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.

An opportunity to respond to FR movements in policy

Submissions invited

Submissions are invited on issues of Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century in Australia. In particular we are interested in your responses to any or all of the questions in the Discussion Paper, as well as any other issues of concern.

How to make a submission

Electronic submissions are encouraged. If you would like to make a submission on any of the issues in this paper, please send comments 
in hard copy to:

Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21^st Century Submission
Race Discrimination Unit: Education and Partnerships Section
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
GPO Box 5218
Sydney NSW 2001

or go online: www.humanrights.gov.au/frb

or by email at:frb@humanrights.gov.au

or by fax at: (02) 9284 9849

For any queries please telephone:
(02) 9284 9600 or 1800 620 241 (TTY)

CLOSING DATE FOR SUBMISSIONS:
31 January 2009

Confidentiality

Submissions will be treated as public documents unless confidentiality is requested. HREOC will:

• include a list of submissions in its final report;

• refer to submissions in the text of the final report and other HREOC publications; and

• publish selected submissions on its website.

If you want your submission, or any part of it, to be treated as confidential, please indicate this clearly.

Requests by members of the public for access to confidential submissions will be determined in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).

© Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, August 2008
ISBN 978-1-921449-05-5

Cover photo by Dani Simmonds.

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Requests and enquires concerning reproduction, rights and content should be addressed to the:

Race Discrimination Unit: Education and Partnerships Section
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
GPO Box 5218
Sydney NSW 2001

In a country as multicultural as Australia, freedoms of cultural expression, religious expression and human rights need ongoing exploration. This section is about gaining a deeper understanding of how effective Australia’s current human rights framework is, and if tensions between human rights, religious expression and cultural expression are of concern.

Questions to consider include:

1. Is there satisfactory freedom of cultural expression and practice within the normative social and legal framework?

2. Do service providers in your state or territory support the right to cultural security, safety and competence?

3. How can the cultural aspirations and human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders be met?

4. What are the issues impacting on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities at present, and proposed solutions?

5. Are there any issues in regard to participation in the faith community for people with disabilities?

6. How is diverse sexuality perceived within faith communities?

7. How can faith communities be inclusive of people of diverse sexualities?

8. Should religious organisations (including religious schools, hospitals and other service delivery agencies) exclude people from employment because of their sexuality or their sex and gender identity?

9. Do you consider environmental concern to be an influence shaping spiritualities and value systems?

10. a) Are there religious groups, practices and beliefs that you think are of concern to Australians?

    b) Should these be subjected to legislative control, and should they be eligible for government grants and assistance?

---

Roxon under fire over ‘anti-gay’ health ambassadors

• http://www.theage.com.au/national/roxon-under-fire-over-antigay-health-ambassadors-20081126-6is1.html
  
• Leo Shanahan
• November 27, 2008

NICOLA Roxon has been embarrassed by the revelation that two men she appointed as health ambassadors put their names to a publication saying homosexuality is a mental disorder and gay people are more likely to take drugs and molest children.

The Health Minister, who is under pressure to dump them, said last night she found the document “unacceptable and repugnant”.

“My office is currently in discussions with both men to determine what role they played, and whether the views expressed are their own,” Ms Roxon said. “I regard this as a serious matter and will consider closely the responses I receive.”

The appointment of six men’s health ambassadors has turned into a PR disaster for Ms Roxon, who was already under fire for appointing Tim Mathieson, partner of Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, despite him having no health background.

Two of the ambassadors — Warwick Marsh and Barry Williams — were listed as among 34 contributors to a paper published last year by the Fatherhood Foundation entitled 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters.

Among its claims are that gay people are more likely to cheat and hit their partners than those in “normal” relationships.

Mr Marsh, from the Fatherhood Foundation, said he “absolutely” stood by the content of the paper. But he said he was not homophobic. “I hope we’re in a free society that still allows us to speak our mind. I don’t wish any evil on anybody,” he said. “I’m there for men’s health and I’m there to support the wonderful policy.”

But Mr Williams, the president of Lone Fathers, said he did not write any of the paper, having merely provided advice on family law issues. He said he believed people “should be accepted the way they are born” and that he did not discriminate against anyone.

Associate Professor Anne Mitchell, from Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria at La Trobe University, said the document amounted to gay-hate literature and it was not appropriate for its authors to be associated with promotion of men’s health.

The paper talks about the importance of the role of men and women in marriage and warns of the dangers of the acceptance of homosexuals in families and society.

It characterises homosexuality as a mental illness and says that people turn gay as result of dysfunctional families and abuse.

“The sad truth is, homosexual abuse of children is proportionately higher than heterosexual abuse of children,” the paper says. “It must be stressed that most homosexuals do not abuse children, and most are not pedophiles, but it seems a significant number do, and are.”

It also says that the “condition” can be cured by psychological treatment.

Story Tools

• Email this story
• Share / Bookmark story
• Print this story
• RSS Feed
• Subscribe to news by email

Why would a mother and two boys be running?

Swedish abduction boys’ identities released

10:00 AEST Tue Nov 18 2008

By ninemsn staff

Andre Valette (left), Frank Valette, and their mother Ann-Louise Valette.

More national news:

Welfare quarantined in WA communities

Pregnant woman sues QR over train crash

Fast climate action to cost more: study

Emergency crews test disaster response

ABC owes $1.6 billion: administrator

Garrett defends whaling research program

Navy chiefs order two-month shutdown

Green buildings ‘should be fast-tracked’

Injured seal washes up on St Kilda beach

Unknown Sydney sailor to be reburied

The identities of two missing Melbourne boys believed abducted by their Swedish mother have been made public in a rare move by Australia’s Family Court.

Frank Oliver Valette, 11, and Andre Nicholas Valette, 9, have not been seen since they visited their mother, Ann-Louise Valette, in Sweden more than a month ago, The Age newspaper reports.

The boys’ father, who cannot be named, flew to Sweden last week in a desperate bid to search for his sons after Ms Valette broke a court order to return the children to Australia on October 11.

The Family Court has granted a publication order to the father allowing the children and their mother’s identities to be revealed in a bid to help find them.

Ms Valette was given permission in June by the Family Court to take her sons on a trip to Sweden, as long as she brought them back to Australia a month later.

The boys’ father had been granted full-time custody of the children.

When Ms Valette failed to return the children last month, the Family Court issued a recovery order to the Australian Federal Police, state police and the marshal of the Family Court.

Swedish police have been trying to track down the woman and children but have so far failed.

Swedish police Inspector Peter Sehlin told The Age Ms Valette and the children were last seen together at the end of September while she was visiting friends in her home town of Vasteras, about 100 kilometres from Stockholm.

“I think it’s very hard to hide yourself with two children in Sweden because you have to go to hospital, you have to go shopping, you have to buy things,” the newspaper quoted him as saying.

Any information regarding Ms Valette and the children should be given to the Domestic Violence Crisis Hotline 1800 200 526

1. She is a mother “abducting” her own children?
2. It does not state why she is running with the children.
3. It does not display actual concerns she may have had.
4. The Australian Family Court DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT protect women and children from Domestic violence.
5. Dad only gets full custody if the mother becomes protective of the children or mum is isolated from her family and wants to go home to Sweden.

Conclusion:

The courts need to stop using children to control mothers and isolate them from their families.  They also need to address child abuse before they go on about publicizing cases.

Feel Free to express your concerns to The Attorney General:

attorney@ag.gov.au

rob.hulls@parliament.vic.gov.au

The corruption behind Shared Parenting is beginning to show

Recently, a blog was started to attack sites that revealed the truth about the Shared Parenting Movements.  In Australia, it was not even their idea.  

It was a copy – cat corruption ring that plagued the US courts and spread the virus here.  Yes, ladies and gentleman – Its a virus and a deadly one.  Why ?  Because it intends to conceal the abuses to women and children.  Advocates for children’s and mothers rights warned heavily against it because they were aware of the widespread homicides, abuses and oppression that go with the “Shared Parenting Regime”.    

I would like to thank “Exposing the Truth” for educating me on a deeper level on the activities of the FR movements, particularly the Family Web Law Guide.  

The charges that the privacy law prevents me from disclosing about leaders of various groups is abhorrent and quite sinister.  

In America, groups are allowed to reveal such things about criminal records. A good example of this is Dean Tongs, “Abuse Excuse” Website that many mens groups still continue to support.  

He claimed that he was “falsely accused of domestic violence” but his charges show otherwise.
They claim that they provide a mothers group, “Mothers 4 Equality”, yet this is a sham. The most who posts there is D4E who is a moderator and a women hater. One of our users who spoke about domestic violence against women had her posts immediately deleted and captured this snapshot:

One thing is that these men have plagued the internet continually gratifying abusive actions of men against women and little is actually done to uphold responsibility for these behaviors.  

Simon Hunt from the FLAG group had even submitted to the 2020 summit that children should see their dads regardless of violence :

“FAMILY VIOLENCE’ Be they genuine or contrived, Family Violence allegations and AVOs must not be allowed to compromise a child’s relationship with either parent when change overs can be made at school or through third parties (ie: thereby avoiding direct contact between the parents). “

His posts have been accepted at this forum as he continually proceeds to degrade women.  One thing that has not actually been realized is the ungratefulness towards women that they have risks their lives at times and bear the burden of sickness, pain and vulnerability to bring a precious life into the world. 

Women are not baby factories and children are not possessions.  Australians change of terms did not change the meaning that shared care imposed.  Camouflaged with the word “best interests”, they continued to state that fathers need to be with their children, whilst degrading single mothers and child advocates during the campaign.  The law community even played a part in this barbaric campaign:

Government Funded Propaganda

Many members of the online community have expressed their distaste on the Family web Law Guide, Notably Anonymums and Expose the Truth.  Even well respected researchers such as Dr Michael Flood have been attacked by these groups as “misandrist” or “feminazis”.  Few have challenged them without attacks.  This is one of the latest distortions of two bloggers who have simply wrote to expose the true animosity that these hateful groups display in their scramble for yet again…more control over children and mothers.  They have been obsessively plastering the internet with their agenda in one form or another and seem to develop meaningless rationales for needing more rights, particularly the rights to abuse more than anything else.  The wording may change but the agenda is still the same.

The most abhorrent is that the previous government funded these men a quarter of a million dollars to continue to spread this propaganda and distort facts and figures so that they have more opportunity to harass, abuse and control women and children without reprisals from authorities.  

Above is what they are supposed to be funded for, however, the blog reveals quite a lengthy waste of time and government resources.  

Here is a confirmation that it in fact does come from the family law web-guide:

Please feel free to contact FACSIA and report this fraud at:

fraud@fahcsia.gov.au