Honorable Members of
The Legislative Assembly of The Northern Territory
Dear Members
And cc Community Members – Who well know what politicians pretend they do not know about the bias against men PAID FOR BY GOVERNMENT OUT OF TAXPAYERS RESOURCES.
Referring to the attached research by Professor Patrick Parkinson on false reports and leally and ‘factless’baseless RESTRAINING ORDERS.
When we have world’s best legislation do you not wonder just a little why men are being relegated to second class citizens simply by taking up a ‘heterosexual family relationship’ and becoming a father?
Isn’t it time Politicians and Police noted the elephant in the room of feminist family law solicitors and police members and Government service providers are running false allegations against men – on Taxpayers Resources. – causing an immense waste of precious Treasury (Taxpayers} money servicing false reports of violence against innocent men. Paying for and enforcing Feminist Ideology with Taxpayers Resources. To ‘stereotype’ and‘stigmatize’ innocent man and fathers.
Isn’t it far beyond time that women making false reports to police and courts and being granted‘gifted’ baseless ‘restraining orders’ are prosecuted under the legislation politicians made for persons falsely reporting to police and courts? Also why do Magistrates who know such reports {not Parkinson Report} and applications are false then give them the credence of ‘approval’? Honorable Members we could use that unlawfully wasted massive amount of taxpayer’s money for better things. Like a more efficient police service or to maybe afford employing more police out of the same budget allocation.
Instead of Politicians and Public Servants taking sides with the feminists in their gender war against men BEING FUNDED out of Government Service Deliveries the likes of police and legal aid and courts please do have the intestinal fortitude of your predecessors who made the legislation to protect the taxpayer and citizens by (a) ending issuing baseless restraining orders (b) start prosecuting false reporters? Note ‘the legislation’ makes no gender differences but politicians and public servants unlawfully do and that is how men and fathers are unlawfully relegated into second class citizens – by Politicians and Public Servants..
In this article attached you may note the other elephant in the room of typically biased reporting by citing the inverted of gender example – here when 80+% of false reports are BY WOMEN against men. There is also an attachment above for your ready use of circulating the truth – it would be quite a change to the feminist template of ‘solely male blame’ the likes that misleading Family Services Minister Vatskalis distributes at Taxpayers Costs by the media of solely male blame. Sets the feminists scene for false reports to stick– is more of Taxpayers Funding – wasted on feminist solely male blame.
As I have previously informed Members and Police about 1,600 – a very conservative figure – baseless police restraining orders issued in NT annually against totally innocent men with no regard whatsoever as to if her claim is totally false Now here – writing this report – is Professor Parkinson who reviewed Child Support and much of Family Law telling The Senate (on family law) and the same relative to The Northern Territory Government is as I have been for the past ten years trying to get into the Teflon coated gender biased brains of Northern Territory Politicians. Who are more prepared to destroy the lives of NT men – to the point of suicide – than upset the domineering and dominating ruthless feminists who they allow to run the Territory Government by proxy in heterosexual service deliveries as a gender war against men.
Do not blame the women who make these false reports BLAME THE RECALCITRANT PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO ISSUE THEM UPON NO EVIDENCE ONLY ‘REQESTS’ AND UNINVESTIGATED‘FALSE REPORTS’ BY WOMEN.
Be respectfully reminded all of this FEMINISM is paid for – like your salaries and superannuation’s and expenses – by Taxpayers. Feminists are stealing a ‘free ride’ under your Rip Van Winkle noses by being allowed to run and bolster their own self centered ideology on Taxpayers Resources. Men and their children are the human collateral of self serving feminism . PLEASE FIX.
Please get some honesty and ‘guts’ and ensure that men and fathers are no longer being relegated by ‘the government’ and its service deliveries into second class citizens – simply because they are of male gender or a father of children is no reason alone to issue restring orders‘on request’ without any substantiating evidence. Be further advised Police are also abusing the same the issue of Trespass Orders without lawful cause. Just because a WOMAN asks or does a bit of light role playing. It is that easy males are being relegated into a second class citizen to be potential suicides on by Kon Vatskalis ‘solely male blame’ Taxpayer funded family violence ads – that Police then enforce with dud restraining orders.
Professor Patrick Parkinson is now telling ALL OF GOVERNMENT – including of The Northern Territory – the same so please fix or may you in your family suffer the curse to have to discover the massive injustices for simply being male or a father under feminist governance by proxy..
Sincerely
Robert E Kennedy Coordinator NT Office Status of Family, PO Box 988, Palmerston Phone 08 8932 3339.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So they all know its a racket but they’re all in on it !
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 inNew South Wales andQueensland. 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 38Queensland 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 38Queenslandmagistrates 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 Victoriain 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.
Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2011
Submission to Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
by Prof. Patrick Parkinson, University of Sydney
