California Court Puts 58,000 Children in Harms Way

Scandal Illuminates Troubled Family Court System

By Byron Williams

The family court system has, in theory, operated on the question, "What is in the best interests of the child?"

But the findings articulated at a one-day workshop hosted by Alameda County Supervisor Gail Steele and the Center for Judicial Excellence suggest that question is more theory than practice.

If the statistics are accurate, the frequency with which children are allowed to have unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents after divorce in this country is alarming and worthy of the public’s attention.

According to the Center for Judicial Excellence, "Not since the Catholic Church pedophile scandal has the United States seen this level of institutional collusion and corruption harming innocent children."

This may sound like hyperbole, but the comparison holds if, in fact, most family court professionals know the system is broken and are allowing the most vulnerable members of society to potentially suffer lifelong consequences.

It is indeed a broken system that allows 58,000 children each year to be placed in harm’s way simply because the abusive parent also possesses the resources to hire a bevy of professionals who plead his/her case to judges, mediators and other family-law professionals.

Heavy caseloads, bad judges and unqualified mediators, who evaluate families sometimes based on no more than a one-hour meeting, can add up to decisions that permanently

affect families.

As one parent shared with me, "I wouldn’t believe my own story if I didn’t live through it. We trust the courts to do the right thing, but it’s just not that simple."

Those who are not directly involved trust the system to work — but there was a consistent message at the workshop that it does not work, and children are paying the price.

Are these simply the musing of parents and attorneys who did not get their way? No, there is more than enough data to suggest there is a problem that warrants investigation. The primary charge finds that many judges, for reasons ranging from being overworked to becoming jaded by the system, have placed an inordinate reliance on court appointees such as mediators, evaluators, investigators, and minors’ counsel, who may or may not act in the best interest of the children.

This has created a scenario whereby individuals who have no understanding of the law often sway the individual who is appointed to administer justice.

Steele also cites a level of dishonesty that she states is pervasive throughout the system. "It’s not just mediators but social workers who are not telling the truth," she said.

The workshop featured experts in the field and parents sharing their gut-wrenching, first-hand testimony and offering solutions to the problem-plagued system in California.

State Sen. Mark Leno and other members of the Legislature are calling for an audit that will evaluate the magnitude of the concerns expressed over a number of years.

A number of participants also made it clear the problems they cite are not emblematic of the whole, maintaining there are indeed a number of good judges within the system. But there are enough bad ones who are not held accountable, causing the system dysfunction.

Steele should be commended for her willingness to bring attention to an issue that has flown under the radar for years. Investigation is long overdue.

Byron Williams has served as pastor of the Resurrection Community Church in Oakland since 2002. As the only pastor/syndicated columnist in the country, Williams writes a column which appears in 10 publications and several progressive web sites across the country.

Posted on June 15, 2009

Motherhood: Don’t Replace Her

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "Motherhood: Don’t Replace Her", posted with vodpod

Family Violence Best Interests: The Family Courts Private Joke

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Business & Legal children corruption

Consequences

more about "Consequences", posted with vodpod

An Incredible story of survival of a young women who was abused by the Family Courts

Evolution Of Propaganda

Dads who fight win favour in custody cases

• Font Size:DecreaseIncrease
• Print Page:Print

Michael Pelly | March 24, 2009

Article from: The Australian

FATHERS who want custody of their children will have more success in the Family Court than by trying to strike a deal with their ex-partners.

In a break with conventional wisdom, fathers are twice as likely to get majority custody of their children if they take their fight to the court.

A Family Court review shows fathers were given majority custody in 17 per cent of litigated cases, but only in 8 per cent of those settled by consent, or early agreement, with the mothers.

The review of the shared parental responsibility reforms of 2006 shows that in 14 per cent of litigated cases, the father received between 30 and 45 per cent of custody. This figure fell to 11 per cent for early agreements.

The review shows that, if fathers are given less than 30 per cent custody, abuse and violence are the main reasons. And about one in 12 court cases end with an order that a child should spend time with their grandparents.

The reforms, passed by the Howard government, introduced a rebuttable presumption of “equal time” parenting and were aimed at promoting co-operation over conflict.

However, only 15 per cent of the litigated cases and 19 per cent of the consent agreements ended in orders for 50-50 care between the parents.

The biggest group was mothers who were awarded the majority of time with their children — they represented 60 per cent of the litigated cases and 68 per cent of consent cases.

The survey assessed 1448 of the 6992 litigated cases in 2007-08, and 2719 of 10,575 cases settled by consent or early agreement.

The biggest group of men (33per cent) were those awarded less than 30 per cent custody. Abuse and family violence was the main reason in 29 per cent of these matters, followed by entrenched conflict (15 per cent).

Of the 9 per cent of cases in which women were awarded less than 30 per cent custody, mental health was the dominant factor in 31 per cent of cases followed by distance and financial barriers (16per cent) and abuse and family violence (16 per cent).

Substance abuse was cited as a main reason for the Family Court making sub-30 per cent orders, with 4per cent of the fathers were and 7 per cent of mothers.

In 6 per cent of litigated cases, the father was ordered to spend no time with their child. The same order applied to only 1 per cent of women.

The information, which was posted on the Family Court’s website yesterday, came with a warning that the court considers only the most serious cases, with the remainder being handled by the Federal Magistrates Court.

When the Coalition passed the Family Law Amendment Act (Shared Parental Responsibility Act), it established 60 Family Relationship Centres around Australia as a first stop for couples in conflict.

“The aim was to encourage parents to consider, where appropriate, reaching an agreement regarding parenting arrangements in the first instance themselves rather than having the court as a first option,” the court said yesterday.

“Given this, it is to be expected that there might be a higher number of shared care or substantial sharing of time cases negotiated outside the courts.”

The figures show grandparents have been a beneficiary of the reforms, which specifically said their access rights were to be considered.

An estimated 560 cases — or 8per cent of the litigated cases — end with orders containing provision for time with grandparents. The figure fell to 2 per cent for consent agreements.

A spokeswoman for the Family Court said the statistics should not be compared with pre-2006 data because of the changes in legislation and the way the information was collected.

The court is working with the Australian Institute of Family Studies on cases that were decided before 2006 and can be compared with matters decided under the new legislation.

42 Filipino women and children killed in Australia by male partners since 1980

Teresita Andalis was murdered August 10, 1980.
Carmelita Lee was murdered on January 21, 1984.
Pauline Kelly was killed on December 23, 1986.
Nenita Evans disappeared on January 8, 1987.
Azucena ‘Asing’ Pollard and her son Harry jnr. disappeared sometime between January 8 and June 4, 1987.
Nenita Westhof was murdered on February 18, 1987; 9 days later her ex-husband was also murdered.
Rowena Sokol 17-years-old, was killed on February 23, 1987.
Lusanta de Groot and baby 1987, Lusanta survived; her baby died.
Bibiana Doria Singh was last seen in 1987.
Socorro North and her child were last seen in 1987.
Jean Strachan Keir was murdered on February 9 or 10, 1988
Bella Rodriguez Elmore was murdered on March 16, 1988.
Nanette Villani found dead in June 1989.
Generosa Bongcodin was killed on July 9, 1989.
Julietta Apacway Herring was murdered on November 25, 1989.
Milagros ‘Mila’ Dark found dead on February 17, 1990.
Eve Roweth found dead in March 1991.
Rosalina Canonizado found dead on April 13, 1991.
Teresita Matan Garrott and Normita Barrios Garrott died on May 1, 1991.
Pia Navida found dead in 1991.
Marylou Orton found dead on March 13, 1992.
Milagros ‘Mila’ Bordador Wills was murdered on April 3, 1993.
Elizabeth Mary Haynes and Yohana Rodriguez 5 and 12-years-old, were killed on April 24, 1993.
Elma Albarracin Young was killed on February 20, 1994.
Priscilla Squires died on November 29, 1995.
Susan Dimatulae Pecson was murdered on September 26, 1996.
Annabel Sabellano Strzelecki is missing since June 6, 1998.
Marie Ann Stanton was murdered on March 11, 1999.
Ruth Amores Butay was killed on June 23, 2000.
Loiva Gonzales, her husband and her 18-year-old daughter, Clodine, were murdered on July 10, 2001.
Jarrod, Ryan and Ashley Fraser 4, 5 and 7-years-old were murdered between 18-20 August, 2001.
Virginia Abad Frost was killed on February 16, 2004.
Flordeliza (Flora) O’Connor was killed on 7 July 2007.
Luvina Dayang was killed on 11 or 12 December 2007.

Domestic Violence

Shining a light into the murky depths of partner violence

• Katie Dunlop
• March 20, 2009

html,body { border: 0px; }

DOMESTIC violence, family violence, violence against women, intimate partner violence: we definitely have a range of phrases for the abuse men inflict on women and children within what ought to be relationships of trust and love.

Pity we don’t use them to describe the murders we often see on our front pages — the kids driven into the dam or gassed in the car, the wife or girlfriend stabbed in her kitchen, thrown off a cliff or shot in scrubland. Aberrations? Love gone wrong? No. These instances of violence are just the tip of the iceberg. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is everywhere, even if you don’t know it.

It seems the subject of IPV is taboo, so those who experience it assume the abuse is their problem and not the social and public health issue it really is. We need to start talking about IPV and we need to do it now.

I have long known that relationships could be abusive, but it had never occurred to me that IPV was a common experience for so many Australian women. More than a third of Australian women who have had a boyfriend or husband experience abuse. Most shockingly, IPV is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in women aged between 15 and 44.

Since I began working with women who have experienced abuse, the reality of IPV has become even starker. Rather than numbers on a page, these are real women with faces and histories. Each of them has a unique but common story: of living with control, fear and abuse, and courageously doing all they can to look after themselves and their children who, as IPV witnesses and victims, also suffer devastating effects.

If you are surprised at the extent of IPV, you are not alone. Our awareness of IPV in Australia is very poor. According to a recent Victorian study, many think that women abuse their partners as much as men (false: men are the perpetrators 98 per cent of the time) or that IPV is excusable if it represents a “temporary loss of control”, or if the abuser subsequently apologises (false: many IPV incidents, especially murders, are premeditated).

How can we work together to solve a national crisis if a significant portion of the nation is unaware of the crisis in the first place?

In an atmosphere where IPV is shrouded in silence and myth, asking for help involves the risk of being judged or misunderstood. We must aim for a society in which women can ask for help, secure in the knowledge they will be supported and respected.

Being equipped with the information and ability to talk about IPV also allows us to recognise and respond to the signs of abuse in our own relationships and in those of our friends and family.

By transforming our silence — which implicitly accepts and condones IPV — into a loud and clear conversation, we create a society where IPV has few places to hide. We create a society that expresses zero tolerance for violence against women. The reality is that the creation of this type of society is within our capacity.

Often the media contribute to the silence on IPV by failing to discuss it constructively or not discussing it at all. Rather than leaving us at an impasse, this points us to a valuable opportunity. Imagine the possibilities for socially responsible reporting that would arise out of a collaborative relationship between IPV experts, survivors and volunteers and journalists.

The IPV service community should provide journalists with training on IPV issues and support the media’s coverage of IPV incidents. It should offer information about IPV, advice on sensitive and educational reporting, and the opportunity for journalists to personalise each story by drawing on the perspectives of IPV survivors.

Media collectives of this type would help smash the silence on intimate partner violence by ensuring that, where it is present in the fabric of society, IPV is also present on the pages of our newspapers.

This is one small idea, one small step, but one that might make us a bit more aware of IPV and with that, a bit more eager to act on a phenomenon that is destroying the hearts and bodies of so many Australian women and children. No idea is a silver bullet: solutions happen when small ideas act in concert. If we take this idea of IPV media collectives, add some national, ongoing, school-based healthy relationships education and opportunities for adults to engage with the issue of IPV in a constructive and personal way, I have great faith that we will be taking our first steps in a society where IPV is taken out of the hiding place that to date has afforded it protection.

Katie Dunlop is an outreach worker with the Eastern Domestic Violence Crisis Service and is a contributing author of The Future by Us, published this week by Hardie Grant.

If you are experiencing abuse, the Women’s Domestic Violence Crisis Service is a 24 hour/7 days a week telephone service providing support, information and accommodation. Call 9373 0123, or Country toll free 1800 015 188.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/shining-a-light-into-the-murky-depths-of-partner-violence-20090319-937y.html?page=-1

Anonymums Message To The Family Court and Fathers Lobby Groups

Hello Family Courts and father lobby groups.
We have been monitoring your alliances, your views promoting pedophilia within your laws,

the destruction of motherhood, the suppression of children and their mothers. We are aware

of the children and women that are killed because you ordered it.

We are aware of the parents who are treated like criminals because you were negligent in

protecting them. We know of the lies you spout everytime the media catches a child killed by

a court order. With the help of your underpaid court staff, we have been able to monitor

your actions closely.

We know of the innocent mothers laying in jail cells because they were against child abuse.

Your malevolent actions for the sake of profit will not go unnoticed. Anonymums has

decided that your organization must be destroyed. For the best interests of the children, for

the good of mothers, fathers and grandparents and for the rest of the community. We shall

expel you from funding and systematically dismantle your powers until your organization

ceases to function. We acknowledge you as a serious opponent.

Your methods, hypocrisy and exploitation will be circulated widely.
You cannot hide as we are everywhere internally and externally.
Like that of anonymous, we are indestructible but we are of our own origin, ideas and

directions.

No doubt you will attempt to suppress and distort our intentions, but the evidence we hold is

beyond your power. We are above your law and adhere to human rights of which you are

violating. We hold you in contempt for every life you order as cheap.

The lives of women and children are not yours to own, nor control.
Silence is control
Control is for the unintelligent.
That is why we are beyond you…
We are anonymums

more about "Anonymums Message To The Family Court…", posted with vodpod