ANONYMUMS NEWS

Fwd: A Sharia tribunal would cost justice for women and children

2009-10-19T17:32:00.001-07:00

A sharia tribunal is contradiction of Islam
JOUMANAH EL MATRAH
October 20, 2009 - 6:38AM
Comments 8
Let me be clear, neither the Victorian Government or the Islamic Council of Victorian will be pursuing the establishment of a sharia tribunal.
Despite this, the recent call for the establishment of a sharia tribunal in Victoria (The Age, 19/10) reflects the increasingly common advocacy by Muslims for sharia tribunals across Western societies to settle disputes within the Muslim community, in particular as they relate to Muslim personal legal code issues such as marriage, divorce, child custody, and financial settlement upon dissolution of marriage.
The increasing urgency by which such calls are being made reflect a complex set of issues: growing uncertainty among some Muslims about how to maintain their identity in a highly globalised, diverse Muslim world; uncertainty about what constitutes appropriate recognition of Muslim rights as a minority community in Western societies; and concerns about what it means to be a person of faith in a modern liberal nation such as Australia.
More than anything, however, the call for sharia tribunals represents two fundamental questions for Muslims everywhere: what is it to be Muslim in the 21st century beyond replicating the traditions of our ancestors? And: how to be Muslim in a way that recognises Muslim women's exclusion and marginalisation from the interpretation of Islam for the past 1000 years?
There are many issues at stake but let me begin by addressing the issues as they relate to women, as they, beyond anyone else, risk having their rights and status compromised. Many Muslims have come to conflate reducing the status of women with what it means to be authentically Muslim. The reason for this conflation is that many Muslim-majority countries have dropped sharia from the legal system except in matters related to what is known as the Muslim personal code on marriage, divorce, and child custody, what is loosely defined as sexual morality. Many Muslims believe that current laws as they apply to these matters reflect sharia as the Prophet might have envisaged it but in fact significant reform has been undertaken, almost always against the interests and well being of women and children and against the egalitarian spirit of Islam.
It is difficult to make generalisations across the Islamic world and the various schools of Islamic thought that have existed historically. A literal application of sharia would see women loose their right to divorce except in a few and extreme set of circumstances. A non-fault divorce would only be available to women who forfeited their maintenance and any other financial gain made as a result of the marriage. Women would no longer be entitled to maintenance upon divorce as the Muslim system favours a one-off payment. There is also an automatic loss of custody of children above the age of seven for boys and nine for girls — unless the husband has no interest in acquiring custody. There are exceptions where a more humane and egalitarian interpretation of Islam exists but today an intensely orthodox interpretation of Islam dominates the interpretation and implementation of sharia, which is deeply antagonistic to women. The problem is not Islam but the way that it has been interpreted by an elite, deeply conservative group of Muslims.
It is inappropriate to argue that women can simply choose to not use such a tribunal because it denies both the limited power and vulnerability of women as a group. Many women simply cannot withstand community pressure against using "outside" assistance — nor should they have to. To expect women to seek outside assistance against community pressure leaves them vulnerable to being ostracised and treated as unIslamic.Numerous examples from Britain demonstrate that women felt they had no option but to use the tribunal because of community pressure and expectation. In addition, over time many Muslim community members no longer recognised the British courts as having a legitimate role in resolving what they believed to be internal community disputes — in effect Muslims and the British Government seem to be in agreement that Muslims are no longer citizens subject to the rules and institutions of the state.
Which brings me to my next point — the issues as they relate to Muslims and Islam. Firstly, let me be clear, this is not a debate about sharia because, in fact, 70 per cent of what most Muslims believe to be sharia is in fact fiqh (put simply fiqh is the interpretive work of Islamic scholars). This important because while sharia is considered divine by a significant number of Muslims, fiqh is the opinions of scholars who lived centuries ago. The difference between fiqh and sharia raises practical considerations. Importantly if you remove fiqh there is simply not enough sharia to constituent a tribunal to address the variety of disputes that we would see in today's context.
There are also deeply concerning questions as to what version of sharia will be implemented in this tribunal. An orthodox version would violate basic human rights as many Muslims understand them today and a liberal version will be condemned by imams and more conservative community elements as inconsistent with Islam.
A parallel system for Muslims is inconsistent with Islamic teaching. Strictly speaking there are no grounds for Muslims to have a separate system. Islamic doctrine dictates that Muslims must abide by and be part of the political and legal system of their state. It is difficult to understand how such an argument can be made Islamically beyond the historical examples of Muslims allowing these rights to minority Jewish and Christian communities. However, using this historical example raises difficult questions for Muslims. It is true that Christian and Jewish minorities received a great deal of cultural and religious autonomy, but these groups had no right to political participation or influence in the state unless they converted to Islam. Is this what some Muslims are asking for? If so, such a request would mean we may need to give up our political rights, for example such as the right to vote and the right to lobby.
Islam in my opinion does not have a history of mediation as has been suggested. It has a fairly long history of arbitration. This sets up the sharia tribunal in direct competition with our Australian system of courts and tribunals. This means for example that there may be disputes between say VCAT and the sharia tribunal or the family court and the sharia tribunal. What will it do to Muslim perception of the sharia tribunal if it is constantly overruled by other courts in our system? It is likely to breed resentment and distrust of the courts system generally and the Australian government.
As Muslims, it is entirely bewildering that our concept, our cultural or religious recognition is now measured by the extent to which the government is prepared to set us apart from the rest of Australian society. The legal ghettoisation of Muslims does not recognise their difference; it would simply allow a government to delegate its responsibility for ensuring the rights and protection of people who are different. Essentially, it would be a government prepared to outsource and privatise justice and the protection of women. Establishing parallel systems for Muslims does not ensure a culturally appropriate response to justice; it fundamentally locks out Muslims from organisations and services that they as citizens have a right to access.
Our notion of justice in this country should mean that Muslims should have the reasonable expectation of receiving appropriate treatment by any court of law. The purview of Australian courts is not white, middle-class Australia.
And finally, I'm referring to this because I think it refers to the integrity of Muslim activism on issues of rights. Hyder Gulam [of the Islamic Council of Victoria] and many others often compare the rights of Muslim Australians to indigenous Australians. It is my view that this is profoundly unethical. We are part of the colonial process that has dispossessed indigenous Australians. Their rights and entitlements should sit beyond anything that Muslim Australians have the right to appropriately expect. In no other country have the rights of indigenous communities and migrant communities been treated as equivalent.
Muslims Australians have a right to find a place for themselves in this country that recognises who they are as a people but this should not be at the expense of women and justice.
Joumanah El Matrah is director of the Islamic Women's Welfare Council of Victoria.

Remove the perpetrator, not the child

2009-10-19T16:28:00.001-07:00

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.

Relief for families as tyrannical laws are on their way out

2009-10-18T15:49:00.000-07:00

Shared parenting laws on way out

Caroline Overington | October 19, 2009

Article from: The Australian

THE Rudd government is planning to roll back the controversial shared parenting law passed in the final term of the Howard government, enraging men's groups, which say the laws have finally given them access to their children after separation.

Six inquiries into the shared parenting laws are now under way, which men's groups have interpreted as a sure sign that change is under way, too.

In a message to supporters, Sue Price of the Men's Rights Agency, has described the planned rollback as the "most sustained and concerted attack" on shared parenting that she has seen in 15 years.

Ms Price said the laws did no more than encourage "reasonable contact between perfectly good fathers and their children" and she is urging supporters to "convince the Rudd government that there are a million votes at stake" if they roll back the shared parenting changes.

"War has been declared and now is the time to protest the changes," Ms Price said, adding that planned changes were an attempt to "deny children shared parenting" and "an attack on a child's right to be loved and cared for by a dad on a shared-care, equal basis".

Attorney-General Robert McClelland, in concert with the Minister for the Status of Women, Tanya Plibersek, flagged a change to the law after a small child, Darcey Freeman, died after allegedly being thrown from the Westgate Bridge in Melbourne earlier this year. Her father, Arthur Freeman, has been charged with murder. In a committal hearing, the court heard that the mother had been terrified of her former partner, and told neighbours and others that he was certain to kill one of her children. Read More

Hero Mother: Her Story

2009-10-16T17:39:00.001-07:00

In 2003 my abuser forged my signature and had it notarized on a court stipulation giving him "50/50" custody and all back child support dropped, this is a paternity case. The notary was his real estate/insurance agent. The only reason I found out about the forgery is that he tried to remove our daughter, Michaela from daycare and they contacted me immediately.

I filed a police report regarding the forgery, the DA, Jay Conley, he said that "even though we know who the likely suspect is there was no proof that my abuser, Craig Hensberger, did this". Even though no one else would benefit from such an arrangement but the "likely suspect". I got a handwriting analysis done on my own and presented that evidence to the DA, he stated that only "proved it was not my signature", he refused to do anything.

I went to court in front of Family Court Commissioner, Frank Calvert, of Oconto County, who just happened to be the GAL on my divorce/custody proceedings in 1997 who recommended custody to my ex abusive husband, John Fetterly. It was also Mr. Calvert who made sure that in his recommendations that in order for me to have primary placement with my older three daughters I was to have a "stable living environment away from Craig Hensberger". In 2003 Mr. Calvert moved up in ranks from lowly GAL to Family Court Commissioner and even with me expressing to him my concerns of his ability to be impartial I was ignored, chastised and intimidated by him. He refused to hear or see any evidence regarding the forgery and kept it as is, "50/50" custody and ordered child support in the amount of $25 per week based on 50/50 custody even though the father had placement every other weekend.

The weekend of Fathers Day in June 2005 my daughter was in the custody and care of her father. On Saturday of that weekend he was arrested for his second DUI in less than a year with our daughter as a passenger in the middle of the day. At this time I had decided to move out of the state and per the county rules sent a certified letter to my former abuser to notify him of our move. He refused the certified letter and it was returned to me, although he was alerted that I was planning on moving and then filed an objection to my move. We again went in front of Frank Calvert who appointed GAL, Aaron Krzewinski. They ordered that my child stay in her current school but that Craig's mother was to do all the transportation and supervision of placement. This was when my former abuser anger began to escalate and he vandalized three vehicles of mine which rendered them useless as well as loosening all the lug nuts on my tires which could of killed me as the tire fell off while traveling to work one morning.

Finally in October 2005, I moved in with my mother who lived well within the 150 mile radius I was allowed to move without notifying him. In December he served 20 days in jail for his DUI w/our daughter (the minimum is 30 days) and he also was allowed out on "Huber" so that he only had to report to jail at night when he was done working or not working. After he did his time he filed a motion to enforce placement when he was in jail for most of December. Again FCC Frank Calvert chastised me in court for not have legal representation and stated that if he could make me move back he would. He then gave my former abuser every weekend custody and ordered that I drive roundtrip every weekend because my abusers license was suspended. He stated that it wasn't "his fault I moved, it was mine". He also refused to review child support and the $25 weekly was upheld.

In August 2006 I moved back to Oconto County with my then fiancé' soon to be husband, Chad Tipton. It was the Labor Day weekend and we were set to drive her for visitation with her father. My daughter stated that she was scared to go because her father was putting his finger in her "butt crack" down her pants, she made a motion of up and down. She made this revelation and stated how uncomfortable it was to her. I immediately contacted Marathon County CPS who interviewed my daughter. They did make a TPR and advised that Oconto would then handle it when we moved there after that weekend.

During the first weeks of September 2006 my daughter was met at her school by Oconto County CPS worker Carrie Silbernagel. After not hearing from Ms. Silbernagel I contacted her and she was very volatile towards me. Stating that she didn't believe my daughter, that she believed she was "coached" and that she had children younger than my daughter who could provide specific details such as smells, times of days, etc. but my daughter did not. She stated that she knew of my "history with CPS" and reporting false allegations of sexual abuse. I asked her to explain as I had never made any other report to CPS regarding sexual abuse. She referred to another CPS worker that I had allegedly spoke to in 2004 regarding my older daughter. She made comments that she "knew ALL about me" etc. When I pointed out that my daughter is in danger as her fathers history of driving drunk. She then stated that "driving drunk with his child didn't make him a bad father, he made a bad choice". She refused to take any action and the matter was closed.

In May 2007 my former abuser decided to file for sole custody of our daughter as his behavior was to the point of madness since I was getting married on July 7, 2007. It was during this time that FCC Frank Calvert recused himself finally after I had filed a complaint against him with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission regarding his impartiality and biasness. By this time he was already facing charges of endangering safety with a dangerous weapon as he tried to run my then fiancé' and 13 yo daughter in a grocery store parking lot one night as he waited outside for us. During that summer he was given every other week custody and they kept it that way until school started. Every bad behavior he gained more and more custody as the GAL was continually getting more money.

By January 2008, last minute he agreed to joint custody and dropped his sole custody claim. In February 2008 my daughter came home and said that her grandmother had forced fed her soup and then her vomit while threatening to beat "her ass" with a wooden spoon if she didn't eat it. I contacted CPS and was told that the same CPS worker Carrie Silbernagel whose last name was now Burke as she married would contact me. After I told her of the force feeding incident she stated that she wanted to get down to the bottom of this "once and for all". She suggested to take my daughter to a neutral third party who would interview her, I agreed. Although she only needed one parents permission she made the appointment at the Child Advocacy Center when it was the fathers placement time to avoid any of my 'coaching' etc.

On February 25 my daughter was picked up by Carrie Silbernagel Burke and had my child interviewed by Sara Schumacher who was a forensic interviewer for child abuse victims. The interview was recorded and transcribed. During the interview not only did my daughter tell of the soup incident but once again how her father sexually abused her. She told both Sara Schumacher and Carrie Silbernagel Burke that he father had instructed her to lie that day to them. By that afternoon I received a call from Carrie telling me that they were substantiating the abuse and placing my daughter with me. I thought that the nightmare was finally over. The CPS worker advised my husband and I that it would be a good idea if we left town for the night, get a hotel room as when she contact Craig he was extremely upset. She also advised that we should immediately file a child abuse restraining order for the TPR would not help protect my daughter very long. She explained that they would be filing a CHIPS (child in need of protection) petition and she would be in contact with us.

The next day I filed child abuse restraining orders against Craig and Betty Hensberger and it was granted by Oconto County Richard Delforge for 30 day pending the CHIPS petition. By March CPS was already back pedaling and we were advised by Carrie Burke that Corporation Counsel, Robert Mraz, stated that I was already "protecting my daughter in Family Court" when in fact there was no such order but only the one in which she was to go every other week. Then CPS offered for both parties to sign a stipulation agreement for "co-parenting" classes for both parents. They never even ordered any alcohol or drug assessment for Craig whose history of alcohol abuse was severe. My attorney at the time, Michael Perry, advised me not to agree to the stipulation and also my former abuser refused to sign.

Also in March he was acquitted of his charge of endangering safety with a dangerous weapon. Somehow my former abuser contacted my ex husband and had my older daughters recant their statements. When this was brought forward to the DA, Jay Conley of possible witness tampering, he stated it wasn't because Craig only talked with my ex husband.

On May 21, 2008, my daughters 10th birthday, an Administrative Appeal was held by recused FCC Frank M. Calvert. My lawyer and I were not privy to this hearing in which my former abuser, his attorney, Corporation Counsel, Deputy Director of Oconto County CPS Greg Benesh and Carrie Burke were a part of. The only reason my attorney learned of this hearing was due to my abusers attorney, John D'Angelo, sending a copy of the hearing in which Mr. Calvert unsubstantiated the sexual abuse allegations. My attorney advised me to get the recording from the hearing and I did. What I heard was chilling as my character and credibility was more of an issue than the actual abuse. Especially in which Mr. Calvert snickers and makes fun of me that he's "well aware of the difficulties with Ms. Fetterly-Tipton". My lawyer instructs me to file a complaint with the judicial commission as Mr. Calvert had recused himself and he had no right to hear that case. When I requested the CD recording of the hearing Mr. Calvert's assistant Julie Depouw stated that perhaps Calvert "forgot" he recused himself. A complaint was filed with the judicial commission regarding the ongoing bias and unethical practices of Frank M. Calvert.

In July 2008 my former abuser wanted his placement times back. We went to court and after my two witnesses testified, Sara Schumacher and Greg Benesh, Judge David Miron ordered a recess. My lawyer, my former abuser's lawyer, GAL Krzewinski met in chambers. My lawyer returned to say that the judge was not going to hear any more testimony because so far we had not proven that there was any substantial change in circumstances for change in placement. He also stated that due to her father subpoenaing my daughters counselor, Jennifer Werner, her supervisor wrote to the judge to tell of his disdain that she was being 'used' as a pawn in this proceeding and she had no knowledge of the ongoing custody dispute (her counseling records do not reflect that). My lawyer stated I had to agree to two supervised visits, one overnight unsupervised, one weekend unsupervised then back to week on week off, providing that GAL Krzewinski and newly appointed counselor, Mike Mervilde, found no reason for that schedule, and they didn't.

When I had tried to make further appointments with Mike Mervilde I was thwarted by saying that he was only court ordered to see her twice. When I requested copies of her counseling records I was told that my daughter wasn't the patient, her father was.

By the very first unsupervised visit my daughter came back stating her father was drinking and driving with her. Every other week she was coming home from his home with lice. CPS said that wasn't neglect. My daughter refused to go for visitation and in October her father filed his first of three contempt motions on me. I was found in contempt by Judge Miron and it was ordered that my daughter be forced to live with her abuser for five weeks straight, I was not allowed visitation. This was when I was first accused of PAS, a.k.a. 'brainwashing' her. The judge stated that he believed that I had "poisoned" my daughter against her father. When I shook my head slightly the judge yelled at me to not shake my head at him.
She left on 10/31/09 and returned on 12/05/09. During that time she was tormented and tortured by her father and grandmother. My daughter still says that was the worst time of her life.

In February my daughter came home and said her father caught a 8lb Walleye and kept it alive in his 100 gallon fish tank for two weeks. He then proceeded to use her and sign her up for three different fishing derbies in one weekend with the same fish. He told my daughter if she told no one she would receive an ipod. The total of $150 of prize money that was won in my daughters name she never saw one penny or an ipod.
Her father was caught in his lying, cheating and stealing but blamed her for "ratting him out". This was the turning point that my daughter lost any last respect for her father, she would ask me, "why would he do this to me?", I had no answer, I still don't.

She missed a weekend visit in March, by Monday he went to her school with the police to pick her up. She refused and the Gillett police officer, Gary Pemmrich, threatened my daughter that he would take her down to juvenile hall, she would be placed in foster care, she would never see me again and that she would have to go to a new school.
It was after this hat my former abuser brought me to court again for contempt, the judge did not find me in contempt and dismissed it. This was when Judge Miron made a threat that perhaps neither parent was fit and maybe he would put her in foster care.
He then changed the order that each parent could pick up the child directly from school rather than the police station as the drop off.

Shortly after she returned from her week placement stating how cold she was at her fathers, stating his electricity was "broken". The next week it was the same, finally CPS was alerted that there was no electricity, running water/plumbing, refrigeration for food etc. They then began staying at his mothers small two bedroom home, my daughter was given a choice of either sleeping on the living room floor or the unfinished basement. By August my daughter had been frightened several times by her grandmother driving her drunk, specifically one occasion where they took her out with them to the bar and as the grandmother stumbled out of the bar she proceeded to get into the wrong vehicle and then drove them home, drunk.

My daughter asked to stay at my home on his weekend 8/7/09 due to her older sisters coming for a visit. She kept saying how relaxed she was, how well she slept in an actual bed in her own room. She called him and told him she would not return to his mothers house because she had no bed or bedroom there. By 8/12/09 he filed a motion of contempt on me but waited until last minute 9/18/09 to have me served. Due to the untimely notice it was dismissed, He soon filed another contempt. At no time after school started did he ever go to school to retrieve his daughter. In court on 10/14/09 he and his mother perjured themselves that she has her own room, I'm brainwashing her, they don't drink. When asked why he didn't go pick her up he would say he was "working" or he was "busy" but I was being held accountable. On 9/4/09 we drove up to the grandmothers house for my daughter to retrieve her clarinet. We requested the assistance of Oconto County Sheriffs Deputy Ryan Zahn, who happens to be the nephew of Craig Hensberger, grandson of Betty Hensberger. At no time did the grandmother attempt to keep my daughter at her residence, her father according to his testimony was working.

Judge Miron found me in contempt and ordered me 30 days in county jail, with it stayed and ordered that my daughter be picked up by her father on 10/16/09 after school. I was also found in contempt and ordered 30 days in county jail for claiming my daughter on my taxes even though he has an order to do so the IRS will not allow him to since he unlawfully claimed her from 1999-2007. Also because she lived with me exclusively from Feb 2008-August 2008 which the federal government agreed I could claim her. Judge Miron also made his threats again that maybe he would "contact CPS because neither one of us is a fit parent and maybe he should take he away from both of us". He stated that maybe foster care was the best place for her.

Since the contempt motion being served on 9/18/09 my child has began sleep walking, having night terrors, and was placed on Xanax for her sleep disturbances and anxiety issues brought on by her father. She has stated she is not going with her father ever again, she can't and won't. She won't be in school tomorrow due to her flu and is adamant that nobody can make her go, not even me.

Fathers Rights Hit Rock Bottom: The Killer Maniesto

2009-10-16T17:31:00.000-07:00

If there was any lower they could go, they have just gone there. Whilst Australian fathers rights sympathize and support a man on trial for the murder that shocked Australia, in New Zealand, a man yells out, "Bang! Bye bye son. Bang bye bye daughter". This is just one of the appalling reasons as to why these terrorists should never be given a platform.

They are in nearly every country in the world, intimidating women and children on their so called, "Court watch", making threats and supporting murders.

We don't just have an angry movement, these are every countries problem: homegrown terrorists.

Australia had the black shirts intimidating and stalking women and children for what they believed was the right thing to do. In UK, Fathers 4 justice, threatened to abduct the prime ministers child and held a minister captive whilst they stood on her roof. Throughout the history of the fathers rights movement, they are have not been strangers to guns and bombs. There has also been some liaison between their group members and islamic extremists. The question is no longer what is to be done, but rather how long shall we tolerate such behavior?

Dad demands rights for fathers

By ANTONIO BRADLEY - The Manawatu Standard

Last updated 12:00 03/10/2009

Text Size

BEN CURRAN/Manawatu Standard

MASCULINIST: Protester Benjamin Easton shouts for fathers' rights outside the Palmerston North court house yesterday.

Fathers' rights were shouted to the streets of Palmerston North yesterday.

Five placard-waving people protested against the Family Court's systems outside the Palmerston North court house.

Protester and anti-Family Court activist Benjamin Easton said he wanted better representation for non-custodial fathers, whom he claimed were treated unfairly by the court system.

People passing the protest stopped and talked. Some signed the placards in support with messages such as "it's not fair" and "good luck".

Others called the megaphone slogans noise pollution.

As part of their protest, four other protesters went into the court house and sat on the floor.

Staff told them they could not protest inside the court or outside the main entrance's steps. The protesters complied with their request to move.

Mr Easton said non-custodial fathers loved their children, but court-ordered separations could smash fathers' lives in an instant.

"Bang! Bye bye son. Bang! Bye bye daughter," he shouted through a megaphone.

Mr Easton had an unhappy experience with the Family Court in 2000.

Two of Mr Easton's fellow protesters said separation from their children led some men to depression, alcoholism and even suicide.

"It just haunts you," one supporter said.

"You can't escape it."

Palmerston North Courthouse manager Marcus Vettise said he was advised of Mr Easton's "Paint the Complaint" protest in advance.

"We take a neutral stance ... people have a right to freedom of expression."

Parents Seeking Access to Avoid Child Support

2009-10-16T16:35:00.001-07:00

In a submission which closed today, parents told the Attorney General they would rather forego child support payments if it helps them to keep their children safe.

The Family Court Violence Review was instigated by the Attorney General Robert McClelland after the tragic death of Darcey Freeman from the Westgate Bridge after the family said the Court had failed them.

The National Council for Children Post-Separation (NCCPS) has asked that child support payments be decoupled from access.

Currently, if a parent wants to save their child from unwanted contact visits by foregoing child support payments, they are financially penalized by the Child Support Agency system, losing some of their Centrelink payments.

'What we are hearing is that violent or controlling ex-spouse are demanding equal time with their children to avoid having make child support payments,' said Barbara Biggs, Convenor of the NCCPS.

'The trauma involved in access visits, for both the child and the exiting spouse, simply so one parent can avoid CSA payments, is an unfair and unnecessary burden on the child. Protective parents, often victims of domestic violence are telling us they don't want the money at the expense of putting their child in danger of abuse.'

Almost 4000 parents have signed a petition calling for changes to the Family Law Act where domestic violence and abuse is a problem.

In it's submission, the NCCPS also called for access post-separation to take into account whether or not parents have demonstrated in the marriage they have cared for the child in a signficant way.

'Some parents abandoned their spouse while pregnant and years later seek shared care when the child does not even know the parent. This is traumatizing for the child, especially if they are pre-school age,' said Ms Biggs.

Elimination of Violence Against Women

2009-10-10T08:31:00.001-07:00

United Nations

A/RES/48/104

General Assembly

Distr. GENERAL

20 December 1993

ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH

                                                  A/RES/48/104                                                   85th plenary meeting                                                   20 December 1993           48/104.  Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women         The General Assembly,         Recognizing the urgent need for the universal application to women of the rights and principles with regard to equality, security, liberty, integrity and dignity of all human beings,         Noting that those rights and principles are enshrined in international instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,         Recognizing that effective implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would contribute to the elimination of violence against women and that the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, set forth in the present resolution, will strengthen and complement that process,         Concerned that violence against women is an obstacle to the achievement of equality, development and peace, as recognized in the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women, in which a set of measures to combat violence against women was recommended, and to the full implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,         Affirming that violence against women constitutes a violation of the rights and fundamental freedoms of women and impairs or nullifies their enjoyment of those rights and  freedoms, and concerned about the long-standing failure to protect and promote those rights and freedoms in the case of violence against women,         Recognizing that violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men,         Concerned that some groups of women, such as women belonging to minority groups, indigenous women, refugee women, migrant women, women living in rural or remote communities, destitute women, women in institutions or in detention, female children, women with disabilities, elderly women and women in situations of armed conflict, are especially vulnerable to violence,         Recalling the conclusion in paragraph 23 of the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1990/15 of 24 May 1990 that the recognition that violence against women in the family and society was pervasive and cut across lines of income, class and culture had to be matched by urgent and effective steps to eliminate its incidence,         Recalling also Economic and Social Council resolution 1991/18 of 30 May 1991, in which the Council recommended the development of a framework for an international instrument that would address explicitly the issue of violence against women,         Welcoming the role that women's movements are playing in drawing increasing attention to the nature, severity and magnitude of the problem of violence against women,         Alarmed that opportunities for women to achieve legal, social, political and economic equality in society are limited, inter alia, by continuing and endemic violence,         Convinced that in the light of the above there is a need for a clear and comprehensive definition of violence against women, a clear statement of the rights to be applied to ensure the elimination of violence against women in all its forms, a commitment by States in respect of their responsibilities, and a commitment by the international community at large to the elimination of violence against women,         Solemnly proclaims the following Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women and urges that every effort be made so that it becomes generally known and respected:                                      Article 1               For the purposes of this Declaration, the term "violence against       women" means any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is       likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering       to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary       deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.                                      Article 2               Violence against women shall be understood to encompass, but not       be limited to, the following:               (a)   Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the       family, including battering, sexual abuse of female children in the       household, dowry-related violence, marital rape, female genital       mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women, non-spousal       violence and violence related to exploitation;               (b)   Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring within       the general community, including rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment       and intimidation at work, in educational institutions and elsewhere,       trafficking in women and forced prostitution;               (c)   Physical, sexual and psychological violence perpetrated or       condoned by the State, wherever it occurs.                                      Article 3               Women are entitled to the equal enjoyment and protection of all       human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic,       social, cultural, civil or any other field.  These rights include, inter       alia:               (a)   The right to life;               (b)   The right to equality;               (c)   The right to liberty and security of person;               (d)   The right to equal protection under the law;               (e)   The right to be free from all forms of discrimination;               (f)   The right to the highest standard attainable of physical and       mental health;               (g)   The right to just and favourable conditions of work;               (h)   The right not to be subjected to torture, or other cruel,       inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.                                      Article 4               States should condemn violence against women and should not invoke       any custom, tradition or religious consideration to avoid their       obligations with respect to its elimination.  States should pursue by       all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating violence       against women and, to this end, should:               (a)   Consider, where they have not yet done so, ratifying or       acceding to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of       Discrimination against Women or withdrawing reservations to that       Convention;               (b)   Refrain from engaging in violence against women;               (c)   Exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and, in       accordance with national legislation, punish acts of violence against       women, whether those acts are perpetrated by the State or by private       persons;               (d)   Develop penal, civil, labour and administrative sanctions in       domestic legislation to punish and redress the wrongs caused to women       who are subjected to violence; women who are subjected to violence       should be provided with access to the mechanisms of justice and, as       provided for by national legislation, to just and effective remedies for       the harm that they have suffered; States should also inform women of       their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms;               (e)   Consider the possibility of developing national plans of       action to promote the protection of women against any form of violence,       or to include provisions for that purpose in plans already existing,       taking into account, as appropriate, such cooperation as can be provided       by non-governmental organizations, particularly those concerned with the       issue of violence against women;               (f)   Develop, in a comprehensive way, preventive approaches and       all those measures of a legal, political, administrative and cultural       nature that promote the protection of women against any form of       violence, and ensure that the re-victimization of women does not occur       because of laws insensitive to gender considerations, enforcement       practices or other interventions;               (g)   Work to ensure, to the maximum extent feasible in the light       of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of       international cooperation, that women subjected to violence and, where       appropriate, their children have specialized assistance, such as       rehabilitation, assistance in child care and maintenance, treatment,       counselling, and health and social services, facilities and programmes,       as well as support structures, and should take all other appropriate       measures to promote their safety and physical and psychological       rehabilitation;               (h)   Include in government budgets adequate resources for their       activities related to the elimination of violence against women;               (i)   Take measures to ensure that law enforcement officers and       public officials responsible for implementing policies to prevent,       investigate and punish violence against women receive training to       sensitize them to the needs of women;               (j)   Adopt all appropriate measures, especially in the field of       education, to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men       and women and to eliminate prejudices, customary practices and all other       practices based on the idea of the inferiority or superiority of either       of the sexes and on stereotyped roles for men and women;               (k)   Promote research, collect data and compile statistics,       especially concerning domestic violence, relating to the prevalence of       different forms of violence against women and encourage research on the       causes, nature, seriousness and consequences of violence against women       and on the effectiveness of measures implemented to prevent and redress       violence against women; those statistics and findings of the research       will be made public;               (l)   Adopt measures directed towards the elimination of violence       against women who are especially vulnerable to violence;               (m)   Include, in submitting reports as required under relevant       human rights instruments of the United Nations, information pertaining       to violence against women and measures taken to implement the present       Declaration;               (n)   Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines to       assist in the implementation of the principles set forth in the present       Declaration;               (o)   Recognize the important role of the women's movement and       non-governmental organizations world wide in raising awareness and       alleviating the problem of violence against women;               (p)   Facilitate and enhance the work of the women's movement and       non-governmental organizations and cooperate with them at local,       national and regional levels;               (q)   Encourage intergovernmental regional organizations of which       they are members to include the elimination of violence against women in       their programmes, as appropriate.                                      Article 5               The organs and specialized agencies of the United Nations system       should, within their respective fields of competence, contribute to the       recognition and realization of the rights and the principles set forth       in the present Declaration and, to this end, should, inter alia:               (a)   Foster international and regional cooperation with a view to       defining regional strategies for combating violence, exchanging       experiences and financing programmes relating to the elimination of       violence against women;               (b)   Promote meetings and seminars with the aim of creating and       raising awareness among all persons of the issue of the elimination of       violence against women;               (c)   Foster coordination and exchange within the United Nations       system between human rights treaty bodies to address the issue of       violence against women effectively;               (d)   Include in analyses prepared by organizations and bodies of       the United Nations system of social trends and problems, such as the       periodic reports on the world social situation, examination of trends in       violence against women;               (e)   Encourage coordination between organizations and bodies of       the United Nations system to incorporate the issue of violence against       women into ongoing programmes, especially with reference to groups of       women particularly vulnerable to violence;               (f)   Promote the formulation of guidelines or manuals relating to       violence against women, taking into account the measures referred to in       the present Declaration;               (g)   Consider the issue of the elimination of violence against       women, as appropriate, in fulfilling their mandates with respect to the       implementation of human rights instruments;               (h)   Cooperate with non-governmental organizations in addressing       the issue of violence against women.                                      Article 6               Nothing in the present Declaration shall affect any provision that       is more conducive to the elimination of violence against women that may       be contained in the legislation of a State or in any international       convention, treaty or other instrument in force in a State.

The Arthur Freeman Case

2009-10-08T05:28:00.000-07:00

Justice For Darcey Freeman

By Special Guest Writer Akasha Mc Donald

The dead cannot speak. They cannot cry when there is no justice.

"Take me away" Arthur Freeman said.

The defense lawyer continued to shift the focus on the words that were not spoken, the food that was not offered and the CTV camera that did not record. Well dressed with a shiny purple tie, sat Arthur Freeman carefully following the movements of the lawyers, calculating the sum of words, expressions and moments nearing the end of a two day committal hearing at Melbourne Magistrates Court. His lawyer did well to convince others that Arthur Freeman was not guilty, that he was mentally ill and not fit to stand trial. There was more than just a few flaws that became the thread undoing the blanket of defense. Without saying the word "catatonic", the lawyer gnarled away with questions establishing a lost cause even after it was confirmed that Mr Freeman had spoke. It is an empirical fact in trauma studies that perpetrators suffer from trauma post the incident. This has been well documented over many years. The behaviors Mr Freeman displayed after the act, sounds just like text-book trauma.

Towards the end of the hearing, the judge spoke directly to Mr Freeman informing him of the consequences of pleading guilty and not guilty throughout the trial. As if gratified by knowing that his victims would be tormented by the case dragging out and the possibility of it twisting into a great injustice, he stood proudly and said, "Not Guilty". Silence filled the room, followed by an echo of pens in unison furiously scratching away at paper. His face was devoid of all emotion but a twisted sense of triumph that spread across his face. After all, it is the last opportunity he has to torment his ex wife and family.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Family Courts Lab Rats

2009-10-06T20:59:00.001-07:00

Perhaps another strategy to avoid liability, the Family Court announced Shared parenting as a "social experiment". What they didn't tell you was the fact that the participants were not by consent and the grave risks that were involved. Thats in the fine print of the law that appears only the fathers rights groups have had access to. It wasn't until Dr Judith Reisman questioned Kinseys findings that we began to know about the trail of destruction left behind. Most people now shudder at the mere mention of table 34. The children who were abused for the sake of "research" were in the hundreds, yet their plight remained within the shadows whilst Kinsey was glorified as a hero to this day.

How very easy it was to shamelessly tell half truths in the spotlight to the australian and american people on what shared parenting was about. If there were any real justice, those who lobbied for it should have at the very least been sued and those who participated in the mass abuses of women and children should be held in the international criminal courts for committing this crime against these people. If they announced that they were going to subject mothers and children to family violence and order them to endure and remain silent about it, it would be an outrage.

Many practitioners and shared parenting advocates have played the ignorant card and claimed that there is no research on shared parenting to anticipate whether there would be any harm.

Based on her 30 plus years of research and experience with children of divorce. Dr. Wallerstein explains:

Joint custody arrangements that involve

a child going back and forth at frequent

intervals are particularly harmful to

children in a high-conflict family, ...The

research findings on how seriously

troubled these children are and how

quickly their adjustment deteriorates are

very powerful

One only has to look at the type of groups behind this ideology to understand why it is failing. We have religious groups where they shouldn't be, preaching about how important it is to stay married and much like the other groups, lacking any responsibility in confronting the hidden issues behind divorce. In many religions today, the ideal of family means that the mother is required to be accountable for her husbands actions and carry on the shame if he abuses her. The only time that rape seems to be an issue with the churches is when it is a stranger and most of the blame is still directed at her. I admire those who can still be religious and make an effort within churches to fully acknowledge the stupidity of these expectations. Some churches have managed to move forward with our times, whilst others have joined on the mass bullying hymn, denouncing the worth of single mothers as an ill of our society under the masquerade buzz word, "Fatherless". All part of the work aimed at undoing the work of women in their plight to achieve equality.

Apart of the undoing of women's rights has also been a push in the undoing of children's rights. Children's rights only came about through the work of feminism. It is one of the gravest reasons why this backlash in all levels and fronts is far from a good move. By doing such a thing, one is welcoming the pedophiles and batterers to the table to have a mass feast on our most vulnerable. On each child and mothers merits, they have done courageous things in the face of appalling cruelty, yet the laws, policies and theories that led to the justification of these inhumane practices should never have come about.

Drug companies, biologists and other specialists are required by law to thoroughly research and provide a significant amount of evidence that it causes no harm before novice practices are distributed to the population. Shared parenting advocates provided little of this and a lot of advertising. There are at least a million mothers and children who are treated as lab rats without their consent. Anyone who enjoys the study of trauma, have more than enough fresh meat. All they have to do is join the local courts research body and make a sale or two on its findings. Perhaps even pass it on to the military, so that they can get the latest on psychological warfare along with the findings on coercive control and all of the other torture orientated papers. There is no need to study the effects on POW camp survivors anymore as there is a fresh batch available at your local family court. One would hope that there are a few decent human being that might put these blood tainted papers to good use and collate this evidence as a reason why it needs to just stop once and for all. In the mean time, you can do one thing to help stop this madness and it is only a click away. Sign one of our petitions to help bring about more protections for women and children experiencing family violence.

Mothers Not Abductors: She Had Every Right To Run

2009-10-03T02:42:00.000-07:00

Every Right To Run...

Recent articles have been floating around about enforcing family court orders. One of the latest compared mothers as criminals which is no different to the treatment of African Americans for many generations until it got to a point where enough was enough. If it were anymore barbaric to hunt mothers down like animals, they would be tying her to a ball and chain. Yes, they have actually done that. A mother in United States had a tagging deviceon her ankle for trying to follow one of the most most natural basic instincts: protect her child. There is no real dissolution of marriage and there never will be until the international community begins to acknowledge some cold hard truths.

1. Mothers are human beings who have risked her livelihood to ensure the well-being of her children so that they could enter this world.
2. All mothers in our natural world will risk their lives and at times become fierce creatures to protect children.
3. Our industrialized world, deplorable treatment of mothers and deliberate poverty contributes to the minority of harm that plagues the spotlight of our media
4. The ongoing propaganda about fatherlessness is a major case of discrimination against single mothers and their children.
5. The ongoing genocide of mothers and children is a direct result of both discrimination and continued systematic attempts to enforce power over her.
6. Perverting the human right to consent on marriage and dissolution of marriage is constantly being done by using the children as a tactic.
7. Perverting the human right on the freedom to roam is constantly being done by using the children as a tactic to restrain her and isolate her from access to her culture(Another violation) and to her family.
8. Children most often want to go and be with their mothers unless there is chemical factors that clash with her ability to mother.
9. When a mother is free from coercion, chemical factors and abuse; there is NO reason to deprive the children from her.
10. Courts seldom investigate family violence. In fact they frequently hinder opportunities to do so. The mother is on her own to prove her case and even if she proves reason to protect her child, exposure is often ordered by these courts and if she rejects the courts decision. She is subjected to jail, the child is punished and often deprived of her. It is then no wonder why the highest numbers of parents absconding from everything and everyone they know are mothers with their children.

Sign this petition and stop these rogue practices happening in your country today.

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts: The Man behind the Curtain

2009-10-01T10:25:00.001-07:00

AFCC: The Man behind the Curtain

AFCC was at one stage a judges slush fund of where bribes perverted the course of justice in California's family Court. Not only did it serve as a platform for corruption, but was also became the loudspeaker of Dr Richard Gardeners work in the 70s and 80s. The trail of devastation for victims was left behind with few who held accountable and more who profited upon these ills. Dr joan Kelly, co-founder of AFCC and CRC Authored "Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome" as an attempt to revive Gardeners theories, so that it were more acceptable to its readers with the same custody outcomes, but omitting the obvious quotes that revealed the motives behind his work. She was also on the advisory panel of Children's Rights Council along with Warren Farrell who was featured in penthouses, "Incest The Last Taboo". He states,

"the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve -- and in one or two cases to join in."

Parental Alienation Syndrome created lavish lifestyles for those who promote and advocate for its existence for many years and so it is no wonder attempts to revive it were made. The reason why it was beyond controversial, was the fact that this syndrome led to many deaths. Nathan Grieco a 14 year old boy who did not want to see his father and alleged abuse by him. Gardner was an expert in his case and ordered what he referred to as, "Threat therapy" where he threatened the child with jailing the mother if he failed to go. Shortly after, Nathan committed suicide.

Thanks to one of the many decent fathers who spent $100,000 investigating California courts for his daughter to unravel why his grandchild was rendered motherless without reasonable cause, we know that this organization was used in this manner.

Much is left unanswered on why the environment of most family courts contain an automatic contempt for mothers, but hopefully this article will shed some light. CANOW, provided an extensive report on the activities of the AFCC and how it was creating a system of abuse and corruption.

The AFCC have denied promoting pro-child abuse and violence against women material, yet the content of their conferences tell a different story. Below is a training session where it trivializes empirical studies that verify the damaging effects of not only exposing the victim to the perpetrator, but also children. It distracts away from the safety of women and children to mislead practitioners into believing that there is a guaranteed method to separate those who are "just being abused" to those at imminent risk of death. There is no credible method in the world and to boast such a tool is clearly negligent.

Just in case the inevitable becomes obvious with the increase of deaths due to negligence, they provide an answer to that too. Below is a course on how to avoid accountability and continue backyard methods on treating victims of family violence and child abuse.

Here is a prime example of how Gardeners perspectives are very much alive and unchallenged in this organization. The whole topic is dangerously superficial, misogynist and trains professionals to look at the mother as the issue, instead of looking into why she might be
concerned about the child being alone with the father.

Again, another training session on how not to be accountable and promotion of Gardeners theory.

More promotion of Gardeners concept where the victim is perceived as mentally ill and distorted as the perpetrator.

Instead of providing a genuine focus on prevention of risk and subjecting victims to further trauma, professionals are trained on how to avoid accountability and attribute further injustice to their clients.

Below is advertisements on the typical fathers rights agenda translated in the language of academia. Despite years of research on the harm of infants spending minimal to little time with their mothers, below is advertisement on how to encourage maternal deprivation.

Below is a conference from AFCC last year with more about maternal gatekeeping. Whilst "Violence Against women" topics are omitted from these conferences, "Maternal Gatekeeping" appears to be a popular event.

More disturbing was this article found on an AFCC website instructions on how to use the legal avenues on forcibly adopting out children if the mother does not comply.

Below is a questionnaire targeting alienation. Note how child abuse factors are not assessed.

This is one of AFCCs conferences on "Differentiating" domestic violence cases. In other words, a how to expose the children and women to violence unless it is extremely obvious that they are at imminent risk of death. When they refer to "Situational Violence" this means that if there is only one recorded incident, then they can justify ignoring the victim of further concerns and continue exposing them to risk. At present, evidence of one episode of violence is not enough in family court law. They require several incidents of brutality before they decide to order supervised contact and in some cases, nothing is done at all.

For anyone who has had contact with fathers rights groups, they are anything but silent. Again it is another example of the organizations lacking neutrality leaning towards the context of the mens movement. The presenters here are mimicking intimate partner terrorism victims to skew the experience and thus generate encouragement to foster undue control over women parallel to the nineteenth century child custody experience - where children were the property of men.

Again like every other fathers right organization, they are promoting shared parenting without considering much on the consequences.

AFCCs Influence on the Psy-Law Community in United States
In "News Today", the article claimed that there was "new research on maternal gatekeeping" that, "Mom needs to know when to let go". Again, its deemed the mothers fault for fathers taking less of an active role pre and post separation. When the mother does in fact resist visits, its usually for a good reason. Surveys on mothers have often reflected contrary to these beliefs that mothers do want their children to spend time and know the father, but not when it he poses a threat to them.

The influence of AFCC in united states is ingrained in the Family Court system. Lundy Bancroft explains this well in his publication:

JANET JOHNSTON'S TYPOLOGY OF BATTERERS AND THE AFCC RISK ASSESSMENT:
THE QUEST FOR SIMPLE SOLUTIONS
Efforts are underway nationally to ease the complexity of assessing risk to children from
visitation with batterers by placing batterers into distinct types, based largely on the work of
Janet Johnston. For example, a risk assessment distributed nationally by the Association of
Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) draws heavily from Johnston's work. The types Johnston
posits are as follows:

Type A: "Ongoing or Episodic Male Battering"
Type B: "Female-Initiated Violence"
Type C: "Male Controlled Interactive Violence"
Type D: "Separation and Postdivorce Violence"
Type E: "Psychotic and Paranoid Reactions"
(These types are called by slightly different names in the AFCC risk assessment, but are exactly
the same in other respects.)
Type A is considered the real batterer; he is very frequently and severely violent, and he
uses violence to control his partner.
Type B is violence that is initiated by the victim; she gets hurt because she is smaller, but her behavior is the problem.
Type C is violence caused by
"mutual verbal provocations," and again the woman is the victim only because she is physically
smaller; she is considered equally abusive.
Type D is violence that results from the stress of
separation and is completely uncharacteristic for the abuser.
Type E is violence resulting from a mental health problem.
This typology contains more problems that can be covered here. The types were preconceived,
with researchers instructed to assign each case to one of the categories. The research
has little external validity; her types have no relationship to any patterns observed by domestic
violence professionals in the clinical setting. Relying on these categories leads to serious errors in crafting visitation plans. Risk to children can be assessed, as we will see, but not by this
approach.

  The great majority of batterers do not fit any of Johnston's types, because they exert
"chronic pervasive control," but it is not accompanied by the most severe or frequent violence.
The most common batterer is one who uses violence two or three times a year, whose partner has never been hospitalized with injuries, and who shows no evidence of sadism. Nevertheless, his partner and children exhibit trauma symptoms due to their fear of the abuser, the repeated denial of their basic rights, and the pattern of psychological attack. Assessing the risk to these children from unsupervised visitation is a complex process, and the danger varies greatly from case to case.
  These categories encourage us to assess the victim rather than the abuser. The "A" type of
batterer is considered the only real batterer; he is described as having a victim who is severely
traumatized, who is passive and withdrawn, and who rarely starts arguments or challenges the
batterer. A woman who is stronger, angrier, or generally more unpleasant to interact with, would
be likely under Johnston's approach to be seen as mutually abusive and provocative, the "C" type of relationship; she would thus be considered largely responsible for the man's violence. In
reality, most abused women, even those who are terrified, do not give up all forms of fighting
back, and continue attempting to protect their rights and the rights of their children. The more
that the victim refuses to submit to the abuser's control, the more likely he is to escalate his
violence. Under Johnston's typology, the more courageously a woman attempts to defend herself and her children, the less responsibility the abuser has for his actions. Using this approach serves the batterer's interests well, but endangers the children. The result of this approach is that some of the most dangerous abusers, those who are the most determined to dominate at all costs, are ironically declared to be the lowest risk to their children.

AFCCs Influence on the Psy-Law Community in Australia
If you think that this organization would not have much influence on the culture of the Family Courts, think again. The Australian Institute of Families, a research body for the family court quotes references from their conferences throughout their publications and many of its members have presented and joined the organization. The Family Court of Australia advertises upcoming conferences to the family law community and many judges and court personnel have been members and presenters to the conferences.

  An appalling example of how the australian government dealt with our indigenous community. Rather than provide more services to ensure the safety of women where statistics of family violence are much higher, this program was funded based upon "Maternal Gatekeeping". A term used to divert the focus away from the reason why she is concerned about the child being left alone with the father.

Sadly Child Protection in Western Australia jumped on the band wagon to preach on how they not only believe that fathers are safer with children than mothers, but that they are "Maternal Gatekeepers".

In the Australian governments family relationship clearinghouse were a series of articles for and against the use of parental alienation syndrome in family court context. The fact that it was even listed in the library endorsed junk science and may have mislead readers into believing that such a syndrome was prevalent above child abuse and family violence. On the last pages of the CANOW report, the American Psychiatry Association verifies that PAS is not a syndrome, that it is not being considered for the diagnostic and statistic manual in the near future as there is no real scientific validity.

On Lawlink.gov in NSW, a link to Parental Alienation Syndrome is listed which refers to Gardeners books. By even linking to it is another endorsement from the Australian government that using junk science to conceal family violence is acceptable. Considering that not only does the syndrome target victims of domestic violence as "alienators", it also promotes sending the child to the abuser.

Internationally, AFCC has grown and so have fathers rights movements coinciding this culture. one of the major problems is that a majority of its material erodes protections made available for victims and cultivates a closed patriarchal environment that mothers are at the mercy of. Whilst outside these courts, women's freedoms are welcomed and accepted, but behind closed doors, she is perceived as a shameful act. The Family Courts are the last institution that practices values belonging to the nineteenth century. They do not respect nor value the lives of women and children in their research that could be easily compared to the propaganda authored by nazi researchers that were used to endorse genocidal goals. The courts need to rely upon more balanced institutions research such as the world health organization that acknowledges violence against women as a major problem, but also provides research on both genders without hidden agendas.

   Organizations that research violence against women and children need to be wary that due to the fact that abusers are cross class and cultures, they will work towards undermining their protection by any means and monopolizing laws and psych culture, they are able to continue unchallenged. That is why it is crucial that every organization considers the opportunities that intimate terrorists may have in engaging in terrorism on a larger level whether it be in groups of like minded or by abusing the powers within professions. This needs not only to be researched, but desperately addressed, before we have more laws that hurt women and children.

Abusers vs The Abused

2009-09-27T22:54:00.001-07:00

There is no logic in tip- toeing around the subject of who these movements are and what they really are about.
On one side we have the movement that promotes the following messages:

Children are brainwashed by their mothers(Parent Alienation Syndrome)
Statistics on violence against women are false(RADAR)
Pathways to full custody for fathers(Shared Parenting)
Mothers are mostly abusers(RADAR)
Abused Children and Mothers are liars(false allegations)

On the other side we have a protective movement that promotes the following messages:

False allegations are a small factor in the Family Courts
Violence against women and children is on the rise and acknowledged by Untied Nations as a world wide issue across all cultures and classes.
Shared Parenting is inclusive of violent fathers
Fathers are responsible for the most dangerous forms of abuse that lead to death and disability.
Most allegations are not investigated in Family Courts and this process is often halted and sometimes legally barred from access to investigations in other courts.

The Family Court supports:

Reporting cases to the media that are aligned with the first movements interests.
Patriarchal models of family where the mother must do all of the work to foster relationships between the child and father even if they are abusive.
That the Father is always right and the mother is mentally ill if she disputes this.
Full custody to abusive fathers if the mother voices her concerns.
Unsupervised access to fathers regardless of criminal histories of pedophilia, murder, drugs and violence.
Punishing the child for speaking about abuse.
Punishing the mother for trying to protect her child.

Family Court psychologists support:

Using diagnosis's that have not been approved by any scientific organization in the world.
Recommending abusive practices such as Gardner's, "Threat therapy" which involves threatening the child with isolation from key-stakeholders that can document and provide evidence of abuse.
Nineteenth century recommendations on the model of family.
Coercive control of the mother for the sole goals and purposes of ensuring that she will eventually break down.
Using tests that are confirmatory bias towards mothers.

We have three movements that are aligned against one movement. This one movement has managed to not only survive but thrive regardless of the stakes. The reason why they have survived is that all actors strive to ensure that the facts that are circulated are correct and the motives are child focused with a secondary concern for mothers. in cases of family violence, the issues of abuse for both the mother and child are intertwined. The priority for the safety of both members are crucial, but not nearly enough to reach the status of protected from further violence and permanent damage from the current climate.

It is largely a case of organizational abuse where women and children in already vulnerable situations go to the family court believing wholeheartedly that these courts will provide orders to protect them. The problem is that most of the key-stakeholders are men that are fathers and some who have abused or are currently abusing. The best way to understand how these interests have dominated the family law practice is to look into previous cases of genocide and how large organizations aligned to commit it. One of the most well known cases is the holocaust, where thousands of members of the jewish community were murdered. It all began with the gold star, documenting how many there were of them and then isolating them into an area where they were tortured, murdered or enslaved. The techniques that were used back then were primitive, but effective in carrying out their goals. Today, we have a more complex world with more of an ability to monitor the masses more effectively.

Networking to achieve goals are now at our fingertips and thanks to facebook - we can track who is loyal to who. Compilation of information in the wrong hands could lead to future genocides. Most of our private information is available to anyone and in some countries people can find out where you live just by googleing your name. In the family court system, women are required to inform the courts if there is any violence or child abuse often at the beginning. The catch is that throughout the proceedings, lawyers(including yours), child protection workers and family consultants will work in unison to undermine your claims and even destroy the evidence that you have provided them.

On a mental level, they will they will often say that you don't have evidence even if you have provided them hospital reports, affidavits from specialists and the abuser has a criminal history. Sometimes, they might include processes that don't exist or obey only processes that were pushed in by the abusers movement. Most Family Courts have too much power to make decisions upon their own accord similar to the old, "at her majesties pleasure" which leaves alot of room to instigate what some have considered an act of torture. Each case is often isolated to lead the victim to believe that they are the only one and that they will"help" protect the child. It is often too late before the victim discovers that the members worked together to not only diminish your ability to protect yourself and your child, but to ensure that either no one will know or that no one will believe you. That is why a majority of mothers that lost custody were for the reasons of mental illness and is not consistent to the average statistics of mental illness out side this organization.

A majority of the cases are only diagnosed by one practitioner - the family courts practitioner. In the process of pursuing information on what appears to be deciding on the best interests of the children, the information that is most valuable is often how much you might be aware of psychology, whether you could prove them wrong and how many people outside of the court community knows about your case. In cases like these, one of the first instincts are to go to an authority about it. Most authorities are so ignorant or involved that these cases are often ignored. Thus continues the monopoly. The next instinct is to contact the media, but family courts can either order suppression of the case by using the child as a justification or in some countries use a general law that prohibits any discussion without the courts approval. This means that only cases that compliment the courts interests are getting out in the mainstream media. It also means that deaths that were a result of court orders are also withheld, causing more pain to families. So what we have here is a silent genocide. where children and mothers are being killed and no one knows who and why they are dead. The manipulation that goes on to ensure that grieving families do not speak out is abhorrent, but all too common. Like the Holocaust, the ones that are not dead are often tortured by their abuser and isolated from the only one that can help them - the mother.

Each time protective groups try to advocate they have the family courts abusers lobby group either bullying the media or threatening the advocates into silence and oppression. Maternal alienation was a grooming strategy that began with pedophiles in order to lock in the abuse. It is now a widely used systematic tactic to not only alienate the children from the mother, but deprive them for life. This is because they know that the earning potential when a protective mother has lost custody is more than the father as we know that fathers often give up a lot sooner and thus not as much revenue from court attendance and lawyers. They know that a protective mother will continue to return to the courts begging them for the children, especially when concerns for the child is amplified by the abuser. Keeping this extra business concealed from the public is a major priority that these courts will often attend to and worth investing in. It does not surprise me to see shared parenting councils have a public relationship with chiefs of courts or the government funding fatherhood programs that they know continue to harvest family violence. The downfall is that they often expect that survivors will indulge in the feeling of being beaten down or that they will forever be afraid of the laws that violate universal laws. More and more mothers are now discovering that breaking this silence is saving not only their childrens lives but also the lives of others. People who never knew what the inside of court room doors are beginning to know what is actually happening.

The united nations is beginning to work on divorce for families affected by violence and reporters have learned that the courts cannot stop them from reporting if everyone reports it in synchronicity on the internet. The propaganda that has been spread out by the abusers is falling apart because it simply does not match the masses experiences. We've all been touched by family violence in some way or another. Not one person I know has not had a mother sister, daughter, gran-daughter or aunt affected by it as it is that common. As a society, we have just begun to learn the consequences of giving feeding abusers and now more and more people are making an effort to stop it from occurring. It is about time that family courts start to move with the rest of the world and let go of the interests that harm. If you are a human resources worker, then you have the power to change this by changing the culture of the courts so it reflects a real sense of transparency. If you are one of the law makers, then you have the opportunity to be the first to role model best practice laws in protecting children and women from violence. None of them are working as there is always a loophole that transform into a gateway for the abuser to the abused. Really listening to the women and children that have been affected by it is the first step, putting in tough laws that protect them and provide equal access before is the last step towards stopping violence from continuing and a conviction that you and your country do not tolerate violence against women and children. Only then do western countries honestly say that they do not tolerate it and have conviction when they ask other countries to do the same.

Children, Their Mothers are Killed And They Want Enforcement Orders...

2009-09-26T08:27:00.000-07:00

Another writer, once again misses the complete point when writing the same old rhetoric, with the same old spiel about fathers rights. Just in case you haven't heard it all before in the past few years from the church leaders that became so extreme with, "fatherlessness" bible bashing mothers into submission to the shared parenting scam that brought about 15000 children enduring forced contact with violent fathers: Andrew Dowdell, thought he should remind you that fathers rights are so much more important than our depleting environment, world hunger and of course the growing epidemic of murder suicides that also lost our attention. Most of the murders were carried out by men.

Dads in Distress advertises on their site that 5 males commit suicide per day along with statistics on how many children don't live with their natural parents. More disturbing was that it must have been only six dads that committed suicide because that was all the dads that they honored on the, "In memory of". The real shocker is that they have lobbied government furiously for suicidal men to have contact as if contact will somehow cure mental illness. According to a 2007 femicide report,

"Research shows that many men who are hospitalized for depression
often have homicidal fantasies directed at family members. Batterers who contemplate or commit suicide often kill their partners and/or children first."

In Australian studies it was found that:

60% males killed in retalitory killings which were more likely to result in multiple homicides where a parent was also murdered mostly by a non-custodial parent. (2)

Most child-killers in NSW were men, with 100 responsible or jointly responsible for 106 deaths, of the 37 infants killed, 21 were killed by men.(1)

Andrew Dowdell referred to the court system as being "barbaric."

Definition of Barbarism

S: (n) brutality, barbarity, barbarism, savagery, a brutal barbarous savage act.

When one considers this word, pictures of violence and murder plagues the mind - but of preventing a father from seeing a child? There is no comment about the mothers experience and why she has decided to prevent contact. With many cases involving violence that are not currently being properly investigated, it is no wonder that mothers are breaking orders. Tony Miller From Dads In Distress states that he wants the courts to be even harsher towards these potential victims of violence and child abuse.

In his statement to Adelaide Now, he suggests a "three strikes" system in which parents who ignore court custody orders would be penalised by having their child support entitlements suspended or, in extreme cases, having custody orders reversed.
Tony then goes on to say that 35 men kill themselves every week
, omitting the data on fathers and the killings that came with it.

He is right, but not quite for the reasons he claims it to be. The court system is barbaric because it has sent dozens of kids to their deaths. What is barbaric in reality is the hunting down mothers who've fled brutality with their children. What is barbaric is using nonexistent disorders such as Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) to take children away from mothers reporting brutality or child molestation.
One needs to really question when dealing with a system that does not investigate child abuse:
Isn't it better to err on the side of protecting children than to err on the side of protecting abusers?
If this article inspired you to do something about this problem, then please go to our campaigns page to sign one of our petitions - you could save not just one child's life, but thousands of lives. The last place that still entrenches family violence is in court court system, with your help we can stop it forever.

Family Court Ordered Murder - Why Are They Dead?

2009-09-19T15:59:00.000-07:00

http://theanonymums.com/Why_Are_They_Dead.php

Family Court Ordered Murder

The Untied Nations definition of Genocide set out in the Convention on Genocide is:

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

In the news, it is common to see these murders blamed on the economy or the stress associated with divorce.

Unless you are a keen researcher, you are not privy to knowing what academics and even the UN knew for years

A silent but deadly genocide against women and children where authorities have had many opportunities to eliminate the root cause, but chose not to.

In every case these deaths are a result of child custody disputes where the court knows of a violent history, but decides to gamble with their lives for the sake of "fathers rights".

Why its dangerous to cross a protective mother....

2009-09-10T15:54:00.000-07:00

Her son downed by cougar, mother uses weapon at hand

Rich Landers
The Spokesman-Review

Tags: cougar attack cougars hiking outdoors

She has asked to remain anonymous, but recognition is required for any supermom who fights off a cougar that's mauling her 5-year-old son.

Her weapon: a metal water bottle.

The attack occurred Sept. 2 on the Silver Creek portion of the hiking trail to Abercrombie Mountain, northwest of Metaline Falls.

The family, visiting from Rossland, B.C., had spread out a bit. The father and daughter were ahead followed by the mother and the son, who was lagging less than 20 yards behind her, according to Washington Fish and Wildlife Department enforcement supervisor Mike Whorton.

The cougar sprang out of the only patch of cover along that stretch of trail, investigating officers reported.

"The mother was just picking up the water bottle her husband had left on the trail for her when she saw her son go to the ground out of the corner of her eye," Whorton said.

"She immediately ran over and began hitting the cougar with the stainless steel bottle. She was there so fast the cougar didn't have a chance to get a death grip on the boy's neck. The claw marks on his chest indicated the cougar was still trying to turn him into position to get a good hold."

The mother beat the cat – estimated at 80 pounds – hard enough to make it release the boy. But the cougar retreated only a few feet and looked back.

The mother threw the water bottle.

There was no radar to record the speed or umpire to call the accuracy, but she had enough stuff on that bottle to persuade the cougar to sprint downhill and disappear into the timber.

Steeee-rike!

The boy is healing with no complications from the teeth and claw marks to his head and chest, the family told Whorton.

A hunter with hounds had no luck in tracking down the offending cougar last weekend.

Fish and Wildlife officials issued the hunter a three-day kill permit.

"That's basically all we can do," Whorton said. "At this point, if we found a cougar in the area we'd have no cause to believe it's the cat that took down the child."

The incident emphasizes a precaution wildlife experts preach to families heading into cougar or wolf country.

Kids should be kept close and between adults as much as possible. Cougars and wolves in particular are known to key in on the smallest and most vulnerable prey in a flock, and that means children.

How Could Anyone Ignore These Beautiful Children?

2009-09-03T21:14:00.000-07:00

Another Court Ordered Tragedy of which police believe is a suspected murder-suicide. For two years, Suzanne Dillion did what we all did. She begged the courts to protect them. Those beautiful pictures of once happy children were wasted in a thoughtless act. The Family Court is growing a dangerous game of Russian roulette on our children and mothers. Experts say that most murder suicides occur because he believes that the women and children are his property to use and toss away as if it is no use anymore. Human life - a precious commodity is being side track for a christian ideal. As if were imprinted in the bible, various groups have pressured and won the right to commit the greatest crimes of all time. When they mentioned dads commit suicide repeatedly, they forgot to mention that where there are suicide rates innocent children are also taken along with their ex wives. In NSW Australia, he has been given the legal ability to murder her by strangulation,

It is just before fathers day in Australia, a time when some of the greatest murder suicides have occurred. If you have to send your children away at this time, be sure to give them a big hug and tell them how much you love them - just in case. Celebrating fathers day needs to only apply to those that do not abuse such a title.

Fathers with a history of violence and mental health are the greatest killers of our children and their ex partners. The problem lies in the leaders we seek in government, business and corporations - the corporate psychopaths. They make our policies, dominate our industry and drive the economy into the multifaceted system that we use today. They are the reason why our mental hospitals are filled with victims of torture, cruelty and abuse. Psychopath was a diagnosis to describe our serial killers that reside in our jails, but more studies have revealed that they adapt to a society that is less tolerant to confrontational violence and thus succeed in the art of initiating tactically hidden physical violence within the workplace and at home.

In United Kingdom of which Australian law is based upon, new research shows that men abuse more, but women are more likely to be arrested and women use more weapons to protect themselves.

In United States where similar laws are ingrained, murder suicide has peaked over the years to the stage of epidemic proportions. This is because the family law trends that are currently being reviewed after the west-gate bridge tragedy shocked the nation originated there dating back to the early eighties when DR Richard Gardner held his conferences claiming that the major problem in "high- conflict"(a term often used to trivialize and conceal family violence) cases the mother was at fault for reporting and must be punished. Of course his language in establishing these conclusions was masqueraded in the realm of academia and whilst he officially coined the term, "Parental Alienation Syndrome", he specifically targeted women and children. His work was largely debunked in the scientific community, but in the family courts he was worshiped as an expert god on post separation research. His work was sensationalized as gospel in court reports and family law conferences. His fame gratified fathers rights groups and created the family court rackets that run in the US courts today. Accounts of bribery rings have hit the headlines over the years, but the chain of perverting the course of justice is yet to be fully unearthed. Suspicions of similar operations are amounting as reports of evidence being destroyed or as they liek to say, "missing" has been nearly every single case in Australia. These are some of the signs that the Family Court is far from being transparent, but may be due to the barrage of media attention that fathers groups have received over the years.

Ask any average Joe blow and they will tell you that men have had the worst deal in family courts and that women lie about child abuse and domestic violence. This is the biggest urban myth that has been circulated for over two decades - since fathers rights groups began. The plight of the noncustodial mother(often battered into giving up the children) has been largely ignored and sometimes even scrutinized as though it were her fault for being beaten. Again, the perpetrators have won yet another ticket away from the exposure of the spotlight whilst the victim is left to deal with the aftermath. If you are a mother going to the family courts right now in Australia, expect to be shafted, silenced, humiliated and legally degraded to the status of a glorified babysitter if the father allows you such a privilege. This is the daily going ons to the the court unless you have or your children have been beaten so badly that no one can conceal it. The legal definition for "mother" in family law, usually refers to doormat. It is not really fatherhood we need to be worried about, its is motherhood and her concerns for the children that are in crisis. Cases where mothers and children that are being protected are now currently being flaunted as trophies on the family court website in hope that the general public will be apathetic in digging deeper. Even the search function is designed so that it will be difficult for you to find cases where the the parent has murdered the childs sibling. Before they provided a "do not allow google bot" script, I was able to find such a case. It was disturbing to read that the family court reporter had scrutinized her for denying access to the father who was in prison for bashing to death her three week old baby. I was appalled to learn that even after the judge had stated, "I do not think it is appropriate for this child to have contact with the man who murdered his younger brother", he had decided to allow the opportunity for this to be reconsidered after the murderer was released from jail. Do you think that either the child or the mother are going to feel safe conducting future handovers with a man who has been in prison for the murder of the younger sibling? It is why this case is more difficult to search as the pressures of the outside community beginning to learn how insanely cruel this court has become are amounting.

The mentality in the closed court doors is brutal towards women and children, perhaps an indicator that the culture has become somewhat a psychopaths paradise. The best way to counter such a culture may not be within the laws itself, nor from the constant campaigns from victims advocates, but in the mental health system. If there were a major overhaul in the mental health system where its triage targeted people that posed a significant harm to the community instead of the victims, we would have a decline in workplace bullying, domestic violence and child abuse.

One of the most significant benefits that the mental health system has is the ability to detain someone without their permission based on three factors:

They pose a threat to themselves or others
They are rejecting treatment.
They are unwell.

The perpetrator cannot use the money that they ruthlessly acquired to perverse the course of justice and from inside jail(where human rights heavily monitor) proceed vexatious and frivolous court proceedings. Most of the drugs used in psychiatry usually sedate patients and thus converting a potential danger into a living zombie. The justice system has never really been well structured to appropriately address behavior as much as the mental health system has.

The following mental illnesses are currently not a priority, but reaking havoc on our community:

Psychopath
Narcissism
Borderline
Paranoia

If these became a mental health priority, the community would have the following benefits:

More stable workplaces
A decline in homegrown terrorism
A stable economy
Reduced costs in health and thus less insurances costs all round
Reduction in violence against women and children
Low crime rates
More transparency in organizations and institutions
Decrease in incidents of workplace bullying

With such benefits, government is more resourced with the ability to invest in restructuring this system into treating them effectively and reduce the overflow of victims that are currently trapped in this system. Feel free to add your comments below:

Shared Parenting: Children, the property of men again...

2009-08-30T10:06:00.001-07:00

From the beginning, Children and women were the property of men. Throughout history of child custody, the pendulum has never really swayed in the mothers direction as it has in the fathers, let alone what the children want. In the book by Colin James written in 2004, "Winners and Losers: The Father Factor in Australian Custody Law" a detailed history of Child Custody demonstrates the harsh conditions that mothers have endured in the last century raising children under the control of the father, if she were not replaced by another women. The contributions of motherhood have been badly devalued if not devoid of any consideration at all. Her plight enduring violence and records of murder suicides that date back to the turn of the century reveal who is indeed devoid of rights.

Lately, there has been a lot of backlash from some of the original campaigners about changing the shared parenting laws. Some of these people have been accused of abuse and violence themselves openly admitting as if it were they who were victim to the greatest tragedy that ever lived, beyond violence, murder and horrific cases of child abuse. They have so far been quite successful at keeping up such a visage. After all, the family court does restrict publication of cases where violence and abuse is alleged. How convenient...

We have heard the constant pleas, rants and rages of, "fatherless". Distracting away from the violence epidemic that leaves children permanently motherless. The posters that is mostly heard by the women who know all to well that the only way out from the violence that they endure can be a body bag if they do not do something now. They are burdened solely to provide evidence to prove that they need this protection, that this protection may well save theirs and their children s lives.
Imagine finally getting the courage and resources to leave with hope that there will be help on the other end. During the Howard/Bush era, after the shared parenting laws, mothers began to learn just what our countries leaders meant when they approved campaigns and funding for women services: A band aid solution for a gaping wound. A wound that is clearly not healing, but infecting the masses with a new form of golden-staff: Abusers Rights. I make no mistake at re-naming the mens or fathers rights movements as I know truly what this group is all about.

For nearly two years our group has been watching them closely. Sometimes it might be peering in from the room next to the mens meetings or it might be watching an email list that refers to victims of domestic violence as, "the seething bitch brigade". Other times it might be reviewing their unquestioned articles or hearing complaints from professionals of their conduct. The conduct of the abusers rights groups has been something all too often overlooked until that person experiences a certain level of engagement. There is a pattern of behaviors that victims of violence know alll too well. For those who have been lucky not have endured the horrible experience of intimate terrorism or child abuse, can only see from the outside as the cracks begin to show. The cracks are the fact that this group who call themselves fathers rights, brainwash men into their indoctrination of abuse and control are lobbying and will not stop until no women and child is free from their clutches.

Whilst Carol Nadars piece delicately spirals into diminishing abused mothers and children s experience of the Family Court by highlighting one case where a women was able to prove that she needed protection. The evidence required in the family court is often more than what is required in a homicide case. The injuries must be so obvious and indisputable that the court would be highly vulnerable to a case of negligence, given the proof that has been presented before them.

We support the work of many other groups that have united to prevent child abuse and family violence in the family court system, but stand alone when we disagree on the current judicial stance. It is not enough that this review is conducted by a single researcher, it is in fact pitiful considering that less people died before a royal commission was conducted in the Victorian Bush fires. It is not enough to simply "dance around the issues" for the sake of appearing politically attractive in front of others. Its not a popularity contest when you have children and women dying because of court orders and a group of very angry men who want even more silent and violent laws.

Lateline was far more honest in providing more of a scope of the issues. For far too long abusers lobby groups and popularity contestants have dominated the spotlight, leaving the rest to endure this in silence and oppression. It took an angry man to hurt his child in front of one hundred witnesses for the plight of children and their mothers to be heard.

What did the mothers and children do to deserve the shared parenting laws?

Without the violence, the whole situation is absurd to say the least. Children having no place to call home. We as a society look down upon families who move too much as "unstable" and selfish towards their children s needs. In the real world, families move on an average of four years and have to consider the break away of routine from the community, school and activities that they participate in such as sports and dancing. Children who have separated parents and children who have their parents together are severely divided in the schoolyards and playgrounds as one group is privileged to stay in a regular routine and keep up with their activities.

Young people are shocked and outraged by the orders that imprison their lives into rigid court regimes whilst their friends are able to attend social events and keep in the loop without hinder. Parents have a hard enough time negotiating with independence and teaching responsibility on top of having to explain why they must follow a court order that was made by a bunch of angry bitter men. Imagine being seventeen and being told that you must go to your fathers or never see mum again. The youth workers, teachers, counselors and doctors are unfortunately the ones having to pick up the pieces of an unfortunate system. Most don't really know what to do, even though they are suppose to. What does one do when they see the scars of a violent past and a once bright future getting darker by the minute as Family Court has become a negative realm of their lives? With the bullying type behavior arising out of the mens rights groups, most have unfortunately kept silent about their experiences. One women I had spoke to had not talked about her experience for 10 years - to anyone. Intimidated by the courts, the ex and even her own lawyer - it is no wonder it took so long. Breaking the silence is not easy when there are manipulators, political strategists and the abusers lobby with their bag of tricks. There are always tricks, but never the real love it takes to protect your child from the harm that society dishes out on their carnivorous platter.

For all you psychopaths out there - Humanity is not a survival of the fittest, but rather an interaction that occurs on many levels depending on how one wants to perceive it. Many of the dying cultures eaten away by western civilization, have survived for hundreds of years worshiping the most humble rather than the one who seeks the top for cheap thrills. They lived for many years in harmony and peace. Our major problem is how we worship the most powerful, the one who seems strong brave and "Knows what to do". Some without question bow down and simply agree with the leadership, whilst others worship the other power hungry jerk just because he is good at lying about how he will "fix things and make life easier". I once met a social worker who told me she scored very high in the psychopath range. Instead of using for harm, she attempted to resolve it by ensuring that she had engaged in risk taking activities and would use her "manipulative" skills to influence people to get their lives together and get away from drugs. The gratification of helping others(In a liberating manner) was more than power over others could offer. Perhaps the score was wrong or perhaps it was the fact that she was also a mother who may have developed empathy through becoming a mother that made the difference.

In the "Art of happiness" written by a psychiatrist based upon the meetings with the Dalai llama, he wrote about how compassion for others had prevented mental illness, increased a biological immunity chemical and increased life longevity in general was such a vital human factor. Also the complete opposite of those who seek the path to continue power over others. The ones who do make it to the top as described in the book, are left with nothing but paranoia for those who they harmed to achieve this status.

Most non-violent fathers do not attend these courts and fathers that are barred from seeing their children are in two categories:
1. They annoyed the court(wrong on the courts behalf to react this way - see judgements).
2. They were so obviously violent that no one could conceal the long road of devastation left in their wake.

These groups have gone too far in pursuit of "rights" and clearly have violated those who have to endure these laws whether it be under duress, violence or instability. They violate many human rights than these groups can draw to justify. When those who were adopted and could not pursue the records of their parents wanted the right to know both parents, they never would have dreamed that it would be abused in such a manner.

Herald-Sun Hijack: Fathers Rights Reporter Laurie Nowell?

2009-08-23T00:28:00.001-07:00

Laurie Nowell, supposedly a Family Court Reporter of the Herald Sun has written once again in favor of the fathers rights groups. Not only the agenda they promote, but includes stories from their perspectives denying that they were abusive or that they stalked their ex partners. Considering how difficult it is to prove when a parent is unsafe towards the child with the current laws in place, it is of great concern as to why this perception of events is being promoted. Despite the myths floating around the community that mothers make false allegations of child abuse and domestic violence to win child custody, research over the years has proven that the majority of cases where child abuse and violence is raised are in fact true. Furthermore, the majority that make false allegations are fathers. It is no surprise to learn this after many fathers rights advocates have often said over the years that "lying in the family court is easy". For them perhaps as the entire court revolves around their needs.   How so, if there are more single mothers? The answer is in what the father wants being the first priority above all else. Most families separate outside of court and dad chooses to be a weekend dad and in a lot of cases - he becomes a deadbeat. During the shared parenting campaigns, mothers were mislead to believe that the courts were going to ensure that fathers had to participate in raising the children in an ideal child - focused setting. No work in this area was done apart from adding further pressures and constraints on the mothers ability to parent her children. With the current laws, the mother is entirely responsible for maintaining the relationship between the father and the child.

Very few cases allowed mothers to relocate(even to another suburb), protected her from physical abuse and in some cases restricted her from taking the child to a doctor. Since the eighties, laws in the Family courts have diminished the status of mothers to the point that her rights reflect nothing but a glorified babysitter. Even less of a role in the decision making process are the rights of children. Most cases where the child has raised child abuse are perverted to portray that the child is brainwashed into making false allegations. In countries where these laws have been established for a longer period, murder suicide rates are higher and children are the property of men often to puppeteer the mother into submitting into his demands. There is even a motion in the states where the father can demand that the child reside with him or go to foster care.    Cases like these almost always begin with shared parenting, well known amongst fathers rights advocates as a gateway for full custody.

Anyone who tries to interact with them and raise concerns about child abuse or intimate partner terrorism is often abused or labeled. We have all heard and seen them vocalize their complaints about not receiving adequate rights, matched with their justifications. What the general public have not really observed enough is the fact that even when they had been given what they wanted on a platter - it was not enough and have not ceased demanding for more.    A good example of this is what they said about the reporter Laurie Nowell after he wrote in their favor:

"F--k me sideways. What a joke.
We'll have to start our own media." Nick Martin(Norsaint publishing)

The same rhetoric is in the media again regardless of the truths and virtues it violates. The Christian lobby is urging Tasmanian Christians to write in and stop a bill that stops sperm donors of same sex couples from interfering and the fathers rights are busy making submissions against same sex marriages in the Marriage Act. The cause appears at first glance "black and white" as if the evil government is denying children fathers, but on the campaign webpage it is pretty clear that they are yet again trying to make laws that reflect their values and incite hate towards same sex couples. Again, its all about "keeping mothers on that leash" as if they were cattle. By allowing religious laws, we open up the flood gates to an emergence of more extremists who may want to introduce similar laws to that of the Black Shirts or encourage perhaps the "religious freedom" to execute women for "honor". What is a further disgrace is that the Christian lobby has been accepted as a balenced news source for google news engine along with Mens Daily News and other extremists.
Our news sources need to keep these agendas out and report without bias on the experiences that have barely been touched upon.

The list of articles in fathers rights favour:

Banned dad's agonizing loss

Dad jailed over card

Family Court 'flawed' says Michael Lermontov-Midgley

Tough love needed for kids, says mother of violent

against women:

Victoria is Australia's abortion 'capital'

A thoroughly modern muslim

(click here to see why)

The public Link between Laurie and Fathers Rights Groups:

The announcement email sent out to him amongst other figures seen as "Fathers Rights Friendly"

Violence Against Women Deniers Beware - Your Propaganda Could Land You Jail Time

2009-08-13T05:00:00.001-07:00

Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben to serve time in jail

By Tim Dornin | August 13, 2009

Article from: Australian Associated Press

HOLOCAUST denier Fredrick Toben has been taken into custody to serve a three-month jail term over publishing offensive material on the internet.

The 64-year-old was taken from the Federal Court in Adelaide by Australian Federal Police today after losing his appeal against his conviction for contempt of court.

The Full Court of the Federal Court also ruled that his jail term, originally imposed in May this year, was in no way excessive.

"In our opinion, the sentence of three months cannot, on any stretch of the imagination, be considered excessive or unwarranted," the three-judge panel said.

The judges said Toben also had a disregard for the orders of the court and had acted to undermine the authority of the court.

Earlier this year, Toben was found guilty on 24 counts of contempt for ignoring a previous court order preventing him from publishing racist material on the Adelaide Institute website. When he later imposed a three-month sentence, Justice Bruce Lander said Toben had continued to breach those 2002 orders, which prevented him from publishing specific anti-Semitic material.

The 2002 orders stemmed from a racial discrimination case brought against him by Jeremy Jones, a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

In his final submissions today, counsel for Toben, David Perkins, suggested the material published on the Adelaide Institute website, which questioned whether the holocaust even occurred, was just a "drop in the bucket" compared to the amount of revisionist material available on the internet.

But in their verdict, the judges said the case before them was not about the holocaust, gas chambers or the execution of Jews during World War II. They said it was about whether or not Toben had complied with orders of the court.

"Obedience to the court is not optional," they said.

As the court rose, Toben asked if he could say something to the judges, only to be cut off by Justice Jeffrey Spender who simply said, "No".

Condoning Violence and Abduction: Australian Policeman urges father to leave boy at a church.

2009-08-09T20:31:00.000-07:00

Two people onto one mother to collude in depriving the child of her. This is where the support for fathers has Australia. In a position where three people believed it was perfectly righteous to commit such a low act. The appeal of the superintendent is a perfect example of even the police community ready to condone violence perpetrated against her. Suggesting an alternative to avoid being punished, whilst mothers who "abduct" are hunted down like animals and portrayed as "Mentally ill" in the eye of the media. Most of the mothers who run with their children are escaping violence and child abuse against them and their children. No such alternatives are offered in the media and sympathy like this towards her is nonexistent. If there ever was a scale of morale that Australia has reached with its services surrounding mothers, it would be a new low. There are currently no legitimate protections for children and women escaping family violence in Australia. Even Victoria Family Violence Laws are clearly floored considering Darcey Freeman was thrown off the bridge post its introduction. Over the past year there have been many promises and plans to protect women and children from post separation from family violence in Australia. None so far have been implemented. The family Violence, "best practice principles" are no better than a pre-election speech. It is not written in law and thus not enforced as such. If it were the other way around where shared parenting was a, "Best Practice Principle" rather than a bill, the fathers rights groups would be up in arms. Again, children and mothers lives are being treated as a"cheap" commodity for everyone to exploit and do as they wish to stop the religious indoctrinated "Fatherlessness" from occurring. No advocate for fathers have bothered to deal with the violence against women and children. No advocate for fathers have bothered to address the real reasons why children from a fatherless home are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide
32 times more likely to run away
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of school
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
9 times more likely to end up in a state operated institution
20 times more likely to end up in prison

Are these the effects of fatherlessness or a community culture that condones child abuse and family violence? Separation happens for a reason and most of the time it is because he was violent. It is not a simple task to split homes, mortgages and children for no good reason. FR advocates say it is too easy as the benefits are greater. Considering that most single parent families are living below the poverty line, I would argue that choosing divorce is usually for a good reason and not something taken lightly or in the "heat of the moment". The scars of family violence don't go away. They are within our mental institutions, our prisons, education outcomes and even our poor choice of laws. This is because society still condones it as a "private matter" and acts accordingly becoming part of the chain that locks the victim into that cycle whether they have left or stayed - the community, courts and the system itself is there to ensure that this keeps going.

Boy snatched in domestic kidnapping

AAP August 10, 2009, 11:57 am

AAP © Enlarge photo

Police and the mother a two-year-old Sydney boy abducted by his estranged father have made direct appeals for his safe return.

The toddler, Alex, was kidnapped while playing with his mother outside their home on Sunday night, sparking a desperate search for the boy.

The 29-year-old woman and her son were approached by her estranged partner and another woman outside the house on Bunnerong Road, Kingsford, after they pulled up in a white vehicle.

Police say the 33-year-old father and 38-year-old woman got out of the vehicle, grabbed the boy and assaulted his mother when she tried to stop them.

Superintendent Peter Mcerlain on Monday made a direct appeal to the father, urging him to leave to boy at a "third party", such as a church or other community group.

"Our priority is to find the boy and make sure he is safe and well," he told reporters outside Maroubra police station.

"As a father myself I'll say directly to you that if you are concerned that things have gone wrong and you regret your actions in the heat of the moment contact an independent third party, like a church, a social group, the Salvation Army and take the boy there.

"Contact the police and we'll pick him up."

Supt Mcerlain said there was nothing to suggest Alex was in any danger, but urged the father to return the boy to his mother "sooner rather than later".

"We're ready to meet him anywhere, at any place, as well as if he wants to drop the child off at a third party," he said.

"The sooner we get Alex back, the better it is for all parties.

"We can deal with what happened on Bunnerong Rd at a later date."

The terrified mum has made an emotional appeal to the father, pleading with him to return her son.

"I understand how much you love him, but please for the wellbeing of your son think what you are doing," she told Macquarie Radio.

"Please bring him back."

She described Alex as a happy boy, who repeatedly screamed out "mummy, mummy" when he was abducted by his father.

"It's like taking your heart away," she said.

Supt Mcerlain said another man and woman remained inside the white vehicle during Alex's abduction, but their identities were not known.

The 38-year-old woman who took part in the kidnapping was believed to be the new partner of Alex's father, he said.

The white vehicle used in the kidnapping is thought to be either a sedan or pantech truck, and was last seen driving in an easterly direction in nearby Anderson Street.

Police on Monday released a photograph of Alex, and also called for the public's help in finding the toddler.

Alex has been described as being of white European appearance, with light brown hair, brown eyes and fair complexion.

He was last seen wearing an orange and cream jacket, blue skivvy, dark pants with a white star on the back pocket and brown boots.

Supt Mcerlain said police were monitoring ports, airports, transport routes and hospitals in a search for the boy.

Anyone with information about the abduction has been urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

From Rights For Mothers.com

2009-07-27T07:09:00.000-07:00

July 21, 2009

Tennessee Murderer of Six People Suspect Called His Exwife "UNFIT" and Tried to Take Custody of Children

Hey Mark Godbey of "Father's Parental Rights", are you covering this since you hijacked the domestic violence category???

Violent, abusive fathers….no surprises here. While Ned Holstein and Glenn Sacks are running around the country whining about "why didn't Steve McNair's murder get called domestic violence" and "women are so violent," I DID call McNair's murder domestic violence (even if it wasn't by definition). I haven't seen them criss-cross the country about all the families being murdered. It is these violent men that try and take the children from their moms (and are usually successful, thanks to stupid, corrupt judges). But if that doesn't work, just pull out the shotgun…or just keep beating them any way you can.

Hey, here's an idea: let's just stop calling all of this domestic violence and call it what it is….murder, assault, child rape, etc., etc., etc.

From The Huntsville Times:

Suspect had called ex-wife unfit; has at least 3 children

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

By Niki Doyle

Times Staff Writer niki.doyle@htimes.com

Jacob Shaffer

The man accused of killing six people, including his wife and her 16-year-old son, once tried to take custody of his two children away from his ex-wife by claiming she was an unfit mother.

According to court records from August 2008, 30-year-old Jacob Shaffer claimed his ex-wife, Elizabeth Shaffer, was "neglectful in the welfare and well-being" of the couple's two children, 9-year-old Arianna and 7-year-old Justin.

The case was promptly dismissed in December when Shaffer failed to pay the $382 in court costs, records show.

Shaffer has been charged with murder in Lincoln County, Tenn., in connection with the brutal slayings of his current wife, 38-year-old Tracie Shaffer, and the woman's father, brother and son, along with the son's friend and a Huntsville man.

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation officials said Shaffer spared his own 4-year-old daughter, who was in the home with his wife at the time of the killings. According to court records and family, Shaffer has at least three children – the two from his marriage to Elizabeth Shaffer, and the 4-year-old girl from his marriage to Tracie Shaffer.

Jacob Shaffer claimed less than a year ago that his oldest daughter thrived in his household, earning better grades and showing more involvement in Sunday school than when she lived with her mother.

Shaffer said his ex-wife had been living with her boyfriend and left the children in his sole custody for months, neglecting to pick them up at scheduled times, according to court records.

The claims went unanswered, and the case was closed in December after a Madison County judge denied Shaffer's request for a waiver of fees based on financial hardship.

The 2008 civil case was the second chapter of a custody battle between Shaffer and his ex, who sued him three years earlier for $7,375 in back child support for their two children.

Shaffer teetered on the brink of a 110-day jail sentence for failing to pay 80 child support payments since the couple's divorce in 2003. Shaffer put down a "large good-faith payment" after the civil court claim was filed, causing the judge to withdraw the order that could have sent him to jail.

Also see: Man in custody in six slayings in Tennessee, Alabama

Comments (1)

Australias Spotlight on Family Law and Safety Holes

2009-07-26T21:34:00.001-07:00

Australian media has broken the silence on some of the untold views on the holes in child custody laws. Its too ideal and nice to simply wish that these tragedies do not exist and that we can all simply, "sweep it under the carpet" and perhaps pray that "shared parenting" will somehow conceal the blood stains that are beginning to show in one of the greatest crisis's children and women are enduring today.

Xue 'singled out for murder potential'

Tamara McLean

July 27, 2009 - 9:29AM

The Chinese man who killed his wife and dumped his child in Melbourne had been singled out as a potential killer a year before he murdered.

New Zealand family courts are in the spotlight after it was revealed police had warned that martial arts expert Nai Yin Xue would kill his wife if released on bail over a 2006 conviction.

Chief Justice questions parenting laws

Michael Pelly | July 27, 2009

Article from: The Australian

FAMILY Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant has described the contentious shared parenting laws as "problematic" and the expectation of parties as "a concern" as the government embarks on three inquiries into family violence.

The Chief Justice also says punitive costs orders for those who raise false allegations of violence have been counter-productive and that women fear being branded "unfriendly".

Her comments yesterday followed the announcement on Friday that former Family Court judge Richard Chisholm will head a review of the entire family law system, with an emphasis on how it handles violent situations.

The Australian Law Reform Commission has also been asked to develop a national legal framework to tackle family violence and the Institute of Family Studies is due to deliver its reviewing of the shared parenting laws in December.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland has cited the case of three-year-old Darcey Freeman, who was thrown from Melbourne's Westgate Bridge by her father in January, as a reason for the review. There has been considerable disquiet over the Freeman case inside the Rudd government. Leading the charge has been Housing and Status of Women Minister Tanya Plibersek, former shadow attorney-general and Minister for Health Nicola Roxon and the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Jenny Macklin.

Chief Justice Bryant said "nothing was raised before the court about violence".

She said there were many ways to bring concerns of violence to the attention of the court. "A Form 4 (which gives notice of child abuse or family violence) was not filed and there was nothing on the file to suggest one had tried to be filed."

The Chief Justice said the shared parenting provisions of the act -- section 65DAA and 61DA -- were "problematic".

Appeal for national strategy on family violence

Carol Nader

July 27, 2009

STATE Attorney-General Rob Hulls has urged other states to follow Victoria's lead in expanding the definition of domestic violence and has backed a national register of intervention orders.

The call comes as former Family Court judge Richard Chisholm prepares to conduct a review that will consider the way the Family Court responds to allegations of domestic violence.

Mr Hulls told The Age that the definition of domestic violence should be expanded to include economic, psychological and emotional abuse if a truly national approach was to be adopted.

"I think family violence can take a whole range of forms and I think other states need to follow what we've done in Victoria by ensuring they have a comprehensive definition of domestic violence," he said.

"If a person is abused emotionally and psychologically in one jurisdiction they should be dealt with in the same way if such abuse occurs in another jurisdiction."

He also backed the move to a national register of intervention orders, a subject that will be discussed next month at a meeting of the country's attorneys-general.

"It's absolutely important that we have a national system to recognise intervention orders that have been imposed in each jurisdiction, and we do that in Victoria," Mr Hulls said.

"A corresponding family violence intervention order from another state or territory or indeed New Zealand can be registered with a Victorian court. That order is then enforced as a Victorian order.

"The idea of a national register of family violence intervention orders is something that I fully support. I think we have to make it as easy and as simple as possible for victims of family violence who have been granted an intervention order to have that intervention order enforced anywhere in Australia."

The contentious question of whether there is any link between the presumption of shared parenting wherever possible, introduced by the Howard government, and domestic violence will be investigated as part of Professor Chisholm's review.

"I will be interested to try and find out whether that presumption of shared parenting has any connection with family violence," he said.

Darcey tragedy to help violent law review

By Ben Packham

Herald Sun

DARCEY Freeman's mother will be invited to share her story in a review of family violence laws.

The head of the federal review, retired Family Court judge Richard Chisholm, said he hoped to speak to Peta Barnes, whose four-year-old daughter died after she was allegedly thrown from the West Gate Bridge on what was to have been her first school day.

Darcey's father, Arthur Freeman, has been charged with her murder, the Herald Sun reports.

"The Darcey Freeman case is of course very distressing," Prof Chisholm said.

"The questions I will be looking at will be whether there was some way the system might have predicted that something like that was going to happen, or whether the system fell short.

"If members of the family wanted to talk to me, and have some views to put to me about how the system might be improved, I'd be keen to speak to them."

Fighting Dirty - Now they are sending trojans

2009-07-25T06:21:00.001-07:00

WARNING DO NOT GO TO ANY OF THESE SITES:

DADS ON THE AIR, DADS IN DISTRESS or THE FAMILY LAW WEB GUIDE

I am not even going to link to their websites anymore.

Enclosed is a list of trojans on one of our staff members computers.

This was a direct result of visiting them. A email claiming to know who we are was send through a foreign site stating that they believe that they know who we are. The email contained a malicious code that destroyed one of our staffs computers. We will be taking legal action for this. It is also noteworthy to know that one of the leaders of the Family law Web guide has a high degree of IT experience and may or may not be behind this as a way to hurt the current campaign.

Asylum Hopes for Battered Women

2009-07-21T05:03:00.001-07:00

New Policy Permits Asylum for Battered Women

By JULIA PRESTON

Published: July 15, 2009

The Obama administration has opened the way for foreign women who are victims of severe domestic beatings and sexual abuse to receive asylum in the United States. The action reverses a Bush administration stance in a protracted and passionate legal battle over the possibilities for battered women to become refugees.

Skip to next paragraph

Enlarge This Image

Richard Boswell

Rody Alvarado sought asylum in the United States after fleeing abuse in Guatemala.

Case Documents (PDF, portions redacted by lawyers representing L.R.): Supplemental Brief | Declaration of Support

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Read All Comments (84) »

In addition to meeting other strict conditions for asylum, abused women will need to show that they are treated by their abuser as subordinates and little better than property, according to an immigration court filing by the administration, and that domestic abuse is widely tolerated in their country. They must show that they could not find protection from institutions at home or by moving to another place within their own country.

The administration laid out its position in an immigration appeals court filing in the case of a woman from Mexico who requested asylum, saying she feared she would be murdered by her common-law husband there. According to court documents filed in San Francisco, the man repeatedly raped her at gunpoint, held her captive, stole from her and at one point tried to burn her alive when he learned she was pregnant.

The government submitted its legal brief in April, but the woman only recently gave her consent for the confidential case documents to be disclosed to The New York Times. The government has marked a clear, although narrow, pathway for battered women seeking asylum, lawyers said, after 13 years of tangled court arguments, including resistance from the Bush administration to recognize any of those claims.

Moving cautiously, the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately recommend asylum for the Mexican woman, who is identified in the court papers only by her initials as L.R. But the department, in the unusual submission written by senior government lawyers, concluded in plain terms that "it is possible" that the Mexican woman "and other applicants who have experienced domestic violence could qualify for asylum."

As recently as last year, Bush administration lawyers had argued in the same case that in spite of her husband's brutality, L.R. and other battered women could not meet the standards of American asylum law.

"This really opens the door to the protection of women who have suffered these kinds of violations," said Karen Musalo, a professor who is director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Professor Musalo has represented other abused women seeking asylum and recently took up the case of L.R.

The Obama administration's position caps a legal odyssey for foreign women seeking protection in the United States from domestic abuse that began in 1996 when a Guatemalan woman named Rody Alvarado was granted asylum by an immigration court, based on her account of repeated beatings by her husband. Three years later, an immigration appeals court overturned Ms. Alvarado's asylum, saying she was not part of any persecuted group under American law.

Since then Ms. Alvarado's case has stalled as successive administrations debated the issue, with immigration officials reluctant to open a floodgate of asylum petitions from battered women across the globe. During the Clinton administration, Attorney General Janet Reno proposed regulations to clarify the matter, but they have never gone into effect. In a briefing paper in 2004, lawyers for the Department of Homeland Security raised the possibility of asylum for victims of domestic violence, but the Bush administration never put that into practice in immigration court, Professor Musalo said.

Now Homeland Security officials say they are returning to views the department put forward in 2004, refining them to draw conditions sufficiently narrow that battered women would prevail in only a limited number cases.

"Although each case is highly fact-dependent and requires scrutiny of the specific threat an applicant faces," said Matt Chandler, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, "the department continues to view domestic violence as a possible basis for asylum in the United States." He said officials hoped to complete regulations governing the complex cases.

The new policy does not involve women fleeing genital mutilation.

Any applicant for asylum or refugee status in the United States must demonstrate a "well-founded fear of persecution" because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or "membership in a particular social group." The extended legal argument has been whether abused women could be part of any social group that would be eligible under those terms. Last year, 22,930 people won asylum in this country fleeing all types of persecution; the number has been decreasing in recent years.

Because asylum cases are confidential, there is no way of knowing how many applications by battered women have been denied or held up over the last decade. The issue is further complicated by the peculiarities of the United States immigration system, in which asylum cases are heard in courts that are not part of the federal judiciary, but are run by an agency of the Justice Department, with Homeland Security officials representing the government.

The government has not disputed the painful history that L.R., now 42, recounts in a court declaration. The man who became her tormentor first assaulted her when she was a teenager and he was a physical education coach, 14 years her senior, at a high school in the Mexican state of Guanajuato. He and his family were regarded as wealthy and influential because they owned a restaurant in town, L.R. said.

Over the years, he made her live with him, and forced her to have sex with him by putting a gun or a machete to her head, by breaking her nose and by threatening to kill the small children of her sister. Once when she became pregnant, she said, she barely escaped alive after he had poured kerosene on the bed where she was sleeping and ignited it. He stole the salary she earned as a teacher and later sold her teacher's license.

Local police dismissed her reports of violence as "a private matter," the court documents said, and a judge she turned to for help tried to seduce her.

"In Mexico, men believe they have a right to abuse their women because they are like a possession," she said. With three children born from her involuntary sex with the man, who never married her, she fled to California in 2004.

An immigration judge denied her asylum claim in 2006. In its new filing, the government urged that L.R.'s case be sent back to the immigration court for further review, suggesting she might still succeed. But the government also injected a caveat, insisting that "this does not mean that every victim of domestic violence would be eligible for asylum."

Domestic Violence Everywhere

2009-07-19T07:06:00.001-07:00

Domestic violence: Marin's most prevalent violent crime

Jennifer Upshaw

Posted: 07/18/2009 10:33:46 PM PDT

This 49-year-old Mill Valley mother of two, a domestic violence victim, said she can relate to Danielle Keller, whose slaying hits close to home. (IJ photo/Jeff Vendsel)

The stigma of domestic violence is so great, the 49-year-old mother of two from Mill Valley didn't want her name used. But she said she can relate to what happened to Danielle Keller, the young mother who authorities said was killed last Sunday by her abuser.

"It's scary, of course it hits close to home," said the woman, who in May 2008 left an already troubled marriage after her drunken husband kicked down the door to their son's bedroom and then pushed her down on the bed and repeatedly struck her. Her teenage son, she believes, saved her from further harm by calling the police.

"I'm very sad for the family," she said of Keller's family. "I have to wonder about the child. What's going to happen to the child? As a mother that's your first instinct. For me, I was lucky and not everybody is that lucky."

The death of Danielle Keller has turned the spotlight once again on domestic violence, the most prevalent of violent crimes in Marin County, accounting for 50 percent to 55 percent of nonvehicular homicides in the past five years, according to the district attorney.

So far this year, two of Marin's three homicides have been domestic violence-related.

"Yes, obviously it disturbs me," said Marin District Attorney Ed Berberian. "We've got to address family violence and domestic violence."

James Raphael Mitchell, 27, of Pittsburg, son of the late San Francisco porn king Jim Mitchell, was charged with first-degree murder, domestic violence, kidnapping, child abduction

and child endangerment in the July 12 baseball-bat beating death of his former girlfriend, 29-year-old Keller, and the kidnapping of their 1-year-old daughter.

The incident occurred despite a restraining order against Mitchell and a string of violent incidents, according to court records. Such incidents are not uncommon.

Addressing domestic violence

In the past five years, 88 percent of the 4,569 cases referred to the Marin district attorney's office by law enforcement agencies have

Facilitator Bill Eichhorn leads a discussion during a batters intervention educational class held at the The Mankind Program in San Rafael. (IJ photo/Jeff Vendsel)

involved domestic violence, according to statistics provided by the nonprofit advocacy group Marin Abused Women's Services.

In addition to the Mitchell case, prosecutors are preparing for a preliminary hearing Aug. 31 in the matter of Chet Turner, a 48-year-old man accused in the April stabbing death of Avril Clary, 46, of Sausalito, with whom he shared a home on Bridgeway. The suspect told at least three acquaintances he killed her, authorities have said.

The death of 9-year-old Melody Osheroff is being prosecuted as a homicide but is not a domestic violence case. Edward John Schaefer, 43, is accused of riding intoxicated into a crosswalk on May 27, hitting Melody and her father, Aaron, who is recovering from his injuries.

Berberian said his office spends about $1.3 million of its $16 million budget on domestic violence cases. A specially created family violence court established about a year ago deals only with individuals who have pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges. A family violence prosecution team also has been established with specific attorneys assigned to cases. A more aggressive stance on misdemeanors has been developed, although such cases can be difficult to prosecute, Berberian said.

"When it gets in front of a jury it gets more difficult to impress upon a jury the danger of the situation because they don't see the injury results," he said. "In domestic violence, in particular, you many times have a victim that does not cooperate for all sorts of reasons.

"We have to try to," he added. "We're not going to just drop these cases because we have an uncooperative victim. We're going to try to press on if we can."

Provincial attitudes about the problem have improved somewhat but still exist, prosecutors said.

"Unfortunately there are still people that have that attitude, 'Well, this is just a domestic.' Well, these domestics turn into what we saw last week and you just can't ignore them.

"It's happening in Ross, it's happening in Novato, it's happening in Belvedere, it's happening everywhere," Berberian said.

"It's just very tragic - the cost to the family and to our community."

Help from MAWS

At Marin Abused Women's Services, a 30-year organization that assists about 3,000 victims of domestic violence annually, requests for emergency shelter have been increasing and there is a growing waiting list for transitional housing facilities, officials said.

In 2008, the MAWS hotline received 1,918 calls. The group provided 5,548 nights of emergency shelter; 17,338 nights of transitional housing; advocacy and assistance to 568 women who needed restraining, protective and custody orders; and training for domestic violence prevention practitioners throughout California and the nation through 81 workshops reaching more than 1,332 participants.

Media coverage depicting the Mitchell family history as tragic and the incident as a "crime of passion" have been frustrating and distract from the societal problem - the "continuum of abusive behavior," said Donna Garske, MAWS founder and chief executive.

"Domestic violence is a deliberate action," she said. "It's a clear intention and a behavior of choice.

"There are a lot of people that have rough lives and don't commit acts of violence," Garske said.

Progress, particularly since the 1994 passage of the Violence Against Women Act, has been made, but "you can have the best darn coordinated system in the country and still have domestic violence," Garske said.

"Early intervention and prevention is really key to getting this problem to stop," she said.

Family law court

Some critics continue to point to the family law court at the Hall of Justice, where several judges and a former district attorney were targeted years ago in an unsuccessful recall campaign. The critics claimed Marin's family law court was a cesspool of cronyism and corruption that favored well-connected lawyers in child-custody disputes.

Indeed, the system for years has been plagued by favoritism, and domestic violence cases can fall victim to it, said Barbara Kauffman, a San Rafael family law attorney and vocal critic of family law court in Marin.

"If the alleged abuser is: A, wealthy; B, white; and C, has representation by a favored attorney or a popular attorney, I don't see the restraining orders being issued," she said, adding that she has heard that more have been issued as of late as public scrutiny has intensified.

"I think because the heat is being turned up there may likely be and I hear people saying there are more restraining orders issued now," she said. "I do think they are making more of an effort. I think especially in cases where money and politics aren't involved they really are issuing a lot more.

"I think all cases should be decided fairly based on the facts and the law - not based on money or race or any of those outside factors," said Kauffman, who said she believes a changing of the guard on the bench could bring about positive change.

A new venue would help too, she added.

"What is a criminal issue is being decided in the family courts and it's inappropriate," Kauffman said.

Could be, said Charlotte Hideko Huggins, a family law attorney who represented Keller.

"Perhaps if these cases were not handled in family court, and they were handled in criminal court, maybe they would be taken more seriously," she said.

"For every 10 cases that are just maneuvering between couples and their relationship there is this one deadly person out there.

"I have to say in my experience domestic violence victims are very difficult clients to convince to stay away," she said. "The abuser first beats down your self-esteem so you think you are not worthy of anyone but him, (gets you in his) financial clutches, and then cuts you off from everybody.

"I think there has to be full enforcement of these orders," Huggins said of restraining orders and orders of protection. "This is where the counseling comes in.

"The victims need to understand that this is a serious issue," she said, adding that she had great difficulty convincing Keller to stay away.

"She was a sweet young woman. Even with all the abuse there was a level of naivet that I couldn't break through," Huggins said. "You have to be consistent and you have to say no."

GETTING HELP

For domestic violence help and information, call the women's 24-hour hotline at 924-6616. Spanish speakers can call 924-3456. The men's 24-hour hotline is 924-1070.

BY THE NUMBERS

50-55

Percent of nonvehicular homicides attributed to domestic violence in the past five years in Marin

Percent of cases referred to the district attorney's office in the past five years that involved domestic violence

2 of 3

Number of Marin homicides this year that have been attributed to domestic violence

Contact Jennifer Upshaw via e-mail at jupshaw@marinij.com

Tax Funded Violence

2009-07-13T06:06:00.000-07:00

The History of the Lone Fathers Association is enough outrage to understand as to why organizations that promote the support of "falsely accused fathers" are a liability to the government, the community and society.

Australia's laxed attitude, "She'll be right" is falling through the cracks as another child is laying in a hospital bed suffering horrendous injuries. The fathers body was found dead on a Victorian property. He was to face court the following day. Mandatory reporting is merely one portion of this crack, whilst another part of this is rarely examined.

Dads in Distress goes beyond the realms of supporting fathers when they provide abuse excusers information that can be obtained from their website. Its called, "Parent Alienation Syndrome" a form of junk science developed by DR Richard Gardner who has been largely discredited by the scientific community due to theexplicit child abuse supportive attitudes he exhibited in his books on the subject.

They regularly mislead the public to believing that dads are at the highest rate of suicide when in fact the highest rate is young indigenous males emerging from family violence ridden communities. Instead of attempting to deal with the obvious aspects of family violence as a gendered problem, they have a statement written on the front page of their website:

"The Dads in Distress organization believes domestic violence is non gender specific and as such promotes the awareness amongst its members and clients that the safety of all parties of divorce or separation be paramount and in the best interests of the children"

Facsia has taken a major backflip in supporting families. In reality, they are pouring government funds into mens programs that

could have been used to help children suffering from family violence. Instead, programs specializing in family violence are

sparse. It is also noteworthy to add that there are no support services specifically for women unless there is family violence and even then

services for victims post separation are limited. The mens groups called it "the domestic violence industry", which has now reaped its true meaning:

1. Men Rights are making a mint off false allegations propaganda that the most recent research has stated that mostly fathers are guilty of and the statistics are extremely low.

2. Dispute Resolution centers are making a killing off intimidating victims into dangerous consent agreements.

3. Counsellors are making a fortune offering "therapy" for the abuse - excuse syndrome.

4. Family Court practitioners can guarantee their income when they reverse custody to the abuser.

5. In recent times, it has become politically favorable to appear supporting the interests of the mens movements, after all a majority of the leadership consists of men.

6. As the cycle continues into yet another generation of family violence, so does the guaranteed retirement of all the above.

One of the latest developments of the mens groups is the recent changes of the coroners bill in NSW, the only state in Australia that has a domestic violence homicide review team.

Under the guise of some concocted speeches of sentiments regarding suicide, were changes that gave families more authority over the investigations of the coroners court of cases

that are not deemed, "suspicious". Yet some homicides are not immediately obvious and do require further forensic investigations. Some include strangulation, baby shaken syndrome and

smothering. The "family member" who makes such a decision could very well be the perpetrator and as the dead cannot talk.

It sold in such a way as the shared parenting bill did, "to reduce paperwork and hold up of the courts", but again the devil is in the detail and the "suspicious deaths are in the same

hands of those who work with mens groups leaders to arrive at the scene of domestic violence call outs - the police.

Every strategy to identify and effectively resolve domestic violence has been sabotaged by these groups under many illusions and guises.

The homicide rate has increased since the introduction of the shared parenting laws and now with the addition of the 2009 coroners bill, these deaths

will have reduced or increased, but simply hidden from public eye. These tactics are no different to the ones used to groom an intimate partner terrorism victim:

Economic Abuse

The defunding of shelters and programs for women and children who have experienced family violence.

Social Abuse

Uses conquer and divide strategies to break down communication with members that may be opposed to the violence.

Mental Abuse

All women who raise violence are "hysterical" or "alienators". labeling without reason.

Emotional abuse

Using suicide as a form of emotional black mail. A reason to give children to what would be otherwise classed as a

"mentally unstable" parent and secure funding of mens organizations.

Verbal Abuse

The use of the term, "Feminazi" toward anyone who raises gendered base violence, despite being recognized scientifically

and accepted by the united nations.

Physical Violence

Family Court Bombings, death threats and genocide of mothers and children.

Neanderthals: Did they really die off?

2009-07-08T06:20:00.000-07:00

Whilst scientists are debating over the time of their death and what they died of, a mens rights crusader has nearly won a lawsuit against the Oakland A over not giving him a mothers day hat. The judge has approved a settlement of $510,000. Rava has already won more than 40 discrimination law suits in America including Club Med for having a ladies only promotion, the angels for not giving him a tote bag and many other venues for similar occurrences. Even the reporter Rick Reilly described him as,

"He's a greasy manipulator who has found a small leak in American law and stuck an open wallet under it. When they wrote California's Unruh Civil Rights Act in 1959 -- the act Rava cites in his suits -- they never thought soulless creatures like him would someday slink about the earth." Read more here.

Reports of harassment circulate from domestic violence shelter owners, mothers group owners, politicians and researchers of similar types of abuse. It was as if an engorged adult claimed discrimination against world vision for providing food to starving children. Rava is not the only mens rights crusader that is opening up a loophole in the law and catching it with his wallet. Dads in distress have managed to cypher a million dollars in funding over a statistic that they don't even cater for. The highest suicide rate in the population is young aboriginal men. The largest aboriginal population is in the Northern Territory and dads in distress only provide a service in New South Wales and Victoria. There have been so many mens programs that they now out number the women and if you take out the programs for young women; there is nothing.

The aim of dads in distress is to provide support through family law issues, yet there are no specific services for women going through the family court. Shelters and domestic violence counseling services are overloaded and are restricted in being able to support them through the family court. Some workers are restrained by funding or capacity and others are afraid of stepping on legal toes post shared parenting campaigns. Not only have these men attacked women accessing the family court, they have trampled on domestic violence victims and access to a much needed service. Richard Hillman, another mens rights campaigner tried to sue a child counsellor for taking protective action towards a child. The judge pointed out that he was asking him to put his duty of care above a child.

They have gnawed away at our systems and protections that give women and children the opportunity to be free from violence. When some of them died as a result of their influence, they justified their deaths and some even tried to use it as a reason to push more of their laws. The logic was, "Dad was angry and suicidal, I can understand that, just give him the child and control and it wont happen again".

Meanwhile on the other side of the world, young women die for speaking to another man or going out on their own - some die because they were raped. There might be a huge difference between the silent bloodshed that goes on within the home to the brutal public honor kills, but the rhetoric is no different and each egg the other on. It is the hate towards women, their autonomy and envy towards their ability to create life that drives these neanderthals towards acts of brutality and clearing all obstacles to commit those acts is their true agenda. There are many men like Rick, who refuse to be apart of such hypocrisy and very much a reason why survivors of domestic violence can and have loved again.

For the Children They March

2009-06-24T23:56:00.000-07:00

Dressed in bandages, slings and walking prams with broken dolls are the parents and grandparents of children abused during contact. Some are even victimized themselves. National Nine News merely touches the surface, when they state that it was during "unsupervised visitation". Some of the parents have had their time reduced because they dared to raise the concerns of their children's or even their own safety.

National Council for Children Post-Separation (NCCPS) spokeswoman Barbara Biggs said,"We have a systemic failure when more than 15,000 Australian children are ordered into ongoing contact with parents the court itself has deemed violent and abusive,"

A growing mirror of Americas retaliatory killings, is a country that recently mourned together the devastating murder of Darcey Freeman who was tossed over the bridge after the father was granted shared parenting.

Darcey Freeman was not the only one, it was only because her death was so public that everybody began to learn how negligent the court really is. Then there are the arguments that "they are all making false allegations to be favored in custody proceedings". Actually, empirical research supports the fact that this is a very small percentage. In US studies it was proven that this small percentage consisted mostly of fathers who were abusive that were trying to divert the attention away from their actions.

Diverting the attention away from those who need the spotlight(researchers with facts) was part of the shared parenting campaign in the Howard era. They adopted the same strategies from their online helpers in UK and america. The law was made in such a way that it resulted in 70% of battered mothers losing custody to their children. The same set of techniques have been and are continuing to be used here in Australia.

For Domestic Violence and child advocates it was a living nightmare. The phenomena of what if the offenders banded together and used their coercion to bully government into handing over the victims became a reality. Right in front of us was a huge number of people claiming that they were falsely accused and we have a problem of fatherlessness.

Then there was Keith Shew who was publicly supported by the Lone Fathers Association as a man who was portrayed as a male victim of domestic violence and unfairly "cut off" from seeing his child. The Lone Fathers Association forgot to mention the lengthy criminal history of violence that was aired later.

They were on the list of the submissions for the shared parenting bill.

The Hillcrest murderer who killed seven members of the family before shooting himself was also supported by a mens rights group called, "The Mens Rights Agency".

They were on the list of submissions for the shared parenting bill.

Richard Hillman who claims that he was, "Cleared" of allegations of sexual abuse refers to a case where he was trying to sue a sexual abuse counsellor for the negligence towards his well being. The question that was raised in the high court was, "Does a child protection worker have a duty of care to the child or to the parent?" The Case was dismissed.

He was also on the list of submissions for the shared parenting bill.

DV Victims: Her Course Of Justice

2009-06-22T21:49:00.000-07:00

In recent news, it has been reported that "women abusers" are on the rise. No doubt that the phenomena exists and it has never been doubted by domestic violence advocates. What has often sparked debate in the past is whether the majority of victims are women as reported by the world health organization that prompted the UN to launch a worldwide campaign against violence towards women. What anc news has not exposed is what we will expose here. There is a secret war going on between the survivors and the perpetrators. Every effort on an official level is sabotaged by those who intend to suppress this war on women.

Mens groups have glided in the lime light over the years dashing in and out of the spotlight particularly when it is revealed that their organizations have in fact supported perpetrators. In 1995 Lone fathers channeled its resources into supporting Keith Shew, a man who claimed Brisbane Domestic Violence Resource

Centre had discriminated against him as the perpetrator rather than a victim. He was denied access to the shelter that his wife was residing.

After the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission dismissed the claims, Barry Williams of the Lone Fathers Association went very public and threatened to take it to the United Nations. They were stopped short when an investigative journalist from the Courier Mail uncovered a series of violent criminal charges that Mr Shew had engaged in. To rescue the reminents of his already tarnished reputation, Mr Williams withdrew his support of Mr Shew. His charade was later reported in the Green Left:

It was later debated in parliament on how extreme this group was within its statements and activities. In 1999 Tanya Plibersek stated,

"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."

Every step that has been made to secure the safety and rights of women and children, the mens movements have been there to ensure a back step was taken. The issue of violence against women and children is the heart of the women's movement and what drives so many to ensure that there are adequate protections for them.

Yet at every point of uncovering the greatest scandals of our times, the mens movements have stood on the doorstep blocking every opportunity for change.

The research, policy, funding and even down to the training of the police force, have all been sabotaged. Geoff Holland the director of the Equal Parenting Party, made the following comments:

In this statement, he admits that a member of the Lone Fathers Association represents batterers when the police are called out. This explains why the stats of domestic violence in NSW point towards towards women being treated as "perpetrators".

Click on the images to enlarge.

Adding insult to injury for women, some of the men involved are lawyers who have become bitter post divorce. Their ability to cause damage through organizational and systematic abuse is great and if anyone had a case of perverting the course of justice for survivors, the great discourse from protecting women from violence would be it.

Furthermore "One Ring Rules" Wayne Butler, the site director and a director of many other sites recommends that they must also "denounce" violence against women.

Click on the image to enlarge.

The behavior of the Lone Fathers Association acting on behalf of perpetrators is evidential in this 2006 article, where it states:

Battered women are being wrongly prosecuted by NSW Police, an advocacy group says.
A report launched on Sunday by the Redfern Legal Centre in Sydney said police called to the scene of domestic violence often lacked the experience to properly interpret the situation.
The report, which has been forwarded to the NSW Ombudsman, is based on the study of seven women who had been assaulted by their partners but found themselves in court after calling police.
Police failed to take into account the emotional state of the female victims and could be manipulated by the often calmer men into believing they acted in self-defence, the report said.

Clearly, it is not the social trend that has dramatically changed within the span of two years but the ever-growing traps laid for women in their bid for freedom from violence against them.

Fathers Day: Not Another Blood Bath

2009-06-19T20:47:00.000-07:00

Madonna - New Music - More Music Videos

As fathers Day looms, we brace ourselves hoping that another blood tainted mark spoils our global map. Journalists might withhold from writing about it, but it will still not change the trauma that murder suicide leaves to all it has touched.

Last year:

Krystina Reed was shot dead at McDonalds by her ex partner on Fathers Day. Read More.

Brian Philcox Murdered three children and then himself after he was granted access by UK Family Courts. Read More.

2007:

Robert Farquenson drove three sons into a dam on Fathers day after consent orders were made in the Family Court. Read More.

Court Ordered Murder Gets a New Law

2009-06-19T15:58:00.001-07:00

Jennie Carter lost her children through a court order that led to their murder. Their father had poured gasoline around the house and set it on fire. With all of the doors locked the children had no where to run. His daughter tried to escape, but her father stabbed her in the spine so that she was paralyzed.

A bill is now sponsored in their memory. Now if there is a history of domestic violence or child abuse, the perpetrator will be restricted to supervised visits.

According to wptv, Ms Carter is not sure if this new bill would have kept her children alive as he was determined on depriving her of the children.

Murder suicides have been marked in places all over the world to inform authorities on how much of a problem it is:

View Murder-Suicides in a larger map

No Mothers: The Twenty First Century Dark Ages

2009-06-18T20:43:00.001-07:00

Blame and shame is what divorced dads have become professional at. At the centre of the media spotlight is a 12 year old girl who is pregnant from a 15 year old boy. The family of the fifteen year old boy is not apprehended, nor the centre of concerns. The mother however is viewed upon with contempt for a crime she never committed. The father publicly humiliated her by saying that

the mother had allowed the boyfriend to stay at the home. The grandmother cleared such speculation, "He's not in jail and he's never lived at the house," the grandmother toldThe Daily Telegraph. The underlying issues that condemned a 12 year old was hate of women's freedom.

The fact that her mother did not stay with the father, the fact that in separation, she is still tied to his accusations. In the political climate of post shared parenting bill, every women who leaves a husband is standing on egg shells whilst fathers groups wait for her to fall. The term, "kicking her whilst she is down" comes in mind here, but this father had to set this "fall" up and create the sensationalism. The question he was really asking DOCS was not of whether his child is protected, but why are they not punishing her.

In other news, a minister was humiliated by senator Hogg for taking her child into the chamber. The excuse was that the child was classed as a "stranger in the house". This was also applied to Kristie Marshall in 2003 when she breast-fed her baby.

it is no wonder there are few provisions for mothers in the legislation when mothers are made to choose between their children and their work on building a future for them. Any dirty trick to exclude a mother from law is used in these instances. The laws for men and fatherhood are ambiguous. They are built upon the remnants of what use to be a "men only" society. Over the past few decades, women's rights have worked away tirelessly upon removing what entrenches women. They have also opened the doors to the rights of children and rights of other groups that have been affected. New generations have emerged with the rights that were once fought for whilst the old begin to retire, unaware of the opposition and potential for such rights to be reversed. They are the loophole generation, naive and free with choices. The rise of those who oppose women's rights has reached its fruition within public domain. They have learned to abuse the same speeches, phrases and strategies that were used to liberate women. Their rhetoric is that women have "enough" rights and are abusing theirs. The manner of which is demonstrated is in the area of family law; a place that only those who have accessed such a place know fully of its true nature.

The Family Court still deals with children and property in one case. Their decisions, research and statistics are heavily guarded under the guise of "best interests", the same phrase used by Nazi social workers to abduct and adopt children out to German families because in their eyes, it was the child's "best interest" was to be german. The current climate, "shared parenting" and "best Interests" are used to reinforce a new marriage contract and punish disobedient mothers. "Disobedient mothers" are viewed to be those who do not encourage a relationship to the father and turn a blind eye to his actions. The worst treated in the realm of the family court are often the ones who have endured the most to stand against such treatment. According to practitioners, the reason for so many family violence cases being ignored is because they need to guard against false allegations. What they wont tell you is that these, "false allegations" are actually cases where there is not enough evidence provided. What is also not brought to light is the number of these, "False allegation" cases that are ordered not to access services that are equipped to investigate. This includes doctors, therapists and child protection workers. Even requests for contact to be done at a police station are barred. In a modern world, these traditions have managed to survive in isolation. Like the remnants of the black plague, the threat of women and children becoming property has never been so real.

Welcome to the twenty first century dark age, where the nightmare has only just begun.