Australia – THE Rudd government is planning to roll back the controversial shared

Up on Ration Shed – Egroup and BLOG – with thanks to Yuri Joakimidis – Australia – South Australia – West Lakes and Mark Bourne – Australia – SA – Adelaide – On Ration Shed – Signed Equal Pet.

For the original article GO – http://www.theaustr alian.news. com.au/story/ 0,25197,26228074 -5013404, 00.html

Come join FAMILY Orientated Authors.

Take note Go https://rationshed.wordpress.com/whole-natural-biological-family-authors-are-welcome

·      BLOG – https://rationshed.wordpress.com 

·      Yahoo – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationshed

·      FaceBook – http://apps.facebook.com/causes/190655/37924750?m=cc366e79

Onward – Jim

“““““““““

——-Original Message——-

 

From: Yuri Joakimidis

Date: 20/10/2009 1:05:38 PM

To: Richard Hillman Foundation Inc

Subject: THE Rudd government is planning to roll back the controversial shared

 

Both Richard Chisholm and Thea Brown oppose presumptive shared parenting.

 

As for the safety of children recent WA child abuse figures based on the gender of pertrators document that when compared to biological fathers biological mothers pose are far greater risk  

 

Moreover, who speaks for 18 month Oliver Garcia slaughtered just 7 months earlier by his custodial mother in much the same circumstances as Darcey Freeman.

 


From: Richard Hillman Foundation Inc <webmaster@rhfinc.org.au>
To: undisclosed-recipients@tpgi.com.au
Sent: Tue, 20 October, 2009 10:40:02 AM
Subject: THE Rudd government is planning to roll back the controversial shared

 

 

 

The Richard Hillman Foundation ( RHF )  believes all is not lost:

 

1. Former Family Court judge Professor Richard Chisholm, Chairman of The Family Law Violence Review, is a professor and one would assume that he is capable of insisting upon AND understanding and interpreting accurately peer reviewed studies into this matter. Should he rely on flawed statistics ……………

Similarly for Professor Thea Brown.

 

2. It seems that the media is capable of appreciating that their are two distinct groups of men / fathers in this fiasco. The ‘ Good’ Fathers as described by Sue Price and the ‘ Bad ‘ as described by the National Council for Children Post Separation ….. read below.

 

…….. Ms Price said the laws did no more than encourage “reasonable contact between perfectly good fathers and their children”

 

 …………In one submission, the National Council for Children Post-Separation, which largely represents the interests of separated mothers, has examples of women forced into contact with violent partners, after those partners won the right to see their children in the Family Court.

 

The RHF has long argued that their are good fathers who are non-violent or abusive AND should not be labelled as bad fathers just because of Gender NOR should they have to defend these bad men / fathers for their bad behaviour because they themselves abhor it. In fact all good fathers to prove their innocence would be happy to take polygraphs and favour mandatory electronic recordings for the laying and defending of all allegations that are used in courts.

 

Similarly, the RHF know of good parents and their children who have been victims of violence and abuse and being ignored. The RHF know that there are bad men / fathers and are confused why courts offer them so much contact and privileges.

The RHF assumes that ‘ Good Mothers’ partner these bad men ( opposites attract we are told ) and because they will not lie, they are denied their natural justice just like the good fathers who also will not lie.

 

The RHF supports the Good Mothers and their children who seek relief from violence and abuse. We know you are out there.

 

We just ask that you do not persecute the good fathers in your pursuit.

 

All good people who do not lie, are the victims of this system, and we should all unite against those who are willing to lie…. those bad fathers who deny their behaviour and those mothers who are also willing to lie …… laying false allegations.

 

Make no mistake, there are four groups in this process.

The Good Parents – those mothers and fathers who do not lie and are represented by reputable groups.

The Bad Parents – who are willing to lie and the RHF has yet to find a group who represents these people.

 

RHF

www.rhfinc.org.au   

 

 

 

 

http://www.theaustr alian.news. com.au/story/ 0,25197,26228074 -5013404, 00.html

 

Caroline Overington | October 19, 2009

 

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.

Of the six inquiries into the law under way, the Family Court Violence Review, also known as the Chisholm report, for its chairman, former Family Court judge Professor Richard Chisholm, is likely to report to Mr McClelland first.

Submissions to the Chisholm inquiry closed on Friday. In one submission, the National Council for Children Post-Separation, which largely represents the interests of separated mothers, has examples of women forced into contact with violent partners, after those partners won the right to see their children in the Family Court.

The council says some men are approaching the court, asking for years-old parenting agreements to be modified so they can pay less child support. Under the Howard government reforms, men can pay less, in exchange for seeing their children more.

The submission says: “Parents are saying they don’t want money. They would be happy to forgo maintenance payments if it saves their child from having to spend half the week with a parent who does not really want to parent them, but whose main objective is to avoid child support.”

The submission also calls on the Family Court to consider the parenting roles played by each parent before separation, before deciding on shared or equal care after separation.

“Some parents abandon their spouse while pregnant and years later seek shared care when the child does not even know the parent,” the submission says.

“One nine-year-old boy who considered he already had a father, since his mother married his stepfather when he was a baby, was told he had to spend every second weekend with his biological father.

“If there is no existing emotional bond between a child and a parent, why should the court force one on a child who may have an emotional bond with a step-parent? ”

More than 3500 parents have signed a petition calling for the changes to the shared parenting law.

A submission from men’s groups was not immediately available yesterday. The Shared Parenting Council says the six reviews of the law were placing “significant pressure” on the groups, which are “holding the line against a dismantling of the 2006 Family Law changes”.

Besides the Chisholm review, the Attorney-General has commissioned the University of South Australia, James Cook University and Monash University to investigate the impact of family violence during and after parental relationship breakdown. This review will be overseen by professor Thea Brown.

The Social Policy Research Centre at the University of NSW is also conducting a review, as are the Australian Institute of Family Studies and the University of Sydney.

 

http://www.theaustr alian.news. com.au/story/ 0,25197,26228004 -5013404, 00.html

 

Caroline Overington | October 19, 2009

 

THE Family Court has removed a five-year-old boy from the care of his mother because she is living with a man whose own child, a daughter, died of neglect in a house with an “atrocious standard of hygiene”.

The decision has delighted the five-year-old’ s father, who successfully argued that his son would be at serious risk of harm if forced to live with a man whose child had died in his care.

The action has also been welcomed by fathers’ rights groups, who have long argued that young children are more at risk from a mother’s new partner than from their biological fathers.

The case, known as Muller and Shaw, has been before the courts for more than a year. The child, known only as D, was aged 4 at the time of the last hearing.

His mother had been his primary carer since he was six months old but the court has ordered that he live with his father and see his mother every other weekend and on school holidays, and never in the presence of her new partner. An appeal by the mother failed last Wednesday.

The court said the mother’s relationship with her new partner, known only as Mr T, was a “significant feature of its decision”.

The mother, 25, and the father, 33, lived together for less than a year. Their only child, a son, was born in February 2004. The relationship was over by August 2004. The father, Mr Shaw, had contact with the child three or four days a week, for up to two hours at time, until February 2006, when the mother started a de facto relationship with Mr T.

In January 2006 — that is, just a month earlier — one of Mr T’s children, a girl, died while in his care.

Court documents do not reveal how the child died but a South Australian judge put Mr T’s three surviving children into state care, giving him only supervised access to them.

A witness from Families SA, the government department that deals with child welfare in South Australia, said the cause of death was “neglect”.

When Mr Shaw became aware of the relationship between the mother of his child and Mr T, he began proceedings in the Family Law division of the Federal Magistrates Court.

A magistrate at first restrained the mother from leaving the child alone in the care of Mr T, and banned Mr T from staying overnight at the mother’s house when the child was there.

Mr Shaw went back to court after amassing evidence that the mother was flouting these restrictions, at which point the court gave him custody of the child.

The mother appealed, saying the court had not taken into account the effect on the child of having such a radical change in his living arrangements. She also argued that she was not in a de facto relationship with Mr T.

The court believed the father, saying he was a “truthful witness” who was “vitally concerned with the health and safety of his son”.

__________ NOD32 4520 (20091018) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

 

 

 

 

 


Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail. Learn more.

 

Advertisements

One Response to Australia – THE Rudd government is planning to roll back the controversial shared

  1. Sandon Keable says:

    Noone has the right to take away my child, No government, no judge, Noone. My ex and i entered into an agreement to have children. I have the right to parent my child if i so want to. I am sick of the backlash it is because of avoiding Child Support. I had to pay child support while living on the street so to hell with that.

    When i re- established myself i paid my ex extra, more then i had to via her bank account. Now i refuse to pay her any because she keeps my children from me.

    She or anyone does not have a right to take away my children. I nurtured my second child and it was evident when i visited her in the nursery of a childcare centre where she went crazy because she saw me and wanted to roll the ball to me like i did when i stayed home with her.

    My ex admitted to me she put a pillopw over her head because of my daughters loud constant cries for food. This is why i stayed home. Mothers want independance but alkso want money for free. She is a seperate person to me now so she should pay her own way. The only reason mothers want children is to get the free payments that make it difficult for fathers.

    As i said when i was better off and had a reasonable amount of time with my children not equal or fair i paid her more. I am just sick to death of it and while my children are being kept from me while this crap keeps going i miss out on a relationship with them just like when i wasa a child and missed out on a relationship with my dad. Oh yes and my mother abandoned me haven’t seen her since and that right i was tortured by her boyfriends oh and my sister was molested by one who spent time in prison for it so it can be proved.

    You people have no idea you just do as you pleaser for money. Well with my whole life being destroyed by you criminals and corrupt politicians and judges lawyers i don’t care anymore. I won’t work what is the point i don’t have my children. How about this she pays her way i pay mine we see our children equally because we love them. Best interests my arse. I am living proof of no best interests.

    In spite of it all i decided to become a good man and love my children and treat my partner like she is my angel my princess. Oh but one thing ruins me from doing that and that is the torment as a child i was subjected to because of the family bullshit law courts. You do not have the right. Under the eyes of god we all can walk thios earth we can parent our children, help them grow. If i knew i would never see my children i would never have had them. In fact now i refuse to be in any relationship. I was subjected to this abuse as a child which in turn i now fear love and abandonment. This creates problems with my most desired relationships. I hate thios earth. I never had the choice to be born and if i knew i would be treated like this i would have chosen not to. Oh and it ids this that has made me angry. This will turn into civil war. You corrupt people will be evicted. You have no right to my bank account my money my children or anything. You don’t have a right to charge me for registration really as this is just as much my earth as yours. You are no better then me and honestly you are not doing your job to what i and every other Australian are paying you for. You are sacked.

    I will be suing because of this. My equal rights are not met. It is that simple.

    I have nothing left to live for now because of you idiots.

    You think oh another bad man, maybe he is a rough bikey or a dead beat but you don’t know me and you don’t know all bikies and you don’t know anyone. I actually work with children so how does that grab you. So does my ex or she did. It is 50 50 in everything and then from there. No ifs buts or maybes. Ok if i refuse 50 then i pay her for the difference or we work it out fairly. If it is impossible then we work it out fairly.

    I am sick of offering her to be closer when she decided to up and leave with my kids. Oh and if i go get them it is kidnapping. How so, they are my kids, get that through your heads. They are as equally mine as they are hers. You thinks its about avoiding child support. That is crap it more about the child support she won’t get if i have them more. Sit on your arse send them to childcare get free pension and medical and then chid support tax free too. You are living the high life.

    I struggle and if i have them 50 50 i don’t get free medical or pension i just have to make do. It is corruption. How bout this i will pay her the same amount and have them 50 percent. Now where is your argument.

    I bet this message goes wasted because it is true. How bout you ask the adulkts who were once children in this situation instaed of asking the kids. Dads are different these days because women wanted it that way. Nothing we do is good enough well go to hell its time for war.

    The relationship is good and no complaints but as soon as something goes wrong it reverts back to he never looked after them he didn’t do the dishes blah blah. I live on my own and do the whole lot inside and out. I also do it with my children or i did until she thinks she can just do as she pleases. Well now i do because my life isn’t worth living now. It was destroyed as a child and my childhood made me anxious when in love, and not just love these girls loved me dearly too. Now i am in distress over this. They are my children too. Sure i will have them 100 percent, but they should have us both. If she decided 0 for her then i will have them full time. They are my flesh and blood. I mated to have them because i wanted to. I did late nightsdd changing nappies. It wasn’t my choice to work but i had to so we could pay the medical bills. Even so i contributed as much as she did and no i get left empty. I am going to sue you all. Or i will kill myself. Simple./;

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: