01 January 2015
Hi All
Here attached is good reading to begin 2015 with thanks to Lone Fathers Association Australia for the great job they do in producing a great newsletter. Note the branches listed and get along and give force to change in 2015 or if no branch is in your area get one started and contact Barry Williams to help you get another branch up and running. Not only for the duration of your own case but for years after like me now over 15 years and still driving for the equality of fathers out of Government Administration.
http://lonefathers.org.au/
Here’s an easy start of something very positive right now offsetting feminist propaganda about domestic violence.
Read Bliney Dan on page 21 and read Professor Patrick Parkinson Report on false allegations attached here. Run off a few copies of his research he submitted to The Senate and get an appointment with your nearest Station Sergeant and explain to them how false allegations leave harm upon the father falsely accused and that false allegation can be prosecuted by police under the Police Administration Act for also being a waste of Taxpayers Resources especially under budget cuts. If it still goes to court as a false allegation it then comes under the Criminal Code Act for the misuse of courts and the penalty for the false claimant is the same as what they were trying .to have falsely imposed. A false report is a serious legal matter not being properly handled by police. Run off the ABS stats too for police. They are GOVERNMENTS OWN STATISTICS that police should be heeding as the status quo.
And that Police must by way of their Oath of Office abandon their long ago adopted and unlawful feminists solely male blame Duluth Model of administering Domestic Violence.
Come on now and make 2015 a year of being proactive restoring truth and gender equality in these heterosexual administrations. The feminists are doing it all of the time surely fathers can find some time to counterbalance their propaganda with the likes of Professor Parkinson’s Research. Professor Parkinson is a professor of law with as specialization in family law at NSW University email patrick.parkinsion@sydney.edu.au
Regards
Robert K
Phone 08 8932 333908 8932 3339
Reading View. Alt Shift A for Accessibility Help.
False Allegations of Abuse – Submission by Prof. Parkinson to Senate
Excerpt of submission to the Senate Committee: There is now a very widespread view in the community that some family violence orders are sought for tactical or collateral reasons to do with family law disputes. People have become very cynical about them. A national survey conducted in 2009, with over 12,500 respondents, found that 49% of respondents agreed with the proposition that ‘women going through custody battles often make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence in order to improve their case’, and only 28% disagreed. While it might be expected that men would be inclined to believe this, 42% of women did so as well. The view that some family violence order applications are unjustified appears to be shared by state magistrates in New South Wales and Queensland. Hickey and Cumines in a survey of 68 NSW magistrates concerning apprehended violence orders (AVOs) found that 90% agreed that some AVOs were sought as a tactic to aid their case in order to deprive a former partner of contact with the children. About a third of those who thought AVOs were used tactically indicated that it did not occur ‘often’, but one in six believed it occurred ‘all the time’. A similar survey of 38 Queensland magistrates found that 74% agreed with the proposition that protection orders are used in Family Court proceedings as a tactic to aid a parent’s case and to deprive their partner of contact with their children.
90% of surveyed NSW Magistrates agreed that AVOs were sometimes or often sought as a tactic in order to deprive a former partner of contact with the children.
In research that our research team recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, almost all solicitors thought that tactical applications for AVOs occurred, with the majority considering it happened often. In another study based upon interviews with 181 parents who have been involved in family law disputes, we found a strong perception from respondents to family violence orders (both women and men) that their former partners sought a family violence order in order to help win their family law case. This is a quote from one of the women in our study. Her former husband, who we also interviewed, sought an apprehended violence order (AVO) to keep her away from the house after she had left it.
A survey of 38 Queensland magistrates found that 74% agreed with the proposition that protection orders are used in Family Court proceedings as a tactic to aid a parent’s case and to deprive their partner of contact with their children.
She said this: “I thought this is ridiculous. What’s he giving me an AVO for? I haven’t done anything to him. I haven’t hit him, kicked him. We never had any violence in our marriage. Why have I got an AVO? … you can put an AVO on someone and say that they’re violent, and the only way you can get a child off their mother is because they’re violent. And that’s why I think he gave me the AVO.” The belief that family violence orders are a weapon in the war between parents is fuelled by the fact that judges are required under the Family Law Act to consider such family violence orders in determining the best interests of the child. The proposed clause in this Bill takes the law back to what it was before 2006, without any explanation for why Parliament should reverse its previous decision at least to limit the provision. It really doesn’t matter whether this belief that family violence orders are used tactically is true or not. The fact is that the perception is out there and it is held by state magistrates and family lawyers, as well as the wider community. The retention of this provision in the Family Law Act simply fuels the suspicion that family violence orders are being misused. This is damaging to the credibility of the family violence order system and the courts.The second reason why the requirement to consider family violence orders ought to be removed is that this serves absolutely no purpose. Yes, the court needs to know about the existence of a current family violence order in order to consider how to frame its own orders (s.60CG), but that is dealt with by requiring people to inform the court of such orders (s.60CF). Why consider them again in deciding what is in the best interests of a child (s.60CC(3))? The court is already required to consider the history of violence. What does it add to require the court also to consider a family violence order? The impression given by the legislation is that these orders are somehow evidence that there has been violence. However, that is a misunderstanding.
In research that our research team recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, almost all solicitors thought that tactical applications for AVOs occurred, with the majority considering it happened often.
Family violence orders have absolutely no evidential value in the vast majority of cases. This is because, in the vast majority of cases, they are consented to without admissions. The hearings in these uncontested cases are very brief indeed. Prof. Rosemary Hunter, in observations in Victoria in 1996–97, found that the median hearing time for each application was only about three minutes. Applications were typically dealt with in a bureaucratic manner, with magistrates being distant and emotionally disengaged. To the extent that applicants were asked to give oral evidence, they were typically asked to confirm the content of their written application, and very little exploration of the grounds for the application took place. Dr Jane Wangmann, in a recent analysis of court files in NSW, reached finding very similar to Hunter’s. In her observations of AVO matters in 2006–7, she found, like Hunter, that cases were dealt with in three minutes or less. She also noted that the information provided in written complaints was brief and sometimes vague. It is hardly surprising, then, that judges in family law cases draw no inferences from the mere existence of a family violence order. This has been the clear view of family lawyers for the last 15 years. Indeed, in the research we recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, none of the lawyers who responded to the question believed that judicial officers gave AVOs much consideration in determining parenting disputes. Judges, they indicate, want to evaluate the evidence of violence itself, not the fact that another court has made an order about it by consent and without admissions. https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=f6c1e09d-3367-4ed1-b0da-aed26481ea59 Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2011 Submission to Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs by Prof. Patrick Parkinson, University of Sydney
