Parent law ties women to men
Posted by Caroline Overington on May 29th, 2009 | Category: relocation misrepresentation in the media
Caroline Overington | May 29, 2009
WIVES who follow their husbands to remote corners of Australia in search of work may find themselves stuck in their new home town, unable to leave with the children.
The Family Court has ruled that new shared-parenting laws, brought in by the Howard government in 2006, mean that the right of a child to have a relationship with both parents trumps the right of a mother to return to her home state, even if she has lived in the new location for less than a year.
In the most recent case, the court ruled that a 34-year-old mother could not leave an "isolated" town in northwest Queensland with her five-year-old daughter after her marriage broke down, because it would rupture the close relationship the girl had with her father.
The case has prompted concern among family law experts that the shared-parenting law is effectively forcing people "back into failed relationships".
Elspeth McInnes, a researcher in family law at the University of South Australia, cited research by the Family Law Council that suggested the right of women to relocate after divorce had essentially been lost, under the amendments to the Family Law Act.
"Previously, judges were prepared to consider the idea that women or mums could go where there is extended family support for them and their children," Ms McInnes said.
"Under the new laws, the meaningful relationship with both parents has moved up (to take greater priority).
"There are still ways to say the child is better served by returning to the town where she was born but basically, judges are telling resident parents, mainly women, that they have to stay put.
"They subordinate women's time with their children around a husband's work demands."
The mother in the northwest Queensland case, known in court transcripts as Mrs Rosa, got married in 2000 and had her child in 2002.
She lived with her husband in Sydney until 2007, when he got a job as a mining engineer in a remote part of Queensland. The town is not named in the transcript, but is described as "isolated".
The Rosas moved up as a family, but after eight months, the husband told the wife that the marriage was over, put her possessions in boxes, and put them on the deck.
Mrs Rosa, 34, took their daughter back to her mother's house in Sydney but the father petitioned the Family Court for their return, saying he wanted to maintain a relationship with his child.
During court proceedings, the mother argued that the father could quit his job and return to Sydney and share custody of their daughter in their home town.
He declined, saying his job had become important and was "interesting".
Under changes to the Family Law Act (1975) adopted by the Howard government in 2006, the Family Court is required to apply the presumption that shared parenting is in a child's best interests, except where there is violence.
The court ruled that the mother could not leave northwest Queensland with the child. She argued that she was isolated and impoverished. She lives in a caravan, because it is the only accommodation she can afford. She appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, which upheld the decision on May 15.
The federal magistrate said the mother's plan to move would have a "most serious and detrimental effect upon the very close and important relationship that exists (between the daughter and her Dad)".
"In my assessment, the only means by which there can be a proper and appropriate relationship facilitated between this child and both parents is for the child to remain in northwest Queensland," he said.
He accepted the mother's "feelings of isolation and feeling of depression" about being stuck in the town where her marriage ended with little support. She said she would never leave without her daughter.
The federal magistrate had doubts about the mother's willingness to foster a relationship between the father and the child.
Family law academic Barbara Biggs, who last month organised a series of protests in major capital cities to highlight problems with the new Family Law Act, said the shared parenting laws presume that the parents "can co-operate, and get on".
"In many cases, these are couples that can't co-operate over what shelf to put the milk," Ms Biggs said. "It's a dreadful situation, to force a woman to live in a town where she has no family and no work, and to say that's the only way the child can be raised."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25554242-601,00.html
Comments (139)
Jason and Thersa, your comments related to the issue of women using breast feeding as an excuse not to part with the child are not fair in this particular case. I was one of subjects in the study, I supported shared care and I think it is vital that a child spends equal time with both parents. I support this, I want this our child NEEDS this.
In my particular case I was self represented in court against an expereinced barrister and ex-partner with legal quals.
I simply asked that the court consider our son's young age and that dad simply wait a few months for son to stay overnight. Dad was already seeing his son 3+ times a week (as is his right). However, not every woman uses her children to pay back her ex. Sometimes men or women will use the legal system to play out their anger and the system is simply designed to make as much money from people, turn them against each other and as fools we sit and bitch about our ex's and make gender stereotypes. Perhaps our attention should focus on a system that encourages large sums of money to be made on the backs of truamatised couples. The lawyer's dig for dirt, we read the dirt, we react = more dirt and more money.
There are those men and women that do the wrong thing by their children and keep them away from the other parent. But please remember NOT EVERYONE fits this catergory.
the mother says she can not get a job..
well i cant beleave that as she is in a mineing comunity even if she has no skills she has a few that can be quite a high income there are other familys there so that means babysitting mother do want to go out and spend sometime by themself.. then there is alway cooking for the so many single men that go to that sort of places to earn big money the mines are always looking for cleaners as well so cant get a job is bullshit get off your ass... as my ex said to me with 4 kids she dont plane on looking for work as she gets $1350 aa fortnight on wounder she dont want to work she makes more than me... then she waists it on grog and gambling...
now my ex forged my signature on my baby daughters passport anflead to newzealand then notified me of her were abouts she has spun so many lies my own parents are now not talking to me as im a descrase to the family.. thanks to the hauge treaty my ex had to come back to aus and answer to passport austr for her bad error in judgement and she only got 18 month for forgy and kidnapping what a joke
now she is babck in aus she wanted to live with my parent who live 6 hrs away from mewhen it went to court the judge didnt except the 1st court order
thesecond 1 was better but my sol said it was the best i would get then i found out after signing the papers my sol was talking behind my back to my ex i was fucked from the start
she is now living 3/4hr away from me and want meet half way cant read the court orders properly and when it suits her she makes up the cort orders to suit herself????????what a jokeso making the mother stay were the father is and his work is a step in the right direction... now what is not said in the case above is why he kicked her out was it somthing she was doing ????
that is what we should be asking dont you think
one single little problem (excuse)is all the court usualy needs to stop access between a father and his child and at what point did every womans word suddenly become gospel when it so obviously is so far from the truth. its good to see they did what was right for once in the mentioned case. like my x its as if there all controled by the same demon
mine now is telling the court that my daughter is now reaching puberty playing a guilt game its all the same attitude and aproach that needs to be stamped out
god help us
Theresa, I have seen posts on a website " single parent australia " which is run by a bunch of feminists and has no merit as a genuine single parent group, where the senior members/ administrators are actively encouraging new members to tell the court to say they are breastfeeding just so the father will be denied access.
In my opinion Barbara Biggs " family law campaign, lets protect our children site " on facebook is nothing more than feminazi propaganda. They have an in memoriam on there of children who have been killed by their PARENTS, ALL are instances of children killed by their father, there is not one single instance of a child being killed by its mother, not one, despite there being many instances of such, some only recently in the media. They are peddling outright lies and misinformation and then encouraging people to sign their petition based on those lies. If anyone reads this post and is on facebook please look at that site and see for yourselves, if you have time, join the group and leave a comment, chances are that if your comments in anyway mention their lies and deceit they will be deleted and you will be banned from the site. Ignore the truth of anything which conflicts with your agendas and rub out anyone who opposes you Adolf Hitler would be proud.
again a little lady adds to this huge debate a token of what has been the greatest myth perpetuated by the fairer{?} sex. this has assisted generations of women to be supported by men and still they have a better than even chance of cheating, lying and still appearing the victim of fanciful claims of whatever will best suit an outcome that suits the mother alone. this selfishness will in time will be seen for just what it is! OUR LITTLE CHILDREN WILL BE BIGGER PEOPLE LONGER THAN THEY ARE LITTLE, THEY WILL REMEMBER, AND WE WILL BE PATIENT
Post of the decade perhaps?
The women who are against the reforms are not feminists. Feminists wants men and women to have equal opportunities in life, including parenting. We also think there's no biological reason one gender is necessarily better at stuff than the other (well, I concede most men can lift heavier stuff than most women, but that doesn't make them better politicians or doctors or artists). My husband is a much better dad than most mums I know. And yet me being a stepmother, there are still people out there who assume that I must be carrying the load for him, because I'm female. Time for these women to get jobs and stop overglorifying motherhood - as much as parents love their kids, and as much as babies can (currently) only be grown inside women, parenting is NOT some magical mystical thing that can only be done by women.
"Jason
Actually this reminds of the yesteryear when men were reluctant to let women into the political and executive sphere. Men would claim they were superior in the workplace and questioned women's "common sense" to be wanting careers. Women were not suited to work roles, they said.
It is no mistake that women's representation in parliament and executive positions today exactly mirrors the number of fathers being allowed into parenting roles post separation by the family court.
The message is: Girls, to get into office, you have to cede some of that "nurturing role" priviledge to men. In the past we had a total labor division- men in the workplace, women as domestic queens and child carers. We each, men and women, need to cede some of our cherished roles in the public and domestic spheres respectively. Until that happens it is unreasonable to expect 50/50 representation in parliament."
Overington a victim of men: { Link }
Reporter is being ‘vilified’ for coverage of family law
Letters Blog | June 10, 2009 | 0 Comments
MEN’S groups are urging people to lodge complaints with the Press Council against Caroline Overington for her coverage of issues relating to shared parenting in Family Court legislation. The reality is that some Family Court judges have made decisions that could not possibly be in any child’s “best interests”. Overington is to be congratulated for having the courage to expose what has been happening ("Lives torn asunder”, Features, 9/6; “Court allows mums to take kids overseas”, 9/6).
For far too long the media has been too afraid of Section 121 of the Family Law Act to investigate and disclose some of the court’s bizarre decisons. For example, a mother secretly imprisoned for refusing to hand over her child to the father who broke into their home, bashed and raped her in the presence of children; a child placed with a father who had not disclosed HIV/AIDS to the mother and had two convictions for child sex offences and one for violence; a boy removed against his wishes from his grandparents and his father to live far away with his nightclub stripper mother, whose partner had just been released from jail for downloading a record number of child-porn images; and children removed from fathers to live with drug-addicted mothers and their sexual-abuser boyfriends.
This is not, and should not be, a gender issue. Child advocates, both women and men, are demanding that children’s safety should take precedence in the Family Court. It’s sad that one of the few journalists prepared to expose child protection and family law issues is being vilified by men using other branches of the media.
Freda Briggs
Adelaide, SA
REGARDING Caroline Overington’s recent coverage of the shared parenting laws, it’s refreshing to see views other than those of the fathers being aired. For 15 years it seems that fathers’ groups have been able to set the agenda, claiming most allegations of abuse against fathers are false without supporting evidence, when there is much research showing that more than 90 per cent of allegations of abuse in custody cases are true.
These groups also claimed five fathers a day committed suicide because they lost access to their children after divorce. They have not produced any credible evidence of this and yet the shared parenting laws were introduced because of their claims.
Children are suffering. The best interests of children are not being served. While fathers continue to fight for their rights, the rights of children are being trampled.
I applaud Overington’s attempts to balance this and wish more journalists would consult experts and research in their reporting, as she is doing.
Barbara Biggs
Convenor, Safer Family Law Campaign
Greenwich, Vic
My letter to the editor today:
Caroline Overington's June 10, 2009, article 'Breastfeeding Mums Forced to Share Care' fails to elaborate whether the mother in the Cairns Case had refused to nominate a time to wean the child. As some mother's groups recommend breastfeeding up to age 5 yrs and beyond, it is highly possible for the breastfeeding argument to be misused simply to alienate a father whom the mother does not want in the child's life. Overington's previous article on the share care topic (June 03, 2009) also failed to mention that the courts found strong evidence that these mothers (cases: Irish and Michelle; Rosa and Rosa) were not encouraging of the father-child relationship generally, with the probability that this behaviour would alienate children from thier fathers. In order that such alienation did not undermine a child’s legal right to a relationship with thier father, judgment was made in both cases in favour of the the father-child relationship. If Caroline Overington continues to omit these details the reader will be left with a woefully misleading account. I recommend The Australian follow on with an article about parents who deliberately undermine a relationship between a child and parent, often for malicious purposes.
Imagine this:
MAGISTRATE: "And how long do you need to breastfeed this child"
ALIENATING MUM: "Oh, shouldn't be more than 18 years"
_____________________________________________________
Naturally these breastfeeding stories are Caroline's continued attempts at hyperbole. Anecdotes of stories of recounts of court-cases.
If one were to look at the actual case material of these two breastfeeding stories (and i hope someone does!) it is HIGHLY likely that the mothers were attepmting to use breastfeeding to withhold and alienate fathers INDEFINATELY from a relationship with the child.
I can almost hear the mother's ploy now: "Oh, dear Judge, I simply want to provide my child with the best possible breastfeeding experience as science suggests it is extremely benificial..... and mothercraft clubs recommend to me that a child be breastfed for up to 7 years of age."
Lol
Overington's pulling on emotion now that facts have failed her. From today's australian:
BREASTFEEDING MUMS FORCED TO SHARE CARE
Caroline Overington | June 10, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THE Family Court is placing infants who have not yet been weaned from the breast into shared care arrangements with their separated parents.
A study by academics at Flinders University has found that infants less than a year old are spending one week on a diet of cow's milk, and one week nursing at the breast, so that parents can share their care, as recommended by the Howard government's shared parenting law.
Others are spending up to three hours a day in a car, shuttling between homes.
The shared parenting laws, introduced in July 2006, are attracting complaints from a range of professionals at the coalface of family law.
The study on the shared care of infants after divorce was conducted by Linda Sweet, of the Flinders University School of Medicine, and Charmaine Power, an associate professor at the School of Nursing and Midwifery.
Their report said the shared parenting law placed "expectations on both parents to participate equally in care, regardless of the child's age".
The report said there was "ample evidence that breastfeeding is the best form of nutrition for infants" and the Australian government's dietary guidelines espouse breastfeeding as the optimal food for children for the first six months of life.
"It would be expected that breastfeeding infants would not be ordered into substantial shared parenting arrangements," the report said. "However, many infants regularly are."
One mother, "Georgianna", separated from her husband when their child was seven months old. The magistrate ordered week-about shared parenting, saying the boy could have his nutritional needs met by means "other than breastfeeding".
"Georgianna's milk supply became erratic as a result of these week-long absences," the report said. At the time of interview, her son was receiving breast milk while with her, and cow's milk while with his father.
"Trish" separated from her husband when their child was five months old. The court ordered shared parenting of seven days a fortnight, but no overnight stays, with dad. The distance between the homes meant the child spent three hours a day in a car seat.
The authors concluded that "national and international guidelines on optimal duration of breastfeeding" have less sway with judges than the benefits of time with fathers. "This in itself is not a bad thing, and all women in our study encouraged father contact," they said.
Breastfeeding was at issue in a Family Court matter heard in Cairns last year, involving a couple who had been married for less than a year when they separated. Their daughter was five months old. The mother was committed to "attachment parenting" and demand feeding, and would not allow the child to stay overnight with her father.
The judge said the mother had "no time set for the child to be weaned" and allowed the father to see the child only when a mothercraft nurse was present (the father had an annual income of more than $280,000, plus a $350,000 annual bonus, so hired help was no problem).
The judge said the father "wanted to take the child out and have her stay overnight but could not "because the mother insisted that the child be breastfed".
The judge said the shared parenting act made it necessary to "consider whether it would be in a child's best interests" to spend such limited time with her father, and concluded that overnight visits should begin three months from the date of the hearing.
We might find out once and for all if Overington's obsession with child custody law is connected to her relationship status.
Go Jeremy. There's nothing like the truth to set things straight ! Do tell us all the state of affairs with this woman's relationship status.
I have just sent an email to Wade O'Leary to hopefully clear this thing up. He clearly quotes Overington in his ninemsm article as claiming to have separated, but according to what she told me, she has never been separated.
Ironically, when challenged by this article, Caroline Overington said "Never believe what you read in the media."
Hmmm, words of wisdom no doubt.
Ian maxwell.
We are already enslaved via the so called family law system and the child abuse oops sorry, the child support agency.
Another article today from Overington implying that drunks at pubs are pushing the shared care theme: { Link }
Another article today from Overington implying that drunks at pubs are pushing the shared care theme: { Link }
It seems that Overington is someone who is not afraid to misuse the media for her own purposes. Just read below, especially the last sentence, which is rather ironic given that we are talking about Overington.
And her denials, no doubt forced onto F4E, seem to contradict other media articles on this topic.
---
Overington slapped with email expose
By Wade O'Leary
ninemsn
Sat November 24, 2007
Caroline Overington is a....journalist who has been in the spotlight before.
Her October 8 article in The Australian.. ........was a bone of contention between Overington and Newhouse when they exchanged emails the next day.
Overington suggested they meet, and added: "now you are single, I might even make a pass at you".
Newhouse referred to her description of him and mentioned that she was married, but Overington said she had separated five months ago and "I might like short, dark and Jewish, you never know."
Ecuyer forwarded the emails to the ABC's Media Watch program and said she was "disgusted to have been lobbied by a journalist from The Australian for my preferences ⦠it's interference with a candidate. Journalists and the media are supposed to be non-biased".
Full article at:
{ Link }
Amanda B.
It appears Caroline Overington HAS had distortions published about her family [ poor girl ha,ha ]and didnt like it one bit [ her supposed marriage break up]. At least some one apologised for this, she hasn't apologised to anyone for her own lies.
I am not apologising for mr Nathan Bocks[adelaide crows player] behaviour recently when he slapped his GF but this man was completely ostracised, treated like a pariah, and had his name dragged through the mud for weeks by the media. Yet when she slapped mr Newhouse across the face i dont recall anything much in the media about it [ in fact this is the first i have heard of it] and she seems to have gotten off scott free with absolutely no damage to her reputation or her employment.
Double standards there methinks.
So she lied afterall.
I read her article about 10 days ago and rember getting upset at how biased her reporting was.
After visiting this site again I realise why I was so upset.........because this journalist is nothing by a liar.
She misquoted Professor Parkinson, who last time I recall was the guy who modified the child support rules, to include shared care.
This woman is hurting many children and good loving parents by her sickening advertisements for angry feminists.
This is not journalism - this is gutter deceite of the worst kind.
The thing about this that makes me wonder is the case that Caroline chose to use in her article. You would think she could find one that suited her agenda. If anything, it actually goes against her argument & illustrates why we need laws like this to protect the rights of children. Does she know the woman involved or is she just a lazy journalist or what? Surely there would be cases she could have cited or are there?
I am prepared to admit that I am frightened by the blind, unwielding determination of feminist politics; as exemplified by Ms Overington. It is a tunnel vision; women must have absolute freedom & choice. It is society's (ie. by default, men's) responsibility to make it happen. The question of men enjoying the same level of choice & freedom simply does not exist in the feminist vocabulary. Children are treated as possesions. They are porns in a game that is about power & money; not love nor the best interests of kids. Feminist groups complain that women do not bring home the same pay as men; for working shorter, more convenient hours in softer jobs, closer to home. They complain that not enough men are busting their balls & paying enough taxes for more lesbians to receive millions of undeserved dollars in IFV treatments & so on. A lesbian here has more right to that than a bloke has to know his own kids; or so feminists would have it. I reckon that would enslave us if they could.
It is such an injustice to all loving parents and their children, when a so called journalist attempts to distort the publics view about what is really going on in the Family Courts.
Quite conveniently Overington has omitted the real basis for both judgements in Rosa & Rosa and Irish & Michelle. The real basis for these judgements is the risk to the children of losing their bond with their fathers, if they remained in the primary care of their mothers.
Both mothers demonstrated they could not be relied on to facilitate the relationship with the fathers. If this had not been the case the mothers would most likely retain "primary care" of the children. Thank God the judges in both cases defended the children rights. This is not about a mothers right to go wherever she pleases.
Where is the journalists concerns about the psychological harm that these kids would be subjected to if exposed to the alienating behaviour of their mothers? Why is it so difficult for her to see this is not about making mothers happy, but about what gives children the best chance of having the benefits of both parents in their lives.
Again I say thank God that at least in these two cases the judges had the sense to put the children first. I certainly hope I'm lucky enough to have this occur with my family law matter.
I've seen both sides of the fence.
My husband's ex thinks she owns the children, plays games and manipulates. Very stressful for everyone - I won't even go into the ins and outs but she is a 'thing'; pure evil.
On the other hand my ex -(by the way I chose to stay in a town I disliked and worked crap jobs for low pay that I hated - due to limited facilities for education in that town to better my opportunities, and had no relationships, so that we could both see the children regularly, for many long years and have only relocated approx 45 mins drive away a couple of years ago when the travelling would be okay for child)- has had the opportunity to have our daughter live with him and has knocked it back!! My husband cannot believe it! He would so love to have his children with us more.
There's no way my ex would give up his high paying job - he likes his expensive toys and his 'lifestyle' too much - not that he would have to live on the poverty line like I did - with his qualifications he could find a nine to fiver locally that would have meant that he could have our daughter - plus he would have family support from his wonderful parents if needed. Right now he is off interstate visiting his new girlfriend with no offer to our daughter of taking her for the long weekend - she is upset and angry with him. I used to like that man and think he was a good Dad but now it seems his child is last on the list.Compared to my husband his efforts are woeful.
Yes I agree the mother seems to think she owns the child and probably wouldn't facilitate the relationship very well. The proof of this for me is that even if the father chose to relocate the mother still only wants him to see her every second weekend .. etc etc. Selfish!
Yet the Father feels that making money to 'better his family' - (money not good enough closer to Sydney, or even Brisbane or some larger Regional centre?)and to have an interesting job is more important than actually spending time with the child.
So ultimately, in my humble opinion which indeed may be biased as myself and my husband would sacrifice ANYTHING for our children, I think there was a Solomon's choice here - and if the mother had been allowed to relocate (wrong choice) the father would have willingly given up the right to see his daughter EVERY week and priorited his job (wrong choice). So the Mother lost her case and will make the sacrifices necessary to see her child regularly. (RIGHT choice).
How would Caroline Overington feel if distortions were published about her own family?
Maybe she would understand how personal it is if people were publishing distortions about HER OWN children, and HER relationship with them or about the father's relationship with the children?
This woman has lost a lot of readers over this, readers whom I know actually liked her writing till this latest barrage and who now have completely abandoned her and in some cases abandoned The australian newspaper.
Caroline Overington's June 03, 2009, article 'FAMILY LAW EXPERTS SLATE SHARED PARENTING' presents two (2) examples (Irish and Michelle; Rosa and Rosa).
How will the children of Irish and Michelle and the daughter of Rosa and Rosa feel when they read Overington's diastortions about thier parents? Will these children know that Caroline Overington has made distortions about thier parents? Will the other school kids tease these children because of Overington's articles?
I would have thought, having twin children, that she would care about kids and about what stories she chooses to circulate in public. But no, Caroline has no sensitivity to these children and doesnt care for truth.
Let me be clear. In both these cases cited above the mother in both families was found by a court judge to have strongly undermined the father's relationship with the children, and visa versa. Thats the crux of both matters. That Overington sees fit to demonise these fathers and the protective decisions of the courts is itself a form of child abuse against these poor children. Caroline Overington has mislead the public about sensitive family court cases in total disregard for the children in question.
PARENT LAW TIES WOMEN TO MEN
Overington
How ridiculous you tied yourself together the moment you had the child married/separated/divorced the child is 'both' your responsibilty until they reach the age of 18+ in some cases.
So being civil to one another is not that hard is it? for the sake of the child?
It is a long time to carry on bitching and besides having no stress will keep you looking attractive so you can gobble anothe man up.
Reality is a good word.
Carolyn Overington 29/05/2009:
Take your onesided blinkers off.. Mrs Rosa was not ordered to live in North Queensland it was her choice if she wanted to still have shared/contact etc; with her daughter.I think it was an extremely good outcome for a change the dad actually came out the winner and that is very rare and I am hoping for more off that.
For a start Mrs Rosa's and her famliy are very negative of the childs father what chance would he have had? do you honestly think the mother would have put the child on a plane to see her father? and keep the relation going? I say not! Would she have answered the phone for the dad to speak to his daughter when he would have rang? I say not! Mrs Rosa was probably a very happy woman when she shifted to the isolated place the money and extra bonus's in living in these types of places make good for saving and getting ahead.If her husband had her bags packed and on the front veranda then it takes two to cause a break down? Overington you do not know the facts so stop guessing and stop pointing the finger at the man. If you have ever lived in a place that is isolated they have the best social lives and a tight/happy community.
You make your life with your husband where ever work takes you isn't he suppose to be the 'light of your life' and he yours? I lived in an isolated place and I had two jobs? If you want to get of your arse and stop feeling sorry for yourself make a life and live it with your child..in a place that she can also share with her father. Living in a caravan is not that bad I am sure the child enjoys it for the time she is there and the other part she enjoys with her father at his home. I am sure that there would be other accommodation around but it would look and sound better if Mrs Rosa tells the court 'we live in a caravan' a lot of women like you are tard to the same brush. You all take all.. and you all have the selfishness to think that women are the only one's capable to bring up children? well let me tell you, men do a pretty good job a lot of times better than women! As long as you all think that you can be in control of the men/children and household if that does not happen then all hell breaks loose hey? Honestly what chance would the father have if his daughter returned to Sydney? none because Rosa and her family would have stopped that including brainwashing the child so that their relationship would have failed and you Mrs Overington would do the same thing.
Maybe the new laws might give you all a shake up as sure as hell your type of women need it. My ex husband was having an affair my daughter was 10 I gave her a choice if she would like to stay with me or her father, she said to me after thinkng about it "mum l will always love you but I would like to live with dad" years later I found out that she talked to her father re out conversation. I did that because I did not want to drag her through the court and the system. My heart broke and I still struggle with that I am 62 she is now 32 but all I wanted for her was to be happy and she spent time with both of us.
Children are not your prize possession and only yours
to keep..they are to be shared with your husband/partner that you were so happy with until relationships break down and then the men in your eyes become arseholes/sexual abusers and so on any lies that seem to surface after a breakdown but it was never an issue when you were both together? The shock and hurt for dads being accused of that in my books is 'you cannot get lower' My son has been to hell and back thanks to women like you being bitchy and unco-operative just imagine how much money could be saved instead of paying it to lawyers/courts..the word is humanity/caring/use your brain and stop trying to use all your excuses to put the father/s of your children down.
Also Mrs Rosa would have been quite happy to put her child on a plane to travel all that way and seemingly quite ignorant of what a flight stewards job is..I would never have done that to my child..would Rosa have put her on the plane? No as I am sure down the track she would have made up some excuse that her child was too scared to travel alone? or that it was costing her a lot of money that she never had? the excuses are enormous and thank god the judge saw through that.
to David A/Peter and Albert we will keep fighting these cats in numbers we hopfully will work better aa a pack!
Grandma Judith
Mrs Overington should realize the source of the rumours about her marital struggles is posted on the internet and is the source of the ongoing rumours. F4E surely is just picking up the rumours.
Perhaps Caroline Overington can stop her massive and deliberate distortion of family law cases?
She's an extremely dishonest person who, in the opinion of most, cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything.
Caroline Overington has requested that Fathers4Equality publish the following retraction and correction. We do so unreservedly and regret any hurt that this false statement may have caused Caroline or her family.
======================================
"Fathers4Equality this week sent out an email suggesting that Caroline Overington had separated from her husband and is involved in a custody dispute.
Caroline is not separated or divorced, and has two wonderful children who would be deeply distressed by the idea that their parents are involved in an acrimonious separation."
========================================
I am a father who has experienced the most remarkable resistance you can imagine to my seeing my little girl independantly of her mother.
Her mother wants no arranagements in place because sit diminishes her complete control over our daughter.
I filed an application with the Court seeking contact with my daughter, and the mother has responded saying that I have sexually abused our daughter.
I have always expected the worst from her, but even I didn't see this one coming.
Her proof is that our daughter told her, however our daughter has denied this to DoCS.
After getting a handfull of experts to review the allegations, it is clear that our daughter never said anything of the sort.
DoCS have closed the file and I have been given overnight access with my daughter from the Court at our Interim Hearing, but the mother STILL refuses to let me see her.
So I would think these disgusting journalists who peddle such lies should think twice about what is really going on out there.
I have not seen my daughter for almost one year, despite the Court, DoCS and a consulting physician saying that no abuse has occured.
So maybe these laws are too soft......has Overington ever considered that?
As a mother and a grandmother, I feel so much is wrong with the judicial system when they can't see through the lies and deceit of the "primary care giver", who in a majority of situations, is the mother. After just finishing with court, i am at a loss as to how "mothers" can use blackmail, manipulation and threats just so a father can not see his children. the damage on the children is disgusting and will eventually come back to bite them, in the meantime, we have to deal with the fallout. No-one is a winner in this case, we now have to repair the damage and get on with our lives. We support the children and hopefully time will heal all wounds. I fully supported my son in law (my daughter is, as my son in law states: 2nd wife, 1st love) as do all of the members of our blended family.
In time I hope she, the ex, realises the damage she did.
The way she has omitted many of the judges findings in at least 2 of her articles and misrepresented those findings, i would have thought would be tantamount to contempt of court.I think she is treading a very fine line, my opinion only.
Caroline Overington's assertions that she is not pushing some other organisations barrow is probably true in a formal sense, but with her attitude in refusing to publish opposite stories to her argument that show shared parenting works, only goes to further bolster the belief that she is most definitely a sympathiser for those who would undo the new changes and for those who align themselves with radical interest groups, who have a distinct hatred of men/fathers.
We are not convinced by her words, when her actions are very loudly saying quite the opposite.
{ Link }
2007 Federal Election
In the lead up to the 2007 Federal Election, Overington was accused of improper behaviour with regard to two candidates for the Division of Wentworth. It was reported that she solicited preferences for Malcolm Turnbull from an independent candidate.[4].
She and other media figures have characterized the email exchange as a joke.[5] She was also accused of threatening the ALP candidate George Newhouse with adverse press coverage unless he acceded to her demands to submit to an interview and photograph.[6]
On election day itself, Overington was involved in an incident with Newhouse. She had gone to a polling station at a Sydney primary school to vote. Newhouse and other witnesses claim that Overington slapped Newhouse across the face.[7][8]
Overington said she pushed Newhouse away with an open hand when he approached her; the editor-in-chief of The Australian, Chris Mitchell, mediated the dispute between the two.[9] The Australian published an apology by Overington on 4 December 2007.[10]
The Australian Electoral Commission did not launch an investigation and no formal finding against Ms Overington was made
Wow, she has been caught red handed in a lie. Given the report being prepared on these amendments does she not realise the amount of damage she could be inflicting to the impartiality of this report with her mis-represented quotes.
She could ultimately be harming many many children in this country.
And BTW, she claims not to be sympathetic to these angry-mothers groups? Yeah right, I may not be too bright but even I can see through that.
I have just read that Overington had mis-quoted the Professor. He in fact supports the shared care laws but Overington has made him sound like he wants them removed.
Now if I did something like this in my job I would be sacked!
J LANE.
I have the utmost sympathy for you.When i was going for custody of my daughter, i got a great deal of information from her maternal grandmother regarding the abuse and neglect my daughters mother was inflicting on our daughter, verbal abuse,being left alone all night while her mother was out partying and pubbing, being left alone all day and made to go hungry while home sick from school etc, my daughter was only 5/6/7 yo at the time. When it came to court time however my ex had threatened her mother, and said that if i got custody, that i would never let her see her granddaughter again, and had also tried the parental alienation trick on my daughter as well. As a result of these threats and intimidation the grandmother actually commited perjury stating that my daughter was being well looked after despite knowing the opposite was true.When i eventually did get custody the ex then assaulted her then 75yo mother blaming her for the fact that she had lost her daughter despite her mother perjuring herself.
I suppose that after i got custody of my daughter i would have been quite within my rights to deny the maternal grandmother access to my daughter after she had lied to the court and by doing so almost sabotaging my efforts to save my daughter but i didn't.She was allowed to come over to my house and see my daughter 3 times a week and i was also able to get court orders that all time my ex spent with our daughter was spent at the grandmothers house giving her even more time, i also let my daughter sleep over at her house for a night most weekends.
J Lane,
I completely understand and fully support your view.
I am also very sorry for you and your son, that you have had to suffer like this.
Not to mention the suffering of his children!
And you are correct in suggesting that this happens a lot to fathers post divorce.
In fact, the vast majority of acrimonious cases that present to the family court end up this way, or worse. There have been tens of thousands of fathers and children who have suffered like this. And this is not counting all the extended family such as yourself who also suffer immeasurable torment at the loss of grandchildren.
Women have been far too enabled in the family law and criminal law arena and they can virtually get away with murder.
The lies behind false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, are not only destructive of a man's reputation, but are also soul destroying to say the least. I know this from first hand experience.
Even the children have an opinion about the false allegations. My four children are so very angry at their mother for lying and going to the police and court to get an AVO. Now, none of them trust the police, courts, psychologists, and most definitely not their own mother.
This is the bi-product of the activities of radical feminists in our society over the last 35 years. They hate men/fathers and they hate families. But the person they hate the most, is a happily married woman/mother.
Why?
Because this woman has something they cannot have. A good man, children a home and a great safe life, which I might add is mostly provided by the man/father who is ready to lay his life down to protect his family.
These sad bitter twisted crettins (feminists and the like), have enlisted the help of other women in society to fight their vulgar battles. Now we see women in all walks of life adopting the values of these disgusting feminists, which is why we see so many obnoxiously behaved women after divorce. Not even 2 year old children display behaviour as bad as this.
There are so many statistices out there from govt and university funded studies, that show domestic violence is perpetrated equally across the gender spectrum, but that child abuse is committed by natural mothers at twice the rate of natural fathers.
Yet, all we see on TV are advertisements of abusive men toward women and children.
In all media, they call for a halt to abuse against women and children at the hands of men, when they are ignoring the truth that women are equally if not worse than men.
What about the poor innocent men who are brutally abused by vicious women?
What about the poor innocent children who are brutally abused by women, but are ignored because the authorities have been told that women do not abuse anyone?
When we then see stories in news papers written by women like Caroling Overington, who are nothing but bitter angry and utterly horrid people, who have given themselves permission to lie in public, then what chance do we have of re-educating the general public and indeed women, that they have been fed lies for decades and that we must attack violence in a different way altogether and force society to call for the complete protection of children from anyone who seeks to harm them.
In Australia today because of what is happening to our families, we are in a very bad place indeed!!
Correction issued by The Australian Today.{ Link } I suspect there are many correction imminent.
SHARED PARENTING LAWS
Letters Blog | June 04, 2009 | 0 Comments
I AM writing in response to your front-page article (“‘Flaws’ in Howard’s parenting law”, 3/6) to correct the record. I was misrepresented. I did not say that the shared parenting laws were deeply flawed and should be thrown out and replaced with something new. I said that there was a need for tweaking and that parliament should give clearer signals, but that any amendment should be made very cautiously and only on the basis of the best evidence available. I said that the Government should not legislate on the basis of horror stories or anecdotes.
Your story used a quote from me concerning week-about arrangements for children under two that was incorrect. I said: “There have been some cases where quite young children are doing week-about (one week with Dad, one with Mum).” My views were clearly stated throughout the interview.
Professor Patrick Parkinson
Faculty of Law, University of Sydney
I am a grandma and one grandchild is now 6 I have been allowed to see her once at the allowance of a very nasty mother who 'dished' out the orders 'how long where and when'the other child I saw for 60 seconds just after she was born and at the present that poor baby is going through dna testing.I am appalled and confused to understand why are men getting the shitty end of the stick all the time. When the couple were married and living together the husband was a great husband, great dad,and pleasing the wife worked his guts out 60 hours + a week (most of the time that was not up to her standard he was not earning enough)then along comes the breakdown (she decides it's over and most of the men never really find out why)it goes to court as the mother decides that the dad is bad even to the point of saying he has molested the child any lie will do.She tells him she will stop him from seeing his child or contacting them and she will say or do anything to make this a reality (her words). She curses the father in front of his daughter and the swear words would burn your ears off. My son loves his daughter/daughters?
and all he wants is to see them and spend time with them just as he did in the marriage. The result is engage a lawyer as he could not communcate with the mother and she told hm that children should be wth their mothers.4 years later $40,000 later he is still trying to have contact with his child. He rings x2 week and rarely does she pick the mobile up so he can talk to the children.She has breached the court orders by removing the children 10 hours driveaway to live with her father on the property my son was paying for.She and her father had a dream years before my son met her that they would have a property and she would have a daughter and live with her father happily ever after. The thing was the man that provided the property was never in the pact once that took place he was out.
The court ordered that the child/children never to be left in the care of the grandfather that court order was breached also. Why would you want to put your children in an unsafe place? Now to go back to court to have both these breaches and many other things she seems to have got away with and continues to do so, will cost my son 10's of thousands of dollars as his lawyer says, now like most working people who has that sort of money? This lady received most of the assests, she had $10,000 in the bank my son had nothing and months before she had transferred his money from his bank account to her unknown bank accounts my son was unaware that she had. She is a very
controlling/manipulated/vindictive even forging his name what can be done about her? Nothing because it all costs money and the law and courts are with the women. They say it is the child's welfare they are interested in that is a load of crap if that was so then my granddaughters would not be living on the same place as the grandfather.The oldest daughter who loves her father has been contanstly brainwashed by the mother and the G/father especially before my son calls the mobile and she decides to let the daughter speak to him. On my one and only visit to see my grandchild when she was alone with myself and my son she was very happy until her mothers car pulled up and her persona changed and so did her attitude against myself and my son, it wa heart pulling to say the least to hear a child start to abuse her father just as the mother does.I take time here to mention that all mothers are not like that nor are a lot of fathers.If some mothers with the child would stop and think that the fathers have feelings/heart/ just as mothers do fathers are no different stop the nastiness and stop being bitches let the kids see their dad's 50-50. One thing these mothers should remember 'kids grow up' they can see and hear how you bad mouth their dads and one day they will turn around to you and say'I want to go and live with my dad'
and only then, when you are alone will you start to feel a little bit of the heartache/lonliness that they went through, if you can see now through your bitterness it is not to late to start changing, children love mum's and their dad's. Watch 'find my family'and if that does not bring a tear to your eye then you do not have a heart and a lot of those people on that program are results of mothers being bitches and lying to their kids and filling their little heads with shit. It will eventually come out in the end and the child finds ou the truth and guess what you have lost your child who is now an adult because of your selfishness. As for the laws and the courts we will have to wait until they experience these issues within their own families because you have to go through it to know it. Instead we have to put up with these people that carry these laws out or make up their own and have not got a bloody clue about what is good for the kids!THINK
Great stuff.
Good to see that there is some equality.
Obviously the Australian is putting its own slant on this and failing to see that children love their fathers too.
Great stuff.
Good to see that there is some equality.
Obviously the Australian is putting its won slant on this and failing to see that children love their fathers too.
It seems as though these new laws are in place to protect innocent children from the likes of Caroline Overington, which is probably why she is trying to get rid of this law.
She can probably see the writing on the wall, that her ex may get more time with their children than she wants him to have.
Oh but hang on, she bore this child/ren and then it suckled from her breast, which means that it is her property to do with as she pleases.
I'm sorry; I don't mean to belittle the effort put into nine months of gestation etc, but at the end of the day, it only lasts for a short time and then the child must have both parents there all the time to ensure a proper upbringing and balanced input from both parents, so this child can grow into a healthy adult.
If everyday cannot be achieved, then the child must have the next best thing.
Kelly T
I Heard the same thing, that Caroline Overington was going through a bitter custody dispute. Her husband is apparently threatening to make the case public. In the meantime she is (mis)using her position with The Australian to demonise her husband and the shared-care laws.
Catherine - I have no idea who you are - but your logic is flawed on so many counts. You say that fathers do not own the kids - well neither do the mothers. You say children "come from the mothers body not the fathers" - last time i checked it took two to tango.
Look Catherine its about whats best for the kids. Read the research. Kids are better off in so many ways under joint custody.
In my own case my youngest daughter 7 was soiling herself, could not tie a shoe lace, making her own breakfast, she could not dry her self after a shower, had a number of minor health issues and was struggling at school. Mum would not let me help. Mum would not do anything about it. Mum would give me every other weeekend(and by the way was independantly weathly and did not need to work.
Imagine at 7 not being able to toilet yourself. Could not wipe her own bottom. She would do it in her pants. At 7. CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT?
My ex could not cope and refused help. Sadly it took months of legal action and tens of thousands of dollars to get her to see sense.
Now my daughter is on the improve and able to toilet herself, and is cared for mostly by me. Although technically its shared care.
Her school has commented on many occasions how my three daughters are so much better off in my care.
Catherine - being a mother does not mean you are a good carer - nor does being a dad for that matter. You have to do what is best for the kids.
These new laws were a fundemental reason for the improvement in my daughters life and they are fantastic. Without them life for my daughter would still stink.
I just read somewhere that this is all about her bitter divorce. It sounds like she has an axe to grind with her ex
Other contacts details from The Australian
Editorial Contacts
Letters to the editor are welcome and can be emailed to letters@theaustralian.com.au
Grant Holloway
hollowayg@theaustralian.com.au
Business Manager - Online
02 9288 2336
Nic Hopkins
hopkinsn@theaustralian.com.au
Editor - Online
02 9288 2376
Sections
Arts: arts@theaustralian.com.au
Books: ausbooks@theaustralian.com.au
Business: business@theaustralian.com.au
Editor: editor@theaustralian.com.au
Sorry, that was March (misread as May). Same crusade nevertheless.
Ash you forgot one: The Australian March 31, 2009
Mother loses kids for anti-dad stance. That takes her total feature article count to five (5) in as many days!~
The Australian 30-June-09
Agony of children at divorce has clout
The Australian 29-May-09
Parent law ties women to men
The Australian March 31, 2009
Mother loses kids for anti-dad stance
The Australian 3-June-09
Family Law experts slate shared-parenting
The Australian 3-June-09
'Flaws' in John Howard's parenting law
This woman is relentless. Today she has published two stories on the same topic.
She has recently separated and seems to be in a rush to change these laws in time for her own custody hearing.
And she will still not refer to any of the shared parenting information we have sent her. This is an ugly misuse of her position.
The Australian 3-June-09
Family Law experts slate shared-parenting
The Australian 3-June-09
'Flaws' in John Howard's parenting law
The Australian 30-June-09
Agony of children at divorce has clout
The Australian 29-May-09
Parent law ties women to men
Notice Overington is perpetuating the lie that the case rested on the fact that "...a mother was told she could not leave a remote mining town in northwest Queensland with her five-year-old daughter because her ex-husband wanted to stay there and work."
In fact the case rested on this detail: [15 May 2009; FamCAFC 81] His Honour stated: “The mother unfortunately gave me the distinct impression that she was somewhat self-centred also in her position with regard to the child. I gained the distinct impression that the mother’s view was that there was only one person of priority in relation to the relationship with the child, and that was her." and "Without a second’s hesitation I would find that the circumstances which would arise if the mother to be living in Sydney and the father living in [North West Queensland] would have the most serious and detrimental affect [sic] upon the very close and important relationship that exists and which should be fostered and developed between this child and the father. Unfortunately, the impression I get is that there would be little if any real encouragement of that relationship by the mother, and if anything, it would be discouraged by those family members having close interaction with the child if in the mother’s care in Sydney. The impression that I gained, unfortunately, was that if the mother were to live in Sydney with the child, that there would be an almost automatic deterioration in the relationship between the father and the child and that that would be to the detriment of the child.” [end quote]
Overington sure uis risking her credibility by misleading readers about the basis of the decision.
Overington's at it again with another (article No.5) in today's Australian:
FLAWS IN 'JOHN HOWARD'S' PARENTING LAW
Caroline Overington | June 03, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THE shared-parenting law introduced by the Howard government is deeply flawed and must be either amended or thrown out and replaced with something new.
That is the view of Patrick Parkinson, who was chairman of the Family Law Council when the legislation was being developed, and the council's current chairman, John Wade.
Professor Wade said the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act of 2006, designed to give children access to both their parents after divorce, was incoherent, "filled with gobbledegook" and failed to give judges "the clear signals they need to make good decisions".
"So there have been some horrible decisions," Professor Wade added. He said it set up false expectations for fathers, who believed it would guarantee them a 50-50 time split with their children, and it condemned other children, including infants, to a damaging cross-country "shuttle life" between warring parents.
Professor Parkinson said the amendment did not give clear signals, nor give judges enough guidance on when shared parenting was appropriate and when it was not.
"There have been some cases where children under the age of two are doing week-about (one week with the father, one with the mother) and often travelling long distances," Professor Parkinson said. "Young children often do well with frequent contact with both parents, but it is important to avoid long separations from the primary caregiver.
"If you've got mum and dad living around the corner it might be fine because frequent short visits are possible."
He said the law needed "tweaking". "It's sometimes that the parliament needs to send clear signals," he said. "This is not a coherent piece of legislation."
The Australian has recently reported on Family Court decisions that have troubled some family law experts. In one case, known as Irish and Michelle, the Family Court ordered that two Tasmanian children be removed from the care of their mother, with whom they had lived all their lives, to live with their father, who had moved to Melbourne to be with his new girlfriend. There was no abuse or neglect.
The judge thought the mother had not encouraged the children to maintain a relationship with their father after he left home.
In another case, known as Rosa and Rosa, heard in Townsville last month, a mother was told she could not leave a remote mining town in northwest Queensland with her five-year-old daughter because her ex-husband wanted to stay there and work. The couple had lived there less than a year before they broke up and the mother, who said she would not leave without her daughter, is now confined to poverty, and life in a caravan.
Professor Parkinson said judges in different states were interpreting the law differently. In Victoria and Western Australia, for example, parents were more likely to be allowed to relocate with a child after a divorce than in NSW.
The Family Law Council - a statutory body established in 1976 to give the attorney-general advice on whether family law is working, and which comprises judges, lawyers and family law academics - recently compiled a paper on shared parenting that found a "new breed" of family disputes had cropped up in the Family Court since the shared parenting amendment was enacted, "namely attempts to stop the primary residential parent from moving within or across a city".
Some members of the council are also concerned about the "undisputed damage to young children engaged in shuttle lives".
What a breath of fresh air. The more I read about these mothers complaining about their rights or accusing all men of being child abusers, the more I am just over it.
These new laws and good and are here to stay. Just in time for my young boys who are now 16 and 19.
Thank you very much Family Court from a grateful mother who actually puts her kids first.
Plain and simple.
You can't move a child to a different location if its not in the child's best interests.
Stop whining about mother's rights and start focussing on what matters most - the children!
Mothers don't 'own' the children and neither do fathers.
From my understanding separated parents are not allowed to move interstate anyway without the courts permission. That is so stop vindictive ex-partners (of either gender) moving far away with any children as a way of hurting the other parent.
In the case in question she moved interstate and the court rightly intervened according to the law.
The presumption of equal parenting is there to allow children to spend equal time with both parents. It has worked for my situation for the last 11 years although granted when my ex wife moved several times in the middle of the night without saying anything I moved too so my children could have the most balanced upbringing under the circumstances.
The thing that really disappoints me is that when the new laws were drafted, ftb changes with centrelink which went AGAINST the trends in the new legislation and were implemented in a rather secretive way with no real explanation as to the reasoning behind the process.
Csa changes finally recognised that even if a parent has a child with them for limited time each fortnight then that time should still be taken into account.
Centrelink in all their wisdom changed the qualifications so that in order to receive ftb one parent has to have a minimum 35% time with children and that only grants 25% of ftb amount.
Conveniently enough 35% of time is just a little more than the draconian every 2nd weekend and half holidays (29%) sentence passed on so many non-custodial parents under the old system.
Now one parent needs to have 5 nights per fortnight with one child to be eligible for ftb for that child.
Its bad enough to have time spent regarded as not relevant but then to have any financial assistance from the government given to the other parent when the children aren't even there is just plain dumb.
Can anyone explain the logic of this to me? Centrelink couldnt!
I rang the help line as suggested in their letter but they just kept repeating that the changes were in line with the new legislation when clearly it went the opposite way. Finally one man I was talking to finally admitted that they gave more back through the csa and took it back again via ftb.
The system is still biased.
Mothers dont 'own' the children and neither do that fathers.
The presumption of equal parenting is there to allow children to spend equal time with both parents. It has worked for my situation for the last 11 years although granted when my ex wife moved several times in the middle of the night without saying anything I moved too.
Theresa,
I have just read the comments on the blog on the Australian. Most comments are like this blog, in support of this judgment.
I have posted my comments but they are not up yet.
These articles seem to go against the grain of what most Australians believe, so I hope this journalist finally gets the message that is no longer about women but about the kids
After reading this article who can trust the media
Anyone like to comment? { Link }
As a divorced father of 3 young children I object to the sexist bias of your article "Parent law ties women to men". My ex-wife lives in a part of Australia that is remote with regards to the type of work for which I am qualified. The institutional bias still exists as propagated by pre-2006 Family Law that the mother effective owns the children and this has made me homeless and unemployable for almost 2 years since I wish to be near my children. I am still in a constant battle to gain access to the children I love so much. They cry because they are scared I will have to go away and they will never see their father again. Child Support Agency and Centrelink show no regard for the concept of the new Shared Parenting idea and the person, generally the mother, who seizes control of the children first gets all the benefits and the other parent is hung out to dry. It is no wonder the jobless and suicide rates amongst separated fathers is 10 times the national average in Australia, and your article reinforces sexist stereotypes about separated fathers and the lack of need for them to be in their children's lives. The new parent law ties both parents to their children: I find it incredulous that Caroline Overington finds this unacceptable on grounds that it inconveniences only the female parent. I thank The Australian newspaper for supporting the right of children to be parented by both parents.
I wonder if this will get published?
I notice a discussion on this topic is going on over at The Australian blog here: { Link }
This Overington is sure obsessed about this topic. I hear she was confronted face to face by some radical feminists who drove this agenda home to her. She has written about it three days running. Wonder if we'll get a fouth?
Its about the children and its about time.
Finally a good decision from the Family Court.
Overington has run the same story on Friday, Saturday and Monday.
So, is she a journalist or just a lobbyist?
What a great decision! It gives me new hope in the Family Court of Australia.
Finally children are coming first!
I am absolutely outraged at the feminist rubbish and the tired arguments which seem to be dragged out in response to any suggestion of equality in any arena ( but especially in parenting). It's about time everyone stopped competing and started cooperating.
It would appear that Catherine is in serious need of some counselling - there are big unresolved issues there, it is not normal to be that bitter. It really pains me to see so many women punishing their exs for whatever reason, without stopping to realise that they are depriving their children of so much.
A child is not a possession or a bargaining chip, or a weapon. And if you love your child so much, stop and think about it - they are the product of you AND your ex. They are not YOURS, they are innocent, loving and defenceless souls who are relying on their parents to raise them as best they can. You can't tell me that separating them from their fathers, lying or being unnnecessarily rude about fathers, or being difficult and disagreeable about joint decisions is raising your child as best you can.
I am also wondering - Mothers like Catherine, who think they have the right to take their child anywhere, who think the child is soully theirs, who believe that their rights are most important - are you still demanding child maintenance payments from the father you refuse to acknowledge? It's one or the other Ladies, if you dont want him in your life and the child's life, don't demand/expect his support, do it yourself!!!
on the matter of rosa and rosa reported in the australian, i think it is 2 different issues for the argument of equal parental responsibility and custody, and to force the childs mother to live in a isolated town that they have lived in for only 7 months to maintain the shared parenting arrangement. if the father was serious about wanting shared custody, i think he should be able to see that it would be in the child's best interests to live in a community that supported both parents, which may require some sort of sacrifice on his part in terms of employment, but i think that that is necessary in some cases. As much as i am all for shared custody (and i am currently in a court case myself fighting for my children) and i have had to make many sacrifices in terms of employment etc just in order to be able to see my children. i am currently on the dole, and do what i have to do, and always put my childrens interest before that of my own. i believe that that both parties have to be reasonable about the expectations of each other in order for these shared parenting laws to work, or otherwise the press and womens activists are going to get their back up about cases just like this one, and we may well end up seeing these laws changed in the not too distant future, if we arent careful and sensible about the way we conduct ourselves and use these laws to maintain a meaningful relationship with out children.
I have been reading alot of the family court cases as well as alot of media articles because I am in the midst of this hell of being desecrated of my fundamental character and if I may ask, why are bad things happening to good people and good things happening to bad people? Sometimes its just unbelievable what has become of this world. Its just like we have lost the sense of right and wrong and perhaps some of this so call selfish mothers are people who are just so empty in themselves that they think children are just their precious properties. I and my little boy are trapped in this demonic ego of a selfish person that she is completely not seeing what is right and how much emotional damage she is doing to us(me and my little boy). Its not surprising that some people up the heirachy are not being fair enough to see the sense of right and wrong. The law should be practically applied atleast to save our children from demonic ego of one parent. I guest my case when it comes up will be interesting to follow.
I pray for the almighty to help us
"..is being isolated from extended family in the child's interest?"
The judge found evidence that if the mother were to move the child back to the extended family they would conspire to stop the child having any further contact with the father. Naturally therefore it is in the best interests of the child, in this case, for the mother not to abscond with the child to the inlaws.
Reasonable?
Amanda
Richard,
try a different postcode and at least your vote will count.
There is defiantly a movement happening throughout la la land ( the courts ) and throughout the controlled media to destroy the equal parenting assumption. I have heard one Judge say that it doesn't work and needs to change, i am of the opinion that such changes will take decades for society as a whole to adjust and will take a similar time frame for parents to adjust to the realization that when children come into a relationship, despite the future of the relationship the children's needs to parental access and influence are mandatory and above all else.
One major problem is that we as a society are not taught such things, this is not promoted and should be done so throughout our schooling process.
In the particular case mentioned the father should also agree to take the child's best interests as his first priority. Is the child living in a caravan acceptable by his standards? is being isolated from extended family in the child's interest?
And from the mothers point of view, she seemed to follow the work,(money,family without an issue is it then fair to run away when the relationship fails leaving the child possibly damaged due to her own wishes coming before the child's?
Other cases have allowed such a move when the parent fleeing agrees to cover the costs of travel, be it flight or otherwise, so the child can maintain the most beneficial relationships it requires to develop to his/her fullest potential.
I believe there is ample measure for the newish regulations to be successful in any case, if the parents first look past their own financial interests, their own self indulgent behaviors
and focus on their children's long term development.
Overall, changing legislation alone will only create loopholes and hostility not to mention revenue for the courts, the final solution lies in the education of our children through reasoning, involving them in the resolution of issues and finally throughout our schooling process.
The ethics of the artical to one side, I live in a remote community - Nhulunbuy, post code 0881. A very effective way to skew the stats is to tell me that my post code dosn't exist.
I exists when I want to get mail, or vvote, but not for the Australian papers vote.
Nice one "The Australian", but not very subtle.
âParent Law ties women to menâ Caroline Overington 29th May 2009
What Caroline Overington fails to comment on is that this is a big win for the child of this relationship. Now she will be able to have a relationship with both parents. If they canât cooperate on what shelf to put the milk, now they will be forced to grow up and cooperate with the raising of their child.
For too many years it has been too easy for evil, vindictive women to isolate children for their dadâs with the courtâs help. I have had contact only 3 times in 6 years with my children. None of my brothers and sisters and their families have had contact with my children since separation. My Ex is an only child and her mother is the only immediate relative. These types of women should never be allowed to alienate the other parent from their children.
It has cost me $150K in legal fees and despite her pleading guilty to contravening Contact Orders many times, she continues to do it. There really needs to be a way to take the financial cost out of Family Law and the financial advantage that women still get.
My only hope is that one day went my children grow up they will see her for what she really is and then treat her accordingly.
I am currently in the waiting room of a mediation centre to discuss me ex's intention to relocate. So I know all about the selfishness of these angry women
catherine
My ex walked out with our daughter when she was 5 years old, i then fought tooth and nail for custody of her for almost 3 years, despite her being abused and neglected by her mother during the entire time the family court and its social worker minions didnt give a toss. When i eventually got custody [ only when my 8 yo daughter voted with her feet ], she was in a terrible state unable to do even basic things like wash herself properly, tell the time, tie her shoelaces etc, she was underweight and in poor health and was put in a special class for slow children,her mother had also made attempts to alienate her from me but our daughter is made of sterner stuff than to let that happen.Eventually, because of her behaviour [ property damage and death threats made to me in front of our daughter etc] her mother was only allowed supervised access with our daughter every second sunday [bet you hate that dont you]. She is now currently doing the second year of an honours degree in psychology at university and achieving credits, distinctions and high distinctions, a far cry from the abused and neglected child i inherited from her mother and our broken family law system. My daughter has said that if she goes on and does her PHD its subject matter will be what she had to go through as a child and the glaring inadequacies of the family law system. Hopefully it is through people like my daughter who has experienced first hand what a difference a loving father can make to a childs life that a more balanced view will emerge and the poisonous lies and hatred such as you spew forth will finally be silenced forever.
This is so typical of women. It is all about power, control and money. It is irresponsible, and typical media propaganda. I agree with Ash's comments about campaigns by women's groups. As is usually the case, the article completely misrepresents the truth, and yet it gets so much publicity. Completely irresponsible reporting bt the Australian! This should never have made it into the papers. So many mothers forget what the most important thing is - the children - not them.
What hapenned to it all being about the children? Maybe they thought that everyone could see through that faccade.
Now they are arguing that mothers should have more rights than children!
At least they are honest about their motivation.
To me this is a sure sign that the new laws are working because the right people are complaining.
My daughter was relocated interstate against my wishes 6 years ago when she was 5. I finally relented and naievely thought I could rely on the mother's word and on Consent Orders to have reasonable contact. I have had nothing but treachery since and the cards are stacked so much against the non primary parent in the Courts, in the schools, in our society that I have suffered enormously ever since. Its a life threatening heartache that never leaves.
Any other fathers out there take my advice. Fight for the few rights you have with your children, never assume Orders are enforceable and realise that mothers are often shamelessly encouraged by lawyers, women's refuges and new partners to lie and deceive and to ignore any commitment that is not iron-clad enforceable with a likelihood of severe penalty.
Not once does Ms Biggs or the mother consider the childs best interest and they are only capable of focusing on what the mother wants to do. How uterly selfish and harming Ms Biggs and the mother are being towards a helpless child. There needs to be strong laws to control the extremist views of radicals such as Ms Biggs.
I find this sickening to say the least, non majority care givers of our children end up with the short end of the stick every time, ever since the 'no fault, no blame' law introduction back in the 70's, not by choice many fathers do not get to spend the time they want with their children, shared care fathers quite often end up in my boat after a parent takes the children with them when they move, not only do we get less time with our children, but because of the choice the other parent makes, we get penalized with higher child support payments, all too often in these matters the person who makes the choice does not suffer the consequences - i almost suicided due to these and other parental issues.
Until we get a system where the non decisional parent gets a fair go, things will never improve, as it is now we are penalized for every step we take to try to improve our lives.
I come from a broken relationship i have 3 beautiful children with ex partner,nd they love there dad with all there heart and when i see them together i would no-more think about taking them away from there dad then there dad doing the same thing to me.. Mothers who do that to the ex partners that alone there children are selfish and out to hurt the other person without any regards to the childrens feeling... My new husband now have 5 beautiful girls and up until 5 months ago had acess to 2 of the girls every 2nd wknd nd half the school holidays then it all stopped because of the shit that the mother was putting into there heads about there dad and myself, the girls loved coming down to see us but when you live with the disrespect that they have to listen to everyday you start to think what the mother says is right,1 of the other girls now live with us full time because she was sick of the way her mother was talking and degrading her father all the time in front of her and other people. so you women out there that think it is nice and great to do that in front of your children you all need to grow up and start thinking about your kids before your self and nasty self....THe children are our future it is hard enough for them the grow up in a split family that listening to the parent putting shit on the other parent all the time...I have never and never will do that with my children about there dad so grow up all of you and think about your children for once...
Catherine said:
>>Four of five children in Australia are abusers by there fathers.
Catherine. You are almost right.
The vast majority of child abuse in this country occurs at the hands of the biological mother/boyfriend. In fact its about 4 out of 5.
So your numbers were right but the culprits were not.
When I had my relocation case on the last day of the old legislation his honour opted that my former partner could relocate with my daughter. My former partner saw little value in the child having a relationship with her father. Now my daughter will grow up with little interaction with her little brother born 2 weeks after the relocation was granted and her father will be mostly just a voice down the telephone. The relocation was granted to a location where any family were 6 hours away! At the time in the reasons for judgement it stated that no reason had to be given for relocation. My daughter was 5 when the relocation was granted. I hope other people do not have to see their children go through the pain of long distance parenting. CHILDREN HAVE A RIGHT TO A FULL RELATIONSHIP WITH BOTH PARENTS AND THE COURTS SHOULD ENFORCE THIS! If the court does not then there is no point in the court! Fatherhood is improtant too and to have it stripped from you like I did is totally soul destroying.
Great work. Thanks for the email. I will pass it on to some of my colleagues at work tomorrow.
Thanks for the F4E alert.
Thanks for the email. Keep up the great work. Just voted too.
Just got the email and voted too. The YES vote has started to collapse. Good work.
Just got the email from f4e. Thanks
I have forwarded it to my brother.
These women are a nasty piece of work.
I remember blanket coverage of these angry me-first mothers about 3 weeks ago, but I didn't realise that The Australian had got into bed with them.
So, its all about mothers right afterall.
Obviously a lot of angry women are upset by these new laws.
Contrary to what I expected, these laws do seem to be working.
Do these women everb stop to think that maybe these laws are working as they should, and children are actually now the number one priority?
I agree. This article is a sham.
Did someone pay Overington to write this? Did she even read the judgment herself?
I have just sent an email to letters@theaustralian.com.au in complaint.
One more story like this and I may be forced to read the Sydney Morning Herald, god forbid.
I have totally lost all respect for The Australian are a responsible broadsheet.
This article is nothing short of propaganda.
This article is a load of rubbish.
I just read the judgment on Austlii and it seems that the mother and her family were on a campaign to destroy the child's relationship with the father.
The father however was willing to go to any lengths to faciliate contact between mother and child, even pay for her airfares if she moved.
If the Court let the mother relocate, then that would be it for this father and his child. I doubt the mother would have let him have any real involvement in the child's life after that.
A very good decision I say, upheld on appeal, so that says a lot.
At last they are focussing on children and not mothers.
Given the current make-up of the Senate, it is highly unlikely that the recent family law amendments could be repealed.
Malcolm Turnbull is on the record in support of these amendments (with an eye to tightening them at some point), as is Family First.
The Greens and Nick Xenophon would be hard pressed to agree to any changes, given their support in the past, so unless there is a new election with an ALP majority in both houses, these laws are going to be here for a long time.
What you may not realise is that the Chief Justice of the Family Court does not make laws, she applies it, and her opinion at the end of the day is meaningless.
And you should also realise that contrary to what you claim, the overwhelming majority of Australian support shared care.
{ Link }
The laws upholding children's best interest and rights over parents whims wont be repealed, trust me. You've got about as much chance of having these laws repealed as you have taking away women's right to the vote. One sex can no longer be superior.
What you are saying is not supported by the vast majority of Australians.
Nor do you have the support of the Chief Justice of the Family Court and the previous Chief Justice of the Family Court. Do you think you know more about family law then they do?
We also have many real men supporting our cause, men who are not afraid to support mothers in the way they need to be supported.
Finally, our very own Prime Minister agrees that these laws have resulted in many more children being abused and many more mothers being abused. So its only a matter of time before these amendments get repealed.
Are those commenting below (Catherine/Anon) actually suggesting that a child's welfare must be subordinated to mother's freedoms to do whatever she wants? What extraordinary arrogance!
This attitude would go much of the way to explaining the high levels of child neglect by today's mums [see number of neglect cases here: { Link } ]
Here's the rub: We now live in an era where the welfare of children legally trumps the freedoms of the mothers and fathers. No longer the catch-cry "Cause I'm worth it" but rather "because THE CHILD is worth it". The law is clear.
Annonymous,
You seem to forget that this is not about the mother or the father. It is about the child!
According to the full bench of the family court, it is about the child.
So, why is it that you and other arrogant women/mothers believe that these children are chattels or possessions of yours to carry off with you where ever you go, even if at a whim?
You have no right to decide that the child should now not have a father. Neither did the mother in this case, according to the 'full bench of the family court'.
Oh, and yes you can go where ever you want in this country, but just don't think you can kidnap children and drag them anywhere you want. Mothers have done that for decades and now they can't.
You women hate being curtailed, don't you?
The only reason all you angry mothers and those belonging to the radical feminist organisations, are screaming so much today, is because you are finally starting to see a little bit of 'Equaliy' in action and you hate it with a passion.
You know, this is the equality you women have demanded now for the last 120 odd years. It's finally here and you don't like it, because you have enjoyed having the upperhand over men for so long now, that you hate having to compromise.
For more than 30 years women/mothers have been able to abuse men, kidnap their children and plunder the ex husbands future earnings and you have been encouraged by the family court.
You have alienated your children from their fathers, which has seen at least 5 of these broken hearted fathers kill themselves everyday for God knows how long. Now we have prisons full of both male and female inmates, where the vast majority cite an upbringing without their natural father in the home.
According to the Aust. Bureau of Stats personal safety survey and the WA Child Protection Authorities own figures, the most dangerous place for any child to live, is in a home without the natural FATHER (yes ladies, that 'F' word you hate so much) in the home.
But let us look at yet another point of order here.
What is the main thrust from all of you women who make public statements on this topic?
You all speak of "ME, ME, ME"!
You always count on how unfair it is to you the mother, you never speak of the child/ren. You always state that it is the mothers right to drag the child around anywhere she wants, but hang what the kid thinks. No, the kid can just learn to live with your decision. You're all members of the bleeding hearts club.
But wait on, what are the family and father organisations calling for?
They are calling for equality in the courts and a presumption of 50/50 shared care so that the children will not have to suffer losing a parent anymore. So that the mother and the father will be there to help raise the child together even if separately.
Funny that!
And yet you women still screetch and scream like psychotic harridans, about how unfair it is on "poor little old me".
It hurts doesn't it, when you are forced to consider the children before you own petty selfish attitudes.
This law takes away the opportunity for you to wreak havoc with your insatiable lustful desire to destroy the man you hate so much, the father of your children.
But hey, look on the bright side ladies; your children will be happier and more at peace once they have their Dad around to be with them and not only that, you can even have every second week off to go find yourself another fella, while the kids are "SAFE AND HAPPY" with their father.
The best thing all you mothers out there can do now, is to accept that finally the community and the law have woken up to the fact that children must have both parents in their lives to stand at least a half a chance at a decent upbringing and there's nothing you can do about it.
Get over it and let the kids get on with their lives without all your poison constantly being drip fed to them.
You guys all seem to forget that in Australia people are free to move wherever they want, and the law cannot force mothers to stay where we don't want.
But this dreadful decision effectively forces the mother to stay put, otherwise she will not get to see her child regularly.
Now is this really fair on the mother?
Think about it before getting on your soapbox screaming about your rights as fathers. Mothers count too right? So where in this decision is her best interests considered?
These decisions should not be about fathers rights, its should be about helping mothers to raise their kids how they see fit and without fear or threat.
And this is now definitely not hapenning because of this disgraceful new laws.
Jenni,
I could not have said it any better. Well Done!!
Catherine is an angry mothers' rights nutter.
Catherine needs to understand that children love and need both parents and that:
Children are not a mother's property to cut in half.
Children are people not property Catherine. You act like you own children but you don't. It takes both a father and a mother to make a child.
You should stop trying to own children and their father. You don't own them Catherine. Children love their fathers and their mothers.
If you want to leave Catherine you can go wherever you want, but don't take the children away from their Dad. Why should you tell the children they cannot see their loving and caring Dad?
It's not about mothers' rights Catherine. It's about the children.
Catherine you are so unreasonable not to see this common sense. It's as though you are a bitter and twisted woman who has been excluded from her children because of her anger and nastiness.
Actually this reminds of the yesteryear when men were reluctant to let women into the political and executive sphere. Men would claim they were superior in the workplace and questioned women's "common sense" to be wanting careers. Women were not suited to work roles, they said.
It is no mistake that women's representation in parliament and executive positions today exactly mirrors the number of fathers being allowed into parenting roles post separation by the family court.
The message is: Girls, to get into office, you have to cede some of that "nurturing role" priviledge to men. In the past we had a total labor division- men in the workplace, women as domestic queens and child carers. We each, men and women, need to cede some of our cherished roles in the public and domestic spheres respectively. Until that happens it is unreasonable to expect 50/50 representation in parliament.
Can I quote that again as a typical example of the problem? Ok here it is:
Catherine wrote...
"Children came from mothers body not fathers body.... If we want to leave we can go wherever we want. Why should a father tell me where I can go with my child? Its not fathers right. You people are so unreasonable not to see this common sense."
I guess this is the attitude of the Journalist too!
Children are not fathers property to cut in half.
Children are people not property. You act like you own children but you dont. Children came from mothers body not fathers body.
You should stop trying to own children and their mother. You don't own us. We own us.
If we want to leave we can go wherever we want. Why should a father tell me where I can go with my child?
Its not fathers right. You people are so unreasonable not to see this common sense.
Done!
Press Council Compaint lodged.
Just so that its on the record, Caroline Overington has never taken my calls, she has deleted all my emails which contained "father" in the subject heading, she has never published or referred to any of our Press Releases or reports, and she has refused to allow us a right of reply to yesterdays article.
Now she is doing a hatchet job on Michael Green.
There is no fair and balanced reporting of this issue in The Australian, despite our best efforts.
I would suggest that if we do not get sufficient rsponse from the Editor, that this needs to be taken up with the Press Council.
{ Link }
Caroline Overington | May 30, 2009
THE Family Court has at last recognised the "agony" children suffer during divorce by forcing their warring parents to live close to each other, says a campaigner for the reform introduced by the Howard government.
Michael Green QC, a family law expert who campaigned for the shared parenting amendment enacted in 2006, said yesterday recent decisions proved that the right of a child to have a meaningful relationship with both parents after separation was being taken seriously by the court.
The Australian reported yesterday on the case of Rosa and Rosa, in which a couple moved with their four-year-old daughter to a remote town in northwest Queensland, so the husband could take up a job as a mining engineer.
The marriage broke up six months later. The wife wanted to move back to Sydney, where their daughter was born and had lived four of her five years. She was lonely in the mining town, and living in a caravan, unable to afford anything better.
But the Family Court, and the full bench on appeal, said she could not take her child to Sydney because the reform required judges to presume the best interests of the child were served by having a relationship with both parents.
"I know there are many women associated with the more radical feminist groups who like to underplay the damage done by separation, on children of any age," Mr Green said.
"But in fact the loss, the agony, the child experiences when it loses regular contact with a parent is significant."
Retired Family Court judge Tim Carmody said "it used to be that the mother's right to move with her children was generally seen as compatible with what was in a child's best interests.
"That's no longer necessarily so. The best interests of the child is now seen as being served by having a meaningful relationship with both parents. But what kind of relationship? And at what cost?"
Mr Carmody's decision to leave the Family Court coincided with the reform, and he believes his concern about the ways it would work is now justified, "especially in this situation, where you have a parent condemned to live somewhere they've never really lived, for who knows how long".
Kathryn McMillan SC, a Brisbane family law expert who will speak on the subject at a forum next month, said "relocation cases are always difficult, because it tends to be all or nothing.
"Somebody wants to move, and that means that somebody else is going to lose time with their children.
"One of the questions the judge will sometimes ask is, if I don't allow you to move, will you go without the child?
"Most parents will say, no, of course I won't move without the child.
"And in a sense that means they are damned if they do and damned if they don't, because if they won't move without the child, the judge can make orders that there should be shared parenting, which means they get stuck."
Jacky Campbell of Forte Family Lawyers in Brisbane said the "shared parenting laws are being imposed on people who are not co-operating at all, and the outcome is often poor".
In Rosa and Rosa, the wife's parents, sister and other family members had nothing good to say about her husband, and that played against her because the court thought they wouldn't encourage her to keep the child in contact with her father.
{ Link }
JANE WROTE, 'The father however, despite agreeing that he had the means and ability to get another job somewhere else, refused because his job was "interesting". Excuse me??? What was that comment that someone else made about putting the child first and your own wants and desires second? Perhaps the father should have a think about that.'
Jane, might I suggest there was more telling information in the father's application and affidavit material regarding his reasoning for keeping his job? Material you failed to read? The presiding Judge indicates that the father was not merely choosing to keep his job because it was "interesting", but rather because it was a job for which (quoting)"the child’s needs were met and properly provided for" ie. according to father the job was in the CHILD'S best interest. If you had taken the time to read the case synopsis you would have seen this comment.
# His Honour stated:
71. The father may have seemed somewhat dogmatic but I also gained the impression that there was an overriding wish to further his career, not necessarily simply for his own aggrandisement but also to ensure that he was able to provide for his family and to ensure that, in particular, [the child’s] needs were met and properly provided for. I was generally impressed with the father in relation to these proceedings.
So lets put to bed this distortion that the father had merely wanted to keep his job on the basis that it was interesting for himself. The above indicates more to his reasoning. Cherry picking cases makes for poor professional form.
Overington is still at it: { Link }
Today she cites the mothers parents (the man's "inlaws") as saying they dont like the father. This according to Overington was the ONLY thing forcing the judge to deny the woman's demands, supposedly because he thought her parents "would not encourage her to keep the child in contact with her father." This is Overington's clinching argument about the unfairness of the Judge, and her justification in calling for a complete re-writing of secions of Australian Family Law.
Amazing the anecdotal drivel being cited as justification for removing children from thier fathers. If I were overington or The Australian Newspaper I'd be very concerned lest the judge in question take them to task for misrepresenting his efforts.
In fact I think the judge in question needs this misrepresentation of the case brought to his attention.
Here we have an award winning journalist failing to approach the story from the right angle. These cases only wind up in court when one parent makes a unilateral decision to up and move the children with no regard for the other parents rights or responsibilities. When these decisions are made in a bilateral manner, by both parents the case doesn't even wind up in court.
Catherine, read the Aussie constitution, both parents have rights, and the family law act outlines levels of responsibilities, with the only regard being the childs best interests. A child isn't his child or her child, and just where the hell do you get the idea we are all child abusers. No parent has the right to just up and move thousands of km's away from the other parent with the children.
Who abuses children in Oz?
{ Link }
Lol, now your killing me, Catherine! LOL
Jason
Eight of ten woman in Australia are killed by men.
Four of five children in Australia are abusers by there fathers.
The new Howards laws forces 50-50 of children even if fathers are abusers.
The new Howards laws take children away from good mothers and give them to child abusers.
You should read the true reports. Its all in the internet if you want to look. But you dont want to look. You dont want to believe.
You dont want to believe because you are one of them.
Btw, who is this Catherine nut? She needs a) to get her facts right & b) learn to spell. The ABS Personal Safety Survey has shown repeatedly that the major child-abusers in Australia are mothers & that women instigate violence more often than men. Peddling baseless stereotypes doesn't cut it anymore Catherine. You need to go back to some dark & distant time in the past when the nasty rubbish you spout had relevance. Given a choice between believing that many fathers are a threat to their own kids or that many mothers are keen to exploit the one-sided child-custody laws that exist in this country, I will choose the latter everytime. Opportunism is human nature. Bashing your kids isn't.
There is one simple solution to this bs: give the father full custody, so he can leave with the kids & make the mother stay & work. What is good for the goose, should be good for the gander. Give women a taste of the crap they dish out to blokes & see if they still think they are getting the raw end of the deal. Its reading things like this that make me wonder if some women are really adults or just over-grown, spoilt children. They really have no idea how good they have it here at all.
The mother can leave anytime she likes. She just can't take the kids with her necessarily & neither should she be able to. The father cannot either, wo what actually is the issue? Besides, most would want a cut of the wages the father is earning so perhaps the women's lobby can devise a way he can get paid without actually being there either. Or maybe the father can shoot through & leave the mother to do the hard yakka. As I have always said; the greatest fear all women have is actually being treated equally to men. It terrifies them.
Catherine,
Have you bothered to look at the statistics of who is actually abusing children in the country?
If you combine the rates of abuse of mothers and their boyfriends, that totals more than 80% of all child abuse in this country.
Maybe think twice next time before accussing people you have never even met of being child abusers simply because that want to support and raise their children, just like I am sure you do.
Catherine
There are very good reasons why a mother should not be allowed to just take off with the children whenever she pleases. Figures from the west australian child protection agency show that 45% of child abuse is carried out by the biological mother while 24% is carried out by the biological father THATS AROUND DOUBLE,and these are official figures from a sample of 2 million people taken as recently as 2007. Dont give me that guff about fathers being responsible for all the violence.
I notice that there is also no reason given as to why he would just tell his wife it was all over, you have to wonder why, of course women do this all the time and often take the children leaving the father with only minimal access, in fact figures show that women initiate 2 thirds of divorces, yet nobody seems to question that.WHY.
>Well, the level playing field applies to >everyone Jane, and I am sure that were this >a father who was refused the right to >relocate with child, no one would have cared.
Well said Arthur.If it was the father who was refused the opportunity to relocate would this have made the newspapers? No way!
Would Barbara Biggs have made such a huge song and dance. No way!
See, it really has nothing to do with the kids. These extremists are in it for themselves. Its simply a gender war and children are fair game to these family terrorists.
As long as they get what they want, then the sacrifice of innocent children is worth it, according to the Barbara Biggs of this world.
These objections to shared care ultimately revolve around the money and freedom that the mother will lose, rather than the support that the child will get.
As a grandfather who has not seen his only grandson for 5 years, I can tell you that the previous laws were a disgrace.
No other law in this country has seen abused and exploited by so many with the complete support of the courts.
To somehow suggest that because one recalcitrant mother can't get her way that somehow we need to change these new laws, says to me, like Jason put it, that the objections are about the level playing field.
Well, the level playing field applies to everyone Jane, and I am sure that were this a father who was refused the right to relocate with child, no one would have cared.
Isn't that right Jane?
I have to agree with Ash on this Jane, because so far you have only come back with the age old argument from the mother's point of view, that has been used now for the past 30 odd years, without a single mention of the benefit the child would gain by having both parents in her life. This means, actually having the Father in her life.
As far as the money that would be available to the child in the remote community because of the fathers good job; it could be said that the money may not have been paid as child support, but given to the child and/or the mother by way of extra help and support to make life easier if the mother was having financial difficulties.
If this father was respected by the mother, which he is obviously not, he may very well willingly help the mother out financially, which will benefit her greatly.
He will also make sure his precious daughter is well clothed and educated and has lots of good things, which could also be done in a way as to not embarrass the mother in front of the child.
The problem with women over the last 30 years with regard family law, is that they have been too enabled and given too much power to decide by themselves, what the future will be for the children of the broken marriage and to hell with what the father thinks.
The laws that now exist in the family law act, make it possible for more equity when it comes to these decisions regarding children, but also they give fathers a little more respect as an equal parent.
There are so many studies out there that show the detriment to children who grow up without a parent, in particular without a father. Why on earth should we assign all the children in future back to this nightmare of living without a parent, mostly fathers!
We have a bit more of a level playing field and as Jason has noted, there are some who would angrily appose this equality for their own selfish reasons and agendas.
You at least have to give Jane credit for trying to use reason to promote her argument.
Although I don't agree with her argument and suspect that like Ash, she has her own assumptions that are blindsiding her, she at least is making a genuine effort to discuss the issue.
Given this I appreciate her giving us an insight into her reasoning, and would hope she continues because I think she represents the moderate feminist who may help us identify where the weaknesses lie in our thinking, and may help us identify what our bias' are. These are the women we truly have to engage with on these issues.
However its a totally different story with the likes of "Cathernine", whose post seems full of anger and a sense of entitlement.
Its women like Catherine who ultimately need to be sidelined from this debate, but who unforunately tend to get the majority of media coverage.
The current laws on relocation apply equally to fathers and mothers. If there is one thing a tyrant hates it is a level playing feild.
Jason
When at crowded shopping centers I often notice that one or more women will stand in a thoroughfare blocking access as shoppers try to move through the aisles, but seem completely oblivious to the people trying to akwardly squeeze around them. An observant person will also notice that men rarely behave this way in the same context, which perhaps shows us something about the respect men are taught to show regarding personal space and access. I suggest people go as an experiement to the shopping center where there seems to be equal numbers of both genders, and look at who is blocking the pathways.
This strikes me as a good example of the attitude expressed by commenter Jane below (and the journalist of the article) who seems genuinely oblivious to the legitimate concerns of fathers who try to maintain access with thier children once 'mum'
decides she wants to leave town oblivious to the deeper meaning and impact to the dad-child relationship.
Perhaps the following study will show Jane a broader perspective:
Gender bias evident in parental alienation cases
Mothers are more likely to be the parent behind children's estrangement, yet fathers more often ordered into counselling, study finds
Kirk Makin, Toronto Globe and Mail
Saturday, March 28, 2009
{ Link }
JUSTICE REPORTER — A study of alienated children has found that mothers were significantly more likely to be the parent who emotionally poisoned their children than were fathers.
Toronto family lawyer Gene Colman told a Toronto symposium yesterday that of 74 court rulings that found parental alienation since 1987, the mother was the alienator in 50 cases. The father was the alienating parent in 24.
"I'm not trying to dump on moms," Mr. Colman told about 150 psychologists, family lawyers, mediators and activist parents. "I'm just saying, that is what the data reveal."
In parental alienation syndrome, an estranged parent systematically brainwashes a child into hating the other parent. The profile of the syndrome escalated over the past year, after three Ontario judges ordered that children be removed from an alienating parent and taken to U.S. clinics for deprogramming therapy.
Mr. Colman said that alienating fathers were twice as likely to be ordered to undergo counselling as were mothers in alienation cases - a finding that raises serious questions about whether judges are exhibiting gender biases.
Twelve of the 50 alienating mothers in his study were ordered into counselling, as compared with 13 of 24 fathers. "As social scientists will tell you, that is a high level of statistical significance in terms of differential treatment by gender," Mr. Colman said.
"As lawyers and judges, we have to be vigilant to make sure that we ... are not influenced by whether the mom is the alienator or the dad is the alienator. There should be no differential in how either gender is dealt with."
The other findings in Mr. Colman's study included:
The number of parental alienation cases has shot up from 21 between 1987 and 2000 to 53 between 2000 and 2008.
Fathers who had their alienated children switched from their homes were granted some form of access by the courts in a "much lower" percentage of cases than were mothers.
Fathers who alienate their children are somewhat more likely to have their children removed from their residence and relocated with the mother.
Mr. Colman said that of cases where the father was the alienator, children were ordered to switch to the mother's residence in 78 per cent of cases. In contrast, 62 per cent of the mothers who alienated their children had them switched to the father's home.
"It would seem that if you are the dad, you have a greater probability of having the residence changed on you," said Mr. Colman, founding editor of the Canadian Journal of Family Law and founding member of the Canadian Equal Parenting Council.
Jane,
I completely disagree with you. I think the article does a very poor job of raising this issue and your writing itself reflects your own bias.
It seems to me that behind your thinking and that of the journalist is a presumption that the mother's circumstances are more important than the father's, and that she ultimately has a greater impact on the child than does the father.
You seem to ignore the impact of granting her relocation request would have to the father, to the father's relationship with the child, and to the child.
You are too focussed on what is best for the mother, assuming somehow that this also translates to being good for the child, but this is an error often repeated by those in this area of the law.
It may have had some ligitimacy when dealing with a father who hardly saw their child but for 2 days a fortnight, but this is not such a case, so maybe you should realise that the whole dynamic has changed, allowing judges to now focus purely on what is best for the child.
At last we are seeing judgements "in the best interests of the child", not the mother!
This article is just part of a recent media campain to show men in general in a bad light and to again change the Family Law in favour of the interests of the mother.
In the past too many mothers have moved their child away, sometimes interstate, from the father in an act of parental alienation.
What the decision shows in this case is that the law now has about the right balance.
Jenni,
no, i am not from the organisation that you suggest. I used 'her', and 'his' (further along in the posting) where I am setting context for whichever parent has care of the child at a given time. I do not believe any parent owns their children, and if you knew me and the advocacy I have done you would know that. You have made assumptions. I raised the issue of money in response to the several prior postings that brought up the issue of money, and mothers' suppossed profligate use of the maintenance men pay, and the money Centrelink pays, and I also raise this as it is a big issue for single parents, on both sides of the debate. Most mothers attempt to financially support their children, by isolating this mother where there may be limited work for her is harmful to her, and to the child. I think the newspaper article has actually done a good job of raising this very difficult issue.
Why should a woman be stopped from taking her child anywhere she wants? Its a mothers right not a fathers right.
These laws take children away from good mothers and give them to child abusers. Why dont you talk about that. Because you are child abusers two.
We need to change these laws because to many mothers are being murdered and to many children are being sexual abused. Change these laws now.
I see that 'Jane' - possibly from the National Council of Single Mothers and THEIR Children - agrees with Overington that the mother owns the child: "In Sydney, she may be much more able to financially support her child."
Jane quickly introduces the issue of money ... because this is a big issue for many of the mothers who believe they own children. They try and make out it's men who are concerned about it but it is the main topic of such women's conversations and emails.
Overington has chosen to toe the party line for angry separated mothers' groups and be their mouthpiece for their latest campaign. Because at any time she wanted to do (but of course she did not want to) she could easily have found and written about loving and caring fathers who no longer see their children because a mother deliberately chose to move the children away from them.
Hmm. I am afraid I am not much in agreement with you all here. As a law student, I agree that the article was written from a certain perspective, namely that the mother has been forced to stay in an isolated community where she has little support. She may also have limited ability to earn a livable amount of money there. Her qualifications and job opportunities in Queensland are not discussed. She may have very limited ability to earn. In Sydney, she may be much more able to financially support her child. The comment by another contributor that she will earn good maintenance is spurious, as the amount required to be paid for the maintenance of one child maximises at an amount less than $20,000 per year, REGARDLESS of the income of the other parent. He could be earning a million dollars a year and still only have to pay her that much. Given that he has the care of the child 50% her maintenance would be even less than that amount. She is therefore dependant on his 'generosity' if she is to receive more than this from him. The court certainly did not give orders for him to pay more.
The judgement time and time again came back to the point that the mother would not leave her dughter, and hence if she was not permitted to relocate she would return to Queensland. The father however, despite agreeing that he had the means and ability to get another job somewhere else, refused because his job was "interesting". Excuse me??? What was that comment that someone else made about putting the child first and your own wants and desires second? Perhaps the father should have a think about that. Agreed, it sounds as though the mother has made some negative comments about the father. It would be best if she did not make those comments. There is no documentation stating what those comments are or how frequently they are made. There is also mention of some personality issues of the father. It is possible that in fact both parents are equally guilty of control and manipulation of this child, and on thorough reading of the court document the flaws in the fathers story begin to show.
This decision has been made because the father, having moved his family 1000's of kms away from their home, into an isolated community, then kicks the wife out, and then puts his job ahead of all other considerations, and then expects his ex wife to just put up with it. She, quite rightly, refuses to leave her child. The father is quite happy to stay in Queensland, and give up his child if the judgement allowed the mother to move. And we are supposed to believe that his relationship with his child is of paramount importance. Makes a complete mockery of his whole legal argument, and the judge allowed this because of some negative comments by the mother. I cant say I really blame her in the circumstances.
This woman hs been forced to stay in a highly unsatifactory situation, because her husband refuses to give up his 'interesting' job. I agree with the authors' point of view. Good on her for writing about it.
What a disgraceful excuse for journalism. There was simply no attempt at all to potray the genuine reasons for this decision.
Me thinks this story was written for this journalist by Barbara Biggs, who is well known to plant her own stories under the names of complicit journalists.
When I see these types of articles I feel utterly ashamed to be a woman, but I realise soon enough that these women are a very small minority and the majority of women are like me, child focussed.
It always amazes me when I read a piece of work that has been deliberately put together to show a one sided view where a person is portrayed as being seriously disadvantaged by the activities and behaviour of another and by the laws of Big Brother, but there is only one side of the story included in the article.
However, when we get to see the other side of the story and find out that there is a whole lot more to this case than what has been reported, where there is possible child abuse occuring by way of Parental Alienation and where the mother (in this case) has an attitude that is most definitely not becoming of what a good mother should have, a completely different picture begins to emerge.
I hate to say this people, but when you have kids you kiss goodbye to your single life and your own personal wants and desires, until such time as those children are independent of you.
Just because you can't live with the other parent any longer, does not give either parent the right to then change the status quo with some other selfish and self serving lifestyle that has little to no benefit to the children of that family. Most especially if it removes one of the parents from the life of the child.
No one owns children!!!!
They are human beings who have the right to be cared for every single day by their 'Natural Parents'. But if that is not possible, then the next best thing should always be put in place where there is no proven cases of 'child abuse', which happens to be 50/50 shared care, or something that is workable for both parents taking into account jobs etc.
This mother will be able to receive some very good child support payments from the father, who will be making good money in his job. Why should she have the right to run off home to enjoy this money and then fully alienate this innocent girl from her father.
Bad form Mother, bad Form!!!!
Newspapers and journalists will always tell one story. Each parent will tell one story. The child(ren) will have their own story. You always need to dig deeper to find the whole story. The point is that a child needs both parents. period.
I have just sent an email in complaint to the editor. She should have mentioned the important facts, as mentioned by Jason, in her article.
The article gives a totally different impression than what does the judgment.
The Australian article purporting to reveal this case to the reading public seems to have carefully omitted mention by the presiding magistrate that the Mother in this case was deliberately trying to undermine the importance of her daughter's relationship with her father. Hence the outcome.
Here is what the Judge concluded:
These remarks by the judge were surprisingly absent from the Australian article:
His Honour then reviewed at length (paragraphs 73 to 88) the motherâs evidence. That review led him to the following conclusions:
I gained the distinct impression that the mother was perhaps even unknowingly continuing to minimise and to fail to recognise the importance of the father in the life of this child...
The mother unfortunately gave me the distinct impression that she was somewhat self-centred also in her position with regard to the child. I gained the distinct impression that the mother's view was that there was only one person of priority in relation to the relationship with the child, and that was her. It may be that she was, and remains the primary carer of the child. It may be that the relationship between the father and the child, and the mother and the child are different relationships but the mother's apparent failure to recognise in any way, shape or form, the importance to [the child] of growing up with a close and fostered bond and interaction with the father is telling and is troubling in relation to these proceedings.
Again in the context of this particular matter, his Honour reiterated his concerns regarding the motherâs capacity to foster the childâs relationship with the father:
Unfortunately as is perhaps obvious from the comments I have made, I do have some real concerns about the mother's capacity to properly appreciate the emotional needs of this child in relation to a fostered relationship and a developing relationship with the father. I gained the distinct impression that the mother lacked considerably a capacity to appreciate that need and that it was a factor again, weighing far more significantly in favour of the father's proposals than of those of the mother.
The next additional consideration his Honour regarded as âsignificantâ was s 60CC(3)(i), being âthe attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the childâs parentsâ. He commented in this regard:
... there are very many positives that both parents show in relation to their parenting of the child. But as is clear, it is of concern to me that there is a lack of appreciation on the part of the mother of the very real need to foster and develop a relationship with the father and that is a failing that gives rise to a concern as to the mother's proposals in relation to this matter.
This article makes it sound like the mother "owns" the child.
She wants the child and she wants it on her terms.
It actually sound slike a very good, child-focussed judgment.
Maybe thats the problem.
Why did they not ask for comments from Barry Williams or the other father's groups?
What they are saying is that childrens best interests should not come first.
The only consideration is the mother's convenience.
So these groups are not about children's rights but about mother's rights, at the expense of kids.
Is this some kind of campaign between the media and these women's groups? Why have they not sought comments from anyone else, just the same old campaigners from these women's groups?
What really strikes me is the vast contrast between what the judgment says and what the article purports it to say.
This article is simply a remarkable distrortion of the truth.
Caroline Overington is not engaging in balanced reporting here. This is nothing short of a misreprepresentation of the facts.