Calling All Angels- Finally a Real Campaign for children

 

There have been many dodgy campaigns in the so called “rights for children”, but are in reality only there for the sole purpose of securing the child as though they were a piece of property.  Statistics can be skewed all they like, but at the end of the day most children are better off with their mothers after divorce.  Nature knows it, criminologists know it and deep down we all knew it, but because the shared parenting campaign sold as well as the renown pyramid scheme – we all fell for it.  Religious commentators might say that it was like scientists “playing god”, but in this case it was male supremacists, robbing motherhood.  In their own sense of paranoid delusions, they thought that single motherhood was an “invasion of feminism”, but its not.  Its mothers working extremely hard through all of the hate set against them to raise their children to become strong and good human beings.  That is all, no matter how one tries to paint it, there is no more.  Now, because children’s rights have never been so appalling along with women’s rights, mothers have embraced feminism like never before.  The support every year for the white ribbon campaign grows every year and more people, whether men’s groups like it or not are beginning to see through the FRs hatred and propaganda.  I can be very thankful to learn that Australians are certainly not a dumb country as much as these vial groups represent.  The more violent incidents against women and children, the more people begin to know who is the real problem.  The continued support by dads in distress, dads on air members and even fathers4equality of a known perpetrator is a statement in itself that reveals what this group is truly about: Its not about and never was about men’s rights – it was abusers rights.  The right to conceal, the right to punish victims, the right to continue their terror unchallenged and most of all: The right to have judicial authority to continue to do this.  

Know that there is indeed a war on children and motherhood.  

Know that a critical mass can stop this

Know that the courts are accomplices in some of the most disgusting crimes of the century beyond 9/11  If we put all of the victims of this child and mother massacre: it would be classified as the greatest act of terror and genocide by the state and its actors.  

 

Posted via web from australiansharedparentingdebate’s posterous

Japan and why they wont sign the hague convention

Gerald Nissenbaum, a family lawer and a columnist from the bosten herald stated:

 Japanese divorce laws almost always award the kids to the mother unless she’s proven unfit. Japan also hasn’t adopted the applicable Hague Convention.

Japan is one of the few countries left on earth that honours mothers and truly appreciate the unique gift of what motherhood can provide for children.  With children as men’s property back in fashion, the world has embraced a disturbing trend.  Embedded within the Japanese culture are some of the most humanistic religions that do not force one to consider religious teachings without first questioning logic.  

Japan has a great history of quickly embracing western ways, but not without careful consideration.  Japan has promised to review whether it will sign the treaty, but aimed to investigate it properly first.  Something, other governments have failed to do and have unnecessarily reacted upon pressure of angry men’s groups.  

Posted via web from australiansharedparentingdebate’s posterous

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.    

Those who choose to stay at home often provide our schools with many hours of unpaid work, whether it is assisting with the canteen duty, reading to young children or participating in school working bees.  These are efforts that could not have been accomplished without the help of these women.  Whether paid or unpaid, most mothers are continually working often unnoticed and undervalued.  It is therefore in our time a complete outrage to claim that mothers only care for their children because of government incentives.  It is ridiculous to state that mothers lie in the family court for financial incentives.  In most stats, single parent families live below the poverty line and receive little or no child support.  Adding insult to injury, some are left with STD(Sexually Transmitted Debts) to pay with almost impossible financial odds against them.  

Just keeping the old family car running can be a journey.   Going single as a mother is financial suicide and if we were all stockbrokers, perhaps we would be jumping of buildings too.  We care more about our children enough not to do that which is more than can be said for those suicidal fathers, who claim that access to children will somehow cure them,  In fact children are more unsafe with suicidal fathers than they are with mothers as they are more likely to take the children with them.  When a mother decides to leave a relationship, it is usually for a very good reason.  A majority of the so called, "high conflict" divorces in the family court are in fact cases involving family violence.  "High conflict" is a term often used to trivialise the abuse that has occurred in the courts.  Only 6% of mothers and children are graced with the opportunity to walk away.  The rest are slugged with orders that don't protect them or their children from family violence.  Most cases are not investigated and remain unsolved.  The general legal advice is not to investigate as it can be viewed as "medical abuse".  Of course, when mothers enter the family court, they expect like they do with all other organisations associated with children that they will have the children's interests at the highest priority.  It is after all, expected from mothers and society demands that from us.  Our transport systems are built to include technology that increases the safety of their passengers.  Bouncers are required to monitor nightclubs to increase the safety of their patrons.  These measures are introduced because it is an area that violence is likely to occur.  We know that women are at the most risk at the end of a relationship.  There are few moments that go by in Australia where we do not hear of a homicide after separation.  More occur unreported and not publicly available are the homicides after family court proceedings.  What we do know is that the consequences of not introducing safety measures are fatal.  The right to the protection of person is a human right and a basic one at that.  The benefit of providing safety outweighs the costs as family violence already costs the Australian community 8 billion dollars.  Providing blanket protections without addressing this problem will only exacerbate the original sum. It is crucial that not only the Family Law act is reviewed, but judges are in a better position to really consider the safety of children and women experiencing violence as the top priority and most of all, should never ever be too much to ask for.  

Posted via email from australiansharedparentingdebate’s posterous

True reason for problems of "fatherless" children

The fathers’ organizations have been claiming that child having an ongoing relationship with the father is at all times good for the child. They site statistics such as that children growing up with fathers in the house are much less likely to become criminal or addicted than the children raised without the fathers. In all cases, the claims are wrong, and the correlations drawn miss the causal third factor that is common to both divorce situations and situations of children’s deviance. That third factor is violence and abuse by the father.

Nobody divorces just for the heck of it. The “high-conflict” situations are for the most part situations of real violence, perpetrated by the husband against the wife and the children. The violence that the children have seen and been subject to in situations of divorce is far more common than they are in general population. Which means that the violent, criminal and dysfunctional behavior that is ascribed to children being raised without fathers are in fact causally linked to the violent, criminal and dysfunctional behavior by their fathers when the father was present in the house. A woman staying in such a situation with their children is not going to have children becoming good citizens. She will have children doing as the father has done.

In those situations, it is staying in the situation, rather than leaving the situation, that inflicts the greatest damage upon the children. The violence and the abusive, destructive attitudes build from year to year and destroy the child. Whereas getting the child away from such attitudes and behavior may be the only realistic way to save the child, and as such the only responsible solution.

The family court fails to account for this; indeed we see quite the opposite. A racket disorder known as Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is being used to take children away from the mother and give fully over to the father when either the mother or the child bring up abuse. Not only are the children denied a way from a soul-destroying situation, but they are bound there still further and denied contact with anyone who can help them. The courts become accomplices in the process that destroys children.

To those who claim that a child must have both parents to become a functional citizen, it can be brought to bear that the most successful individual in the world – the President of the United States of America – was raised by a single mother; as were people as famous and functional as Jodie Foster, Tom Cruise and Al Haig. On the historical level, the supposedly dysfunctional baby boom generation was raised with both parents in the house, whereas the supposedly upstanding Generation X was raised by the baby boom generation, in which divorce and single parenting was common. The statistics of fathers’ movement ascribe causal factors to correlation due to a third factor – the violence and abusive conduct by the father. This true causal factor underlies both the woman wanting a divorce – and the violent, criminal and dysfunctional behavior in the child.

In homes that are broken by domestic violence, sexual abuse of children, and hatred of children by either parent, to leave with one’s children is in many cases the only responsible solution. The courts need to understand that, and they need to assist people in doing the same. Shared parenting works when this isn’t the case; but it doesn’t work when the abuse is ongoing. Women and children should be able to leave violence and keep away from violence. And in this they

deserve protection, not persecution, of the law and the community.