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.

Getting Away With It

A man who the Family Court believed usually after their own expert reports, was fit to be a custodial father terrorized the children’s maternal grandmother when the children didn’t want to leave. He ran his car against the grandmother which pinned her against the fence, despite her granddaughter yelling out, “Daddy is trying to kill my grandmother, somebody please help her!”.

The Ipswich district court sympathized with his defense barrister whom told the court that his emotions, “were running high that day”. He has received a $5000 fine(bribe?) with no conviction recorded. Read the report here.

Meanwhile, Phil Cleary who wrote about cases where husbands got away with murder including his sister, was fined $600,000 for defamation by a defense lawyer. The Court staged a jury of six women to appear as though they are not against his stance on stopping violence against women. It could be argued and established that the barrister in fact defamed Mr Clearly by portraying him as an angry man. Read more from Phil Clearys website here.

The case itself is an outrage along with the outrages that continue to perpetuate the Australian law society. Mr Hore-Lacy, is a Senior council which puts the case very much out of proportion and potentially a perversion on the course of justice. There are no boundaries between Australian lawyers and judges as they party, eat and socialize together.

Particularly in Victoria, the judiciary is a male dominated culture with 78% of the bar consisting of men. Whilst men are encouraged to respect equality in the workplace, especially where it is dominated by one gender, women are subservient to men in the legal realm appear 13% of the time. Read more about women in Australian law here.

It is therefore no wonder Mr Cleary’s case was so easily seen as defamation and crimes against women and children are treated so lightly.

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.

Pedophile Haven or Family Court?

News.com.au, have done Australians proud for revealing this to the media. The family Court laws prevent disclosure of the abuse against children, but this journalist was courageous enough to reveal the true status of children under these orders.

Outside of the Family Court, a child care center manager would be jailed for negligence if they provided anywhere similar to the dodgy family court operations that continue to promote abuse and suppress the outcries.

Girls ordered to spend weekends with sex offender father

• From:The Australian
• March 14, 2010 10:22pm
• 178 comments

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

• Judge says girls need protection at night
• Eldest is afraid to stay overnight at father’s
• Man was convicted of child porn offences

A COURT has ordered two young girls to spend weekends with their sex offender father provided he puts a door on their bedroom they can lock.

Judge Robert Benjamin, in the Family Court’s Hobart branch, ruled that the girls “need some protection from (their father), particularly at night”.

However, the risk of sexual abuse was “diminished when they are awake and alert”.

Judge Benjamin said that the father, who was convicted of downloading child pornography, must have an “adult friend” stay with him when the girls stayed overnight.

He added that until the youngest turned 14, the girls must “share the same room so they can have the mutual support of one another”.

A Family Court counsellor said that the girls, aged ten and eight, “are at an age and maturity when awake, dressed and together it would be unlikely the father would act inappropriately toward them”.

Read full story