The "Underlying" Truth of the Family Law Bill 2011
by Howard Beale on Thursday, 17 November 2011 at 14:30
The Family Violence Bill - Gillard's "Hate Men" laws - takes "He said" out of "He said, She Said" and removes all penalties for lying. This makes it impossible to share in the parenting of one's own children after divorce.
The "weak" shared parenting reform of 2006 caused litigated divorce to drop 22%.
Gillard/Brown want more divorce for green female votes and power. 70% of unmarried/divorced females vote for welfare protection and social justice [wealth redistribution] of the Big Brother party. Redefining family violence to be whatever the accuser says it is guarantees re-election support from a multi-billion dollar divorce-family violence industry and decimates the traditional conservative voting powerbase of middle class family - a kind of payback for Workchoices attack on Union power but far more dangerous and irreversible.
These amendments should be seen for what they really are - feminist pork for radical ideologues to pursue their dreams of an androgynous unworkable - society and a disgraceful attempt by lawyers to keep their multibillion dollar Family Law gravy train alive and well.
They are not enlightened new procedures for protecting unknown woman afraid to make allegations. They are a declaration of martial law against men, justified by an imaginary "family violence" emergency, and a betrayal of children. Urge legislators to resist these dangerous moves to eviscerate the presumption of innocence and to remove penalties for knowingly false allegations. These fundamental protections of Western jurisprudence must be preserved regardless of gender. Use this link to Megaphone the Senate to say NO to the Family Violence Billhttp://www.fathers4equ...mily-bill.nsf/frmSendMail
I agree with the worthy and indeed noble declarations of the Family Law (Family Violence & Other Measures) Bill 2010 but question the mechanics by which the amendments seek to achieve its objectives and, further, the validity of the reports supporting this reform.
Sadly I cannot accept that these amendments retain the substance of shared parenting and will continue to promote a childs right to a meaningful relationship with both parents as asserted by the Government.
If the Senator genuinely believes this then can the Senator please explain,
(i) how the expansion of the definition of family violence to include virtually any subjectively
negative state of mind offered in evidence by a mother against a father, and
(b) removing all penalties for false allegations is not an open invitation to deny
children meaningful relationships with their fathers.
(ii) what protections are there to prevent (i) being abused into the most massive
institutionalized witch hunt in this country's history given the AG department
confirms in Hansard that Family Court perjury is never prosecuted.
(iii) how removing the requirement that fear must be reasonable will not put children at
increased risk of abuse by isolating them with paranoids, mentally ill or personality
disordered, suicidally depressed for months or years while those allegations are litigated?
In respect to the friendly parent provisions does the Senator really believe -
(iv) these put children at risk because unknown women are afraid to make allegations,
(v) that this legislation must be repealed to anticipate poor legal advice, or
(vi) that removing these statutory protections against poisoning the childs mind or alienating
the child against the other parent, the most insidious and long-term damaging form of child
abuse, is prioritising the safety of children, or
(vii) that removing these provisions wont inflame and entrench conflict by rewarding the more
hostile parent with sole custody or more time and thereby, in effect, the Family
Violence Bill manufactures the family violence it is supposed redress.
(viii) that reinstating the formerly repealed interim protection order which can be obtained
ex-parte in assembly line 2-10 minute hearings without evidence is evidence of family
violence and child abuse that must be considered by law in determining the best interests
of the child?
In respect to the Other Measures aka the infamous Bradley amendment - does the Senator support
(ix) removing from local Magistrates the exercise of reasonable discretion to modify
child-support debts downward as well as upward in cases where the father becomes
unemployed, hospitalized, in prison, sent to war, dead, proved to not be the father, and
other cases of patent injustice, or
(x) rendering fathers permanently insolvent by changing the Bankruptcy Act to prevent
debt from child support being discharged by bankruptcy while allowing multi-million dollar
companies to pay pennies in the dollar, or
(xi) the imprisonment of parents, nearly always fathers, for contempt of court by being
too poor to pay child support debt and
(xii) how can an imprisoned man pay child support? And how can a man whose wages are
automatically garnished be accused of failure to make payments?
Clearly, it is contrary to the public interest, as well as the children's interest, to cripple the earning power of fathers who fall behind. Such laws seem designed to humiliate, denigrate and destroy the father, not to get the child support debt paid. And if they do manage to squeeze blood from a stone the money is paid by his mother, or by the second wife, or by some other innocent who perhaps has to liquidate her life's savings.
I must question where is the evidence of this Deadbeat Dad epidemic requiring such draconian laws? It is not mentioned in any of the Reports. It is a deliberate hoax. These Other Measures are creating the government machinery for child support enforcement not in response to claims of widespread non-payment by Deadbeat Dads but rather as a mechanism to create them. They anticipate the effect of the Family Violence Bill, namely, the impoverishment and criminalisation of men as a class.
The Family Violence Bill does violence to the Rule of Law to hurt family. Laws which presume guilt without evidence and permit perjury are persecution. By creating a system of domestic "violence" laws that criminalize almost anything, even if it is not violent or physical or even reasonable and enforced so-called "child support", the Bill necessarily creates a perverse incentive structure that rewards the creation of broken homes. That is, this Bill - apparently co-designed by August Mobius and Franz Kafka forces taxpayers to subsidize the destruction of their own family to protect children by removing the best protection children have against abuse, the biological father.
Londons Family Education Trust has demonstrated that children are up to 33 times more likely to suffer serious abuse and 73 times more likely to suffer fatal abuse in the home of a mother with a live-in boyfriend or stepfather than in an intact family. 80% of all reported child abuse occurs in single parent homes which this Bill unavoidably increases. There is not one case of child abuse in a court ordered shared parenting arrangement. What is going on?
As Ayn Rand, anti-Marxist, wrote in Atlas Shrugged
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers [Rudd lost direction], but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted–and you create a nation of law-breakers–and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Divorce ends more than half of all marriages making it the preferred tool the modern hammer and sickle - for social engineering. The weak shared parenting reform of 2006 caused litigated divorce to drop by 22%. The Family Violence Bill redresses this. The government needs more divorce for green female votes and power.
70% of unmarried/divorced women vote for the welfare protection & social justice [wealth redistribution] of the Big Brother party. Far left power follows family tax benefit Part A (sole custody excludes men). For this purpose the Family Violence Bill attacks family at the most vulnerable point, fathers, thereby increasing the numbers of and to isolate single mothers and their children into dependence on government welfare for generational votes.
Increasing divorce decimates the conservative voting powerbase of middle and upper class family and redistributes that patriarchal power [wealth] to victim women as good socialist policy. A kind of payback for "workchoices" attack on Union power. Further it guarantees election support and contributions from a multi-billion dollar family law-domestic violence industry, paid to cry family violence wolf.
Destroy the family, you destroy society I.V. Lenin. And the $trillion Carbon Tax provides the means to rebuild it into a gay, friendly union.
Children are the levers by which one forces social change. This is a key purpose of the Bill, namely, to control children, to exploit them as political weapons for irreversible social change, that is, a fully working, androgynous, equality oppressive, Marxist it takes a [UN] village society which includes same-sex marriage and homosexual adoption. How often have we heard Gillards mantra of for our children she has no children.
Fathers might suffer first by being reduced to occasional visitation and zero authority but mothers will soon follow. The redefinitions of child abuse and neglect in the family violence Bill gives virtually absolute power to the Family Law industry, which includes social services, to take away children from their natural parents through literally "no fault" of that parent without giving any appealable reason. Predictably with such power comes corruption.
Introducing same-sex marriage and adoption into this political dynamic will dramatically increase the demand for children to adopt, thus intensifying pressure on social service agencies and biological parents to supply such children. While sperm donors and surrogate mothers supply some children for homosexual parents, the vast majority will be taken from their natural parents because of divorce, unwed parenting, child abuse accusations, or connected reasons. The more child abuse/neglect they find the more money and power they get. There are no coincidences in politics a sitting Senator about to vote on this bill suddenly becomes a new father by IVF.
For children the replacements for parents and families will not be a happy, consensual world of children coequal with adults but one in which children became clients of institutionally powerful social bureaucrats and engineers of all sorts for whom they would serve as so much grist for the mill of extra-familial schemes and ambitions, that is, Green.
One needs only to look at the Senate submissions from Justice for Children seeking funding to train judges, police, social services into feminist extremist ideology and to educate pre-school children how to identify their sexual abusers evil men.
There are other chilling prospects in store. Zealots want a domestic violence register to stop violent men breeding. In the USA it has been proposed that men's fertility be controlled by mandatory contraception beginning at puberty. Boys would be forced to have contraceptive implants along with compulsory DNA fingerprinting. Doctors would have to report anybody who refused the implants or sought medical attention after trying to remove them himself.
In one case lesbian parents administer gender repressing drugs to delay the onset of puberty in their male child. He wants a sex-change operation.
The family violence bill dovetails into other issues including the de-gendering of parents on passports, the legal removal of the biological father from his child's birth certificate, compulsory unionisation of students, media inquiry to intimidate critical press, the exclusion of chaplains from schools, new curriculums and rewriting textbooks to remove religious references and 2 billion dollars of funding to equalize pay for carers, the great majority of whom are women.
Contrary to two decades of judicial and radical feminist propaganda, no scientific data indicate that fathers are, en masse, abandoning their families, beating their wives, and molesting their children. On the contrary, the evidence unambiguously establishes that a married household, and then shared parenting, is the least likely setting for these problems.
This family violence crisis is an optical illusion by the Left. What is advertised as an epidemic of dissolute fathers [family violence], supported by agenda research, junk science and self-interest advocacy, increasingly reveals itself as a power grab by a new class of the megalomaniac fringe to strut the stage [far left feminist extremists, both female and male] who created no-fault divorce and who share an interest in displacing fathers and politicizing children.
What makes it diabolical is its capacity to silence opposition and co-opt critics by claiming concern for children and distributing largesse ostensibly for their benefit. Thus camouflaged, the champions of other peoples children make an end-run around more visible clashes over homosexual rights, internet pornography, late term abortion, and schooling. But the bottom line remains: never before have governments created a bureaucratic apparatus whose primary purpose is to separate children from their parents.
No known government, however brutal or tyrannical, has ever denied, in fact or principle, the fundamental right of biological parents to parent their own children.... These amendments are unacceptable to all but the most fanatical of egalitarian or communitarian zealots.
Massive Hidden Costs - $11 Billion/yr
This Bill to increase sole maternal custody will cost taxpayers around $11 billion dollars per year in massive increases in welfare, judicial, law enforcement, education and health education systems dealing with the Pandora's Box of personal and social pathologies directly associated with mass fatherlessness
Reducing these costs must be a legitimate concern of government, policymakers, and legislators.
* A study by Institute for American Values found divorce and single parent childrearing cost taxpayers at least $112 billion each year or more than $1 trillion over the last decade. This estimate includes the costs to federal, state, and local government of the justice (19.3) & health (27.9) systems, unemployment benefits & welfare programs (16.3), housing assistance (7.3), child welfare services (12.0), education assist (6.9) and foregone tax revenues (22.3) at all level of government. In my professional opinion a proportionate scaling for population, divorce per head, etc may be applied. (about 10)
* Family breakdown and single parent homes is more closely linked to all our major social ills poverty, violent crime, substance abuse, child abuse, suicide, depression, teen pregnancy, abortion, gangs, and more than to any other factor. From this inevitably follows cost increases in welfare, law enforcement, healthcare and education
* These in turn create generational family dysfunction and child abuse in a self-perpetuating cycle which will continue to increase until we learn to ignore those hysterical people whom the government pays to cry family violence wolf.
* The insidiousness of this Bill is that by encouraging litigation to remove the Father all these costs will increase while at same time destroying the basic economic unit of modern society, the two parent working family, which generates the wealth to meet those costs and not just today but in future generations. I point out that welfare is now the 5th largest item in the Australian GDP.
* Child support/enforcement is presented as a way to recover welfare costs by forcing "deadbeat dads" to support children they "abandon." In reality, it is a lucrative incentive for divorce, effectively bribing mothers to separate with the promise of a tax-free windfall and ongoing benefits subsidized by taxpayers. Far from saving money, child support enforcement loses money and far more serious subsidizes divorces and fatherless children that generate additional welfare costs.
At the same time that the Family Violence Bill forces government to become the financial provider for millions of children and their caregivers, it also reduces the government's tax receipts to pay for the handouts.
Income tax day now divides us into two almost equal classes: those who pay for government services and freeloaders. In 2009, 47 percent paid no federal income taxes, and the bottom 40 percent receive cash or benefits financed by the 53 percent who do pay income taxes.
With divorce ending more than 50% of first marriages, 68% of second and higher for defacto relationships the FV bill channels half the nation's private wealth into a family law-domestic violence racket headed by a judiciary itself so crooked that it is hardly more than a system of organised crime handing out 100K commissions to brethen lawyers to plunder family wealth with allegations of family violence that do not have to be proven or even be reasonable.
Their judicial lips might be dripping with in the best interests of the child but these people have learned to monetize the misery of innocents. One needs only look at their record, namely, 35 years of tyranny & absolute misery that ignores reform after reform to continue to find 85% of Australian men unfit to share in the parenting of their own children, to realise that these people will use our children as weapons and as commodities for the increase of their own power and profit.
It is dangerous for a democracy for such power and wealth to be controlled by so few persons unelected and unaccountable for life. Thomas Jefferson has warned "judicial tyranny is the greatest danger to the nation".
We worry about the UN, world banks & Islam usurping our sovereignty but we have extremists in our own Government planting political and legislative bombs in our social fabric. CONCLUSION
In conclusion these amendments should be seen for what they really are - feminist pork for radical ideologues to pursue their dreams of an androgynous unworkable - society and a disgraceful attempt by lawyers to keep their multibillion dollar Family Law gravy train alive and well. They are not enlightened new procedures for protecting unknown woman afraid to make allegations. They are a declaration of martial law against men, justified by an imaginary "family violence" emergency, and a betrayal of children.
And it doesn't help real victims much because it doesn't tackle the r0oot causes of anger, substance abuse, mental illness, and family history of abuse that drive domestic violence
I urge legislators to resist these dangerous moves to eviscerate the presumption of innocence and to remove penalties for knowingly false allegations. These fundamental protections of Western jurisprudence must be preserved regardless of gender.
Use this link to Megaphone the Senate to say NO to the Family Violence Billhttp://www.fathers4equ...mily-bill.nsf/frmSendMail
Howard Beale Appendix 1
Effect of amendments: Schedule 1, item 17 Items 18, 19 and 20
This amendment legitimises contrived conflict as a legal strategy. Children are used as weapons in custody war abducted, isolated, alienated, scarred and emotionally disfigured for life. It is a perversion of in the best interests of the child that enriches lawyers and forces parents to fight to the death, financially, emotionally and sometimes literally.
In practice it encourages one parent to pre-emptively abduct the child and then isolate, alienate and restrict contact for as long as possible to establish a sole custody status quo.
If and when the matter gets to trial this alienation tactic is excused as she was fearful or protective of the child from family violence which is now interchangeable with child abuse the prioritisation of child safety above protecting the childs meaningful relationships forces the judge accept this [Amendment (2) Schedule 1, item 17]. The redefinition of family violence is indefensible as well as the allegation does not have to proven or even reasonable and there are no penalties for false allegations. What do we think might happen an orgy of litigation?
The inevitable consequence is that fathers will be instructed their only option is to do the same thing - first. Whoever gets to the courthouse first with a false or vague allegation of family violence to get an interim AVO gets custody of the kids and can force their mate out of the home, legally seize the assets and his future income all in a 10-minute hearing. There is nothing more permanent than an interim order in family law.
This is the purpose of Amendment (3) Schedule 1, item 19, page 7 - the reinstatement of the previously repealed main tactic for sole maternal custody, namely, the interim protection order. This cash cow of the judiciary accounts for 45% of all civil litigation profit. Add this to divorce and it approaches 65%. And the lawyers rejoice.
Repeal of 60CC(3)© the willingness to facilitate the childs relationship with the other parent allows the parent with custody of the child to provoke, inflame and prolong the matter for the purpose of contriving a contravention of the AVO, such as attending a public event at which his child is performing, for some jail time and or forcing the other parent into emotional or financial submission. How is this reducing family violence? And the lawyers laugh all the way to their clients bank.
If the father is lucky enough to get court-ordered contact with the child, repeal of the friendly parent provisions allows the custodial parent to deny this contact whenever she chooses under guise of being protective or fearful. The Father is slapped with a restraining order for showing up for contact and/or jailed if he objects or child support is denied. And the lawyers are called to restart the blood sucking process. Appendix 2 [not quite finished]
The Bill responds to three reports received by the Government.
Passage the Bill is a major priority of feminist organizations and of the Australia Bar for whose members it is a cash cow - divorce and custody comprise over half of civil litigation.
(1) Senate committee report.
The recommendations are premised at 3.179 on we accept the findings of Dr Michael Flood that false allegations are rare in the Family Court. Dr Flood is on the record instructing women on how to lie for custody advantage at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Flood
I point out Floods research is neither published nor peer-reviewed but lifted from his personal blog, XYonline, after the committee had adjourned. Flood is Australias #1 pro-feminist manhater with a long history of serial dishonesty in the name of advocacy. His self-authored Wikipedia page was schedule for deletion on 11 May 2009. He has since been found using multiple identities to argue for his own favourable editing of his extremist views including as recently as today.
The Senate report also omits the crucial fact from the testimony of the AG representative, Mrs Pirani, recorded in Hansard, that not one case of perjury, including self-admitted cases, referred to the AG department has been prosecuted or even investigated.
I respectfully submit this report based on testimonies stacked with every self-interest minority extremist crackpot group crying family violence wolf is so fundamentally flawed that it is little more than loaded propaganda waiting to explode in the Governments face now and at election.
Parkinson: Almost 90% of judicial magistrates in New South Wales acknowledged that protective orders were used in divorce often on the advice of a solicitor to deprive fathers of access to their children.
(2) Chisholm & Family Law Council (FLC) reports
less a work of research than the printed equivalent of a prolonged fit of public rectal osculation.
Victims need effective policies against genuine violence. They do not need the divisive gender politics of judiciary spin sisters. These statistically challenged, chronically mistaken, and relentlessly male-averse studies should not be taken seriously.
These represent the feeble attempt of lawyers (represented by the FLC and former family lawyer Richard Chisholm) to keep the Family Law money machine alive and well. The conflict of interest is stunning
The Family Law Council (FLC) is a special-interest group like any other association representing its members. The FLC represents lawyers who seek to win their cases, especially if they are profitable and result in verdicts that order transfers of money. We can therefore assume that FLC publications are not disinterested research, but are meant to promote the litigating and financial interests of lawyers.
Professor Chisholm is a former family lawyer and mouthpiece of a multibillion dollar divorce-family violence industry. Its like commissioning Charlton Heston to report on gun control or asking Mugabes advice on political governance.
Chisholms creditability was already shot by co-authoring an academic paper with Dr Jennifer McIntosh in which they submitted contraindications against shared care. Their high conflict sample size of 30 odd couples had the scientific validity of gossip and unsurprisingly precluded shared care in marriage.
Typical of the family court thugocracy Chisholms testimony to the Senate concluded with an offer to rewrite and simplify the Family Law Act with a child expert - McIntosh. There is a reason one of the few successful referenda was the compulsory retirement of judges at 70 before senility. Nevertheless, even Chisholm did not go so far as to recommend the repeal of the friendly parent provisions or the reintroduction of interim AVOs until the morning of the committee hearing.
I point out that Chisholms findings are contradicted by the independent research of the AIFS a far more comprehensive study covering 22,000 cases over 3 years. This found no evidence of an increase in family violence after the 2006 reform. There is no evidence to support Chisholms recommendations that women are afraid to make allegations beyond anecdote. (3) AG public submission
The attorney general claims to have overwhelming public support for this reform. Then why did he refuse to release these submissions tendered for publication. When these were finally released, months after the FOI requests, a significant proportion were written by the same hand or of one paragraph length, essentially we support the family violence bill, sincerely XXX(Michael Flood). And why were so many of the submissions opposing the bill not in the FOI documents, including mine?
I note that various government funded pro-feminist organisations were offering help to write submissions on their websites and provided free bus trips to Canberra to support the Bill.
I note that the member for Barton is not being offered pre-selection. Appendix 3
Proposed Amendment to save shared parenting
The opportunity of reform might not be lost if the Senate supports an additional amendment easily inserted as an explanatory note into s65DAA of the FLA, namely, that it is in the best interests of the child to have maximum practicable time with both parents.
This s65DDA is only triggered if the shared parental responsibility presumption is satisfied, that is, if there is no risk of family violence/abuse to the child - which is the whole point of the Bill.
The advocates of increasing child safety cannot argue against this minor amendment. The note is simply an clarification of the existent law. [cf. High Court "Rosa" case]
And it is justified by the fact that the shared parental responsibility reform of 2006 failed in its intent to increase meaningful relationships with both parents - court ordered shared parenting arrangements increased only 3% to 17% of cases (AIFS). The family court judiciary effectively ignored the Parliament as it has with previous reforms.
This simple note will silence public cynicism of a shared parenting rollback and justify the committee's substantive support.