridden with violence or haunted by its hands believe that everyone should be together as a family. Even if the child dies as a result or perhaps thrown off a bridge. Even without violence or abuse, the child is forced to live in an institutionalized environment. Regardless of their hopes they may have had training in their local football team or the friends they are use to seeing, they are literally ripped away from their day to day lives and thrown into a situation where they must no matter what live at each parents homes at the court designated times and places. Any hopes to enlist for the student exchange program or return to their parents family for Christmas in another country are quashed after family court. They are in Australian lock down until the age of eighteen. Unless the father decides that he agrees with it, their rights of freedom to roam are violated. Imagine the nightmare simply deciding which address to put down when there is only room for one on every form. Children are living in a suitcase where it becomes pointless to unpack their clothes.

Meanwhile, there are the privileged children, the ones who will benefit later with the global landmarks lurking in their resumes, the ones who are able to attend those extracurricular activities without interruption and go away for holidays that only shared parenting children could dream of.

Children raised to believe that marriage is a union of god and those who do not follow are evil is where the great divide is unrestrained between adults, but drifts into the school yard. The cons that go with an institutionalized lifestyle may also feed into such convictions against them.

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.