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.  

The expectations on mothers are exhaustive and so we are naturally set up for failure. Then there are those who look at our gorgeous children as if they are window shopping for mantelpieces to trophy in their lounge room.  In a world where money can buy everything(or so they market people to believe), they begin to calculate how they can wear down that mother so she will hand over that child. As though we are merely pedigree show dogs that are breeding the next batch of wonders. Today's favorite sport is not football or tennis as society bores of the ballgames – It is "who is going to get that baby." Its an intellectual sport where the player must convince the lawmakers that it is a morally superior act and should be done for the sake of the child. It is an unfair sport perhaps no different to the rabbit on a greyhound course flighting a group of dogs gone wild. The rabbit of course is the mother and the greyhounds are the team that works together in competition to rip the child away from the mother. 

Some gnaw away at the emotionality of the cruel process, pointing at every turn, "She is not mentally fit to be a mother, she is crying – She must be depressed!". The usually the crowd goes wild as they scramble in to seize the moment grabbing the child whilst the mother is still weak. The umpire in the game turns his head whilst the bribes are pushing at the seams of his back pocket. How many times have you heard a radio station offer a contestant large sums of money to lie for the audiences amusement? Since the alienation craze spread through the family courts, mothers have been losing children left right and center. They actually call protecting – "Maternal gate keeping" and thats a reason for a mother to lose a child.

In UK, mothers who have had history of violence used against them have their children not only removed -but adopted out. Its a nice little system where social workers are paid $3000 when the child is adopted. Not only do they play a sport that contemporary society considers, "Fun", but they get paid to do it. De-mothering is sadly not restricted to the UK, but everywhere and as the enthusiasm drives this culture, justifying it for empty reasons – We are going to need an Olympics devoted to the entire sport. Why we don't have it on television already? Perhaps just seeing it would expose how barbaric some members of our society truly are.

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.

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.

Joining The Dots

Patrick wrote about the links between the blackshirts and SPCA, but there is even more than meets the eye. The Shared Parenting Council are linked to many organisations. Some reputable and others on the fringe of extremism, a precursor to terror.

A team of liberal backbenchers were reportedly linked to the Shared Parenting Council and the mens rights agency in changing the family law. The Shared parenting council is connected to quite a number of organizations. We have tried to contact the author of this blog to obtain the original email, but have not received a response, so the source is from this blog:

This is an email from the secretary of The Shared Parenting Council of Australia:

From: Simon <email.hunt@gmail.com>

To: Executive Secretary – Shared Parenting Council of Australia <secretariat@spca.org.au>

Cc: fathers4equality@yahoogroups.com; Lone Fathers Association Australia <president@lonefathers.com.au>; Fatherhood Foundation <info@fathersonline.org>;F4E-Melbourne@yahoogroups.com; Senator Steve Fielding <senator.fielding@aph.gov.au>; “president@fathers4equality-australia.org” <president@fathers4equality-australia.org>; James Johnson <james0448@hotmail.com>; John Hirst <j.hirst@latrobe.edu.au>; John Stapleton <john.stapleton@gmail.com>; James Adams <jadams@fairfaxmedia.com.au>; Matt Norman <mattnorman@theactorscafe.com>; “Bawden, Matilda” <matilda.bawden@parliament.sa.gov.au>; “richard.bosi@lionheart.com.au” <richard.bosi@lionheart.com.au>; Richard Hillman Foundation Inc <webmaster@rhfinc.org.au>; Traks <traks@tpg.com.au>; Yuri Joakimidis <joakimidisyuri@yahoo.com.au>; norsaint publishing <norsaintpublishing@gmail.com>; “Nowell, Laurie” <nowelll@heraldsun.com.au>; Phil Noonan <p.noonan@bigpond.net.au>; ian kay <iankay-tmf@bigpond.com>

Sent: Sunday, 3 May, 2009 12:34:17 PM

Subject: [fathers4equality] Re: Press release

Wayne,

Good to see this initiative in response to what is clearly a crisis for children and their fathers in this country.

Shared parenting after separation / divorce is being attacked on the basis that its unsafe for women and children.

These people – the industry – are making a national call for children to be denied there fathers if they are being accused of “Family Violence” (in all its forms) regardless of whether or not it can even be proved. I thought everybody knew that allegations of DV were standard procedure in the great majority of Custody hearing before the Family Court. The lawyers have been telling us this for years.

I’ve been saying for some time that we need public forums – public meetings that give the media access to the truth of whats going on. Looks like we’ve been beaten to the line, by organisations that can so easily engineer publicity and media support.

However, our advantage is truth – very powerful but it needs to be exposed. We need public meetings with speakers URGENTLY

The media needs access to the truth of whats going on – at present they have next to no access to the truth, mainly because they rely on the press releases they get from vested interest (including “experts) in the industry and are no longer paid to do ‘investigative journalism’.

Regards

Simon Hunt

FLAG

2009/5/3 Executive Secretary – Shared Parenting Council of Australia<secretariat@ spca.org. au>

The SPCA is planning a series of press release about the deteriorating position we find ourselves in with respect to Domestic Violence and any watering down of the current FLAct.

Have you a statement or have any of your groups statements we can quote in relation to the following news items

http://www.familyla wwebguide. com.au/news/ pg/news/view/ 636/index. php&filter=

In the published guide there is no mention of how they court is to deal with unproven allegations or in other words “false allegations”

http://www.familyla wwebguide. com.au/news/ pg/news/view/ 635/index. php&filter=1

and

http://www.familyla wwebguide. com.au/news/ pg/news/view/ 631/index. php&filter=1

and

The Chief Justice comments today

It clearly reveals that the shared parenting is a major representative of fathers and against protecting children from child abuse. The Richard Hillman Foundation is also listed in this email. On the Richard Hillman Foundations Submission is John Abbott of the Black shirts as author of the document. The Shared Parenting Council is also affiliated on their website with the Lone Fathers Association. Here is a little history on the Lone Fathers:

“

Lone Fathers channelled its resources into

supporting a 40-year-old Brisbane man, Keith Shew,

who took the Brisbane Domestic Violence Resource

Centre (DVRC) to the HREOC, alleging the centre had

discriminated against him after his wife had beaten him

with a vacuum cleaner.

Shew, who arrived at a Brisbane court seeking a

restraining order against his wife, was denied access

last year to a safe room occupied by women seeking

restraining orders—one of whom was Mrs Shew—

by DVRC staff suspicious of his motives. “Mr Shew

was not allowed into the safe room because his wife

was sheltering from him inside”, explained the centre’s

chair, Betty Taylor.

In January, HREOC dismissed Shew’s charges.

Shew and Lone Fathers were incensed. Shew blitzed

radio, TV and the newspapers, threatening to take his

case to the United Nations. “I feel someone has to make

a stand and tell government that men are the silent

victims of domestic violence”, Shew declared outside

the commission in January.

Shew and Lone Fathers’ ardour was somewhat

dampened when an investigative journalist from

Brisbane’s Courier-Mail unearthed police records

which revealed that Shew had a long criminal record,

including eight convictions for assault, receiving stolen

goods and weapons offences.”

The lone fathers is also on record for this,

“In 1997, when a mother was granted leave to move

from Queensland to Victoria with her daughters, the

Lone Fathers Association spokesperson responded by

saying:

. . . violence would result, and judges would have

blood on their hands.”

When the Lone Fathers Association was appointed as a mens health ambassador, there was a public outrage:

“

Williams goes to extremes in his advocacy for male victims of domestic violence. In 2006, he was a co-signatory of a response to “the anti-male UN report on ‘Violence against women’”, which argued that reporting of domestic violence was biased against men, including several claims that women are greater perpetrators of domestic violence than men”

The Shared Parenting Council of Australia is on the lobbyist register holding Geoffrey Green as director. Geoffrey Green has an interesting history. In 2007, he was investigated by the AFP for misuse of electoral funds. Apparently he received his marching orders in 2008.

Geoffrey Greene is not the only MP that was involved in the Shared Parenting Council of Australia and its affiliates. Ann Bressington was a member of the Festival of Light(page 3) an affiliate of the Shared Parenting Council and a branch of the Australian Christian Lobby. Despite Ann Bressigton making claims that she is no longer part of that movement, the Shared Parenting Council of Australia continues to post her campaign materials. Her Facebook profile contains an overwhelming amount of “friends” that are also members of mens groups and her rhetoric on child protection is no different to the rhetoric used to champion the shared parenting laws that harmed children in the first place.

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.

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.