A recent case in the Australian where the family court decided that a child should be removed from their mother because of the boyfriends history was just another judgement that adds to the long line of ignorance that leads to stupidity when making decisions on family violence. I make no concessions at identifying a situations for what they truly are: Stupidity. That is what the Howard governments shared parenting bill was all about and thats what its remnants are about too. Ignoring the fact that for many years, organizations addressing family violence have often suggested how inappropriate it is to remove a child from the home instead of the perpetrator, the family court decided that it was better to punish the child and the mother for another persons actions. They at least did get one thing right, they were concerned that the man heading this family might induce similar circumstances as he did in the past in another family setting. The question remains as to why the family court would address this issue so hastily with a reversal of custody and yet when it is the mother who is concerned about the care of the child in the fathers hands - she is wrong. We have all heard about the customer always being right. In this situation it is the case of the mother always being wrong and if she does not like that - they punish the child. It is rare that the family court decides to protect children and why there has been a recent inquiry, why there are mothers walking around with no children because the family court ordered them to their deaths and why there are motherless children walking around because the court ordered them to their deaths too.
Laws for pedophiles are designed so that they cannot live near kindergartens and schools. So why do we not have laws that prohibit abusers from moving in with children? That is a smarter way to deal with this than to blame, shame or punish the mother and the child. Neither one of them chose to kill his child. The mother was doing exactly what society teaches through our justice structures and how our media draws sometimes undue compassion for perpetrators. We've all been their and felt sympathy for someone who did not deserve it and we are not to blame or deserve to be punished because of that. The criminal justice system gives criminals a second chance, the family court doesn't scrutinize step mothers in the same way and in fact has been a historical pattern of judgements. Before mothers were acknowledged as human beings before the law after divorce, children were the property of men but their mothers were often replaced with step mothers. Step mothers are in fact are more likely to perpetrate child abuse more than step fathers. the fact remains still as to why the perpetrator was not removed from the home.
|
Lynn Said,
While I agree with the statement that this guy should not be allowed to live with another family, the Australian reported that the mother wasn't in a defacto relationship with him.
I do however, question as to why on earth ANYONE would want to have a relationship on any level with someone who's own child has died from neglect and who's other 3 children have been removed.
The father of the child caught in the middle is quite right to be concerned. In the end, the mother would have been forced to make a decision....pick either a) continue to see new boyfriend, or b) risk losing own child. In my book, it's not even a choice. But having said that, perhaps the mother wasn't in a relationship with the guy at all....the Australian reports that the father had "amassed" evidence....perhaps there was a hidden agenda in there, somewhere. From the information available, it's hard to tell.
But anyway, yes, you're right. This whole saga may have been avoided if the guy had been treated like society treats peds. Society seems to be pretty good at holding vendettas against peds, and not wanting them in their streets or even towns, but when it comes to the death of one's own child through neglect, nobody seems to bat an eyelid, and the guy is free to prey on the next vulnerable woman who is unfortunate enough to pass him by.
Posted on October 29, 2009 8:50 PM