In Ireland ~ Reporting of family law cases may be possible

One can get carried away with silliness but this one takes the cake. If you are a lawyer you may be able to report family law cases. What these cretins won't do to make money. How many of their peers are in the legislature making up these rules.MJM








Friday, May 29, 2009


FIONA GARTLAND

A BAN on media coverage of family law cases could be circumvented if the reporting was carried out by qualified solicitors or barristers, according to a high-ranking committee of the Court Service Board.

At present, the media are banned from reporting any family law proceedings under the in camera rule.

In a report presented to the board of the Courts Service this week, the Family Law Reporting Project Committee found there was no obstacle preventing a barrister or solicitor employed by a media organisation from reporting on family law cases.

The report also recommended that eight additional judges be appointed to the Circuit Court and District Court immediately to help deal with delays.

The committee was established to consider the recommendations of a report from Dr Carol Coulter on the Family Law Reporting Pilot Project.

Its members included the President of the Law Reform Commission and former judge of the Supreme Court, Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns of the Supreme Court, who chaired the committee, Mr Justice Abbott of the High Court, Judge Michael White of the Circuit Court and Judge Ger Furlong of the District Court.

Ms Coulter had recommended that clarification be sought as to who may attend and report on family law proceedings under the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. The Act specifies that solicitors and barristers could attend and that others could be specified in regulations. When the regulations were introduced they did not include journalists.

In his foreword to the report, Mr Justice Kearns said the committee “was left in no doubt” that past restrictions on the reporting of family law had led to significant levels of suspicion and resentment, by men in particular.

“The provision of information about family law cases on an ongoing basis is essential,” he said.

The report said the committee “sees no obstacle to a barrister or solicitor, whether employed by a media organisation or operating independently, reporting proceedings for publication in a newspaper or other media”. It did not recommend a change in the law to allow unqualified reporters to attend.

The report also found people could wait for a divorce case for three months or two years on average, depending on which circuit court the case was to be heard in. It recommended three additional judges with support staff be appointed to the Circuit Court immediately, with three more to be appointed as soon as possible. And five additional judges should be appointed to the District Courts, it said.

The Kearns report also recommended a central register be established for joint guardianship agreements. The statutory declarations, made by a child’s unmarried parents state who its guardians are. They are witnessed by peace commissioners, but there is no facility to record them. A central register would provide proof of the existence of the declaration should the original be lost or destroyed, the report said.

The report also recommended compulsory information sessions for people involved in marriage break-up to make them aware of alternative dispute resolution models.

It recommended the introduction of clear procedures for judges who decide to take direct evidence from children in divorce cases.

Parent law ties women to men

Caroline Overington | May 29, 2009

Article from: The Australian

WIVES who follow their husbands to remote corners of Australia in search of work may find themselves stuck in their new home town, unable to leave with the children.

The Family Court has ruled that new shared-parenting laws, brought in by the Howard government in 2006, mean that the right of a child to have a relationship with both parents trumps the right of a mother to return to her home state, even if she has lived in the new location for less than a year.

In the most recent case, the court ruled that a 34-year-old mother could not leave an "isolated" town in northwest Queensland with her five-year-old daughter after her marriage broke down, because it would rupture the close relationship the girl had with her father.

The case has prompted concern among family law experts that the shared-parenting law is effectively forcing people "back into failed relationships".

Elspeth McInnes, a researcher in family law at the University of South Australia, cited research by the Family Law Council that suggested the right of women to relocate after divorce had essentially been lost, under the amendments to the Family Law Act.

"Previously, judges were prepared to consider the idea that women or mums could go where there is extended family support for them and their children," Ms McInnes said.

"Under the new laws, the meaningful relationship with both parents has moved up (to take greater priority).

"There are still ways to say the child is better served by returning to the town where she was born but basically, judges are telling resident parents, mainly women, that they have to stay put.

"They subordinate women's time with their children around a husband's work demands."

The mother in the northwest Queensland case, known in court transcripts as Mrs Rosa, got married in 2000 and had her child in 2002.

She lived with her husband in Sydney until 2007, when he got a job as a mining engineer in a remote part of Queensland. The town is not named in the transcript, but is described as "isolated".

The Rosas moved up as a family, but after eight months, the husband told the wife that the marriage was over, put her possessions in boxes, and put them on the deck.

Mrs Rosa, 34, took their daughter back to her mother's house in Sydney but the father petitioned the Family Court for their return, saying he wanted to maintain a relationship with his child.

During court proceedings, the mother argued that the father could quit his job and return to Sydney and share custody of their daughter in their home town.

He declined, saying his job had become important and was "interesting".

Under changes to the Family Law Act (1975) adopted by the Howard government in 2006, the Family Court is required to apply the presumption that shared parenting is in a child's best interests, except where there is violence.

The court ruled that the mother could not leave northwest Queensland with the child. She argued that she was isolated and impoverished. She lives in a caravan, because it is the only accommodation she can afford. She appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, which upheld the decision on May 15.

The federal magistrate said the mother's plan to move would have a "most serious and detrimental effect upon the very close and important relationship that exists (between the daughter and her Dad)".

"In my assessment, the only means by which there can be a proper and appropriate relationship facilitated between this child and both parents is for the child to remain in northwest Queensland," he said.

He accepted the mother's "feelings of isolation and feeling of depression" about being stuck in the town where her marriage ended with little support. She said she would never leave without her daughter.

The federal magistrate had doubts about the mother's willingness to foster a relationship between the father and the child.

Family law academic Barbara Biggs, who last month organised a series of protests in major capital cities to highlight problems with the new Family Law Act, said the shared parenting laws presume that the parents "can co-operate, and get on".

"In many cases, these are couples that can't co-operate over what shelf to put the milk," Ms Biggs said. "It's a dreadful situation, to force a woman to live in a town where she has no family and no work, and to say that's the only way the child can be raised."

The rules of Victim Feminism as taught to the acolytes

Dear Patriarchy - I am a Women, therefore, a victim of your oppressive rule. As a result these are our rules of engagement after our declaration of war on all men.

This was written a few years ago to educate men on the wiles of the feminist movement and their techniques to emasculate men. Many of you have experienced this if you are involved in a Family Law proceeding and you have definitely experienced it if you are a Father's Rights Advocate.

1. Instantly attack anyone, on a personal level, who disagrees with any feminist precept.
   
   
2. Only push the female agenda and utterly ignore male feelings and thoughts on the issue.
   
   
3. When attacking male views, do not aim the attacks at the man alone (unless you are alone with the man) but loudly proclaim that all "men" who think differently are living in the past. Then refuse to accept that such behaviour is sexist.
   
   
4. Claim anything that women do is OK because its her right to choose (This does not apply if the women offends the morals of the feminist concerned). At the same time, put down everything men say, do, or believe as foolish, stupid, childish, sexist, chauvinists etc, etc.
   
   
5. Always minimise statistics that refer to men's pain and suffering but, always maximise (or invent outrageously exaggerated statistics) for everything women suffer.
   
   
6. Use unattributable statistics, studies and quotes in arguments. For example (From to day's news) "It is estimated that 9 out of 10 rape victims never report their rape." (An estimation it is impossible to prove correct or false) This has the effects of terrifying the female population while giving the impression that rape is happening all over the place at every moment of the day. It also serves to cement the view that all men are rapists, in the minds of the public. If anyone challenges the figures given, use techniques 1-3.
   
   
7. While claiming all women are stronger than all men, suddenly switch to, all women are victims of all men when the conversation demands it.
   
   
8. Refuse to accept that women are capable of violence, even when shown irrefutable evidence that they are. This can be achieved by finding excuses for female violence such as; She was only defending herself: She has a hormone imbalance: She is depressed because she has to cope with her pig of a husband and two kids, PMS, Post Partum Depression, Etc, etc, ad infinitum.
   
   
9. Always ridicule any man who does not agree with any of the myriad of feminist precepts but refuse to see this as verbal abuse and, if forced to admit it IS verbal abuse, claim that he was abusive first because of the WAY he disagreed and you were just responding to his patriarchal need to dominate you.
   
   
10. Call any man who dislikes the techniques used by feminists a "sexist, woman hating, dinosaur who is living in a mythical 1950`s golden age in which women were chained to the sink and he had all the power."
    
    
11. Surround yourself with "new men" who have been thoroughly indoctrinated with feminism and therefore emasculated. Use these men to promote feminist ideas to other men or to ridicule "old men" who can see through you.
    
    
12. Lose no occasion to appear to defend "the family" while at the same time doing all one can to dismantle it. (Margaret Hodge a UK MP is an expert at this behaviour).
    
    Notes on Hodge from Wikipedia added May 28/09 by the blog admin: Privacy International awarded Margaret Hodge the 2004 Big Brother Award for "Worst Public Servant" for her backing of controversial initiatives including the Universal Child Database. At a keynote speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 26 November 2004, Hodge strongly defended the idea of greater state regulation of individuals' choices, stating that "some may call it the nanny state but I call it a force for good".
    
    In the same year Father's 4 Justice campaigner Jonathan Stanesby handcuffed Hodge, stating he was arresting her for child abuse.^[6] Fathers 4 Justice targeted Hodge because she was the "bogey woman of family law, who doesn't even believe in equal parenting".^[7] Stanesby and colleague Jason Hatch were later cleared of a charge false imprisonment, with the court accepting it was part of a reasonable political protest^[8]
    
    
13. If caught out in an embarrassing moment of hypocrisy by a man, instantly attack him for being cruel to you by showing you up in public because he is a "control freak who has to appear superior to women" Etc, etc.)
    
    
14. Ignore ones own disgusting personal habits but draw constant and loud attention to the the faults of every man close to you.
    
    
15. Avoid; by changing the subject, talking LOUDLY and rapidly, going quiet, leaving the room, sulking, banging doors, etc., any conversation that begins with the phrase, "If men have all the power, how come women make all the rules?"
    
    
16. If, in a public situation a man begins to win an argument, gather as many like minded females and "new men" as possible. Surround the man and begin shouting him down and calling him names. (This technique can be seen often on the "Trisha show." and other female led chat shows). This technique is known as "mobbing" and is similar to the behaviour exhibited by crows when a hawk flies close to them and may be the origin of the term "birds" used descriptively by men, of women in general).
    
    
17. If all else fails resort to tears. This technique will always fool men everywhere into running to the defence of the "helpless" female and is very effective in court rooms during divorce hearings, in Internet forums and in ugly custody battles over children. Also very useful in getting reduced sentences for anything from shop lifting to murder.
    
    
18. If a man at the office, or other place of employment, refuses to bow to feminist ideology, accuse him of sexual advances, abuse, rape, violence, flashing, unfair promotion of others, sexism etc., and have him removed.
    
    
19. If the man in #18 is famous, seduce him and write a book about it while empathizing with his "poor wife" to avoid her coming after you in the high street with a stiletto heal. Claim in the book that he seduced you and promised to leave his wife. Call him "a love rat" and serialise your story in the News Of The World. Don't worry, the journalists are so stupid they will never see the hypocritical nature of your story and question your version of events. If they do..... cry.
    
    
20. Claim loudly and often that the law and penal system discriminates against women because, "The laws were written to prop up the patriarchy and suppress women." This has the effect of fooling gullible politicians, judges, lawyers and journalists into demanding that no women should ever go to prison for any reason whatsoever. If however, a female is placed in jail, demonstrate loudly outside the prison and demand her release on the grounds that: She only did it because, "He abused her." Or, "He would not give her enough money." Or, because "The Judge was a sexist, biased, women hating, old fool." Etc. Failing that, get Channel 4 or the BBC to do a documentary showing how much the children are suffering because she is in jail. Then raise a petition for release.
    
    
21. Demand the right to enter any "all male" institution, forum, or club, on the grounds that it is sexist to refuse entry to women but at the same time, demand "all women only" activities in the local gym, swimming pool, library etc., etc., on the grounds that women need to "feel safe" in an environment that has no men around. This is a very effective way of demonising and disempowering men at one and the same time.

George Rolph

Philadelphia Daily News ~ Fatimah Ali: 'Deadbeat Dads' an insult to reality

TV producers will do anything for ratings it appears even exploit the vulnerability of children's self esteem by having to watch a bounty hunter track down so called "deadbeat dads." What impact will it have on a child in their home, or when confronted by their peers in school or the playground if they or a friend sees 50% of their genetic heritage abused by the system in the guise of entertainment. The victim feminists will cheer this on as they have only their own personal grievances with their arch enemy, the patriarchy, (that's you and me if you are a man) and they really don't give a damn about the impact on children. Its one of the reasons why they don't believe parental alienation is emotional abuse. They practice it but remain in denial and a certain amount of narcissism is involved in their thinking process. This has a range from mild to obsessive.

Study after study shows the vast number of fathers don't pay all of the child support because they can't afford it. Child support is actually a combination of support for the child and the mother in disguise. The victim feminists have convinced the gullible bureaucrats and feminized acolytes involved in setting up these tables it is a requirement for the well being of children when in fact, as usual, it is 1:) Something they believe is an entitlement based on the notion motherhood trumps everything and 2) They are victims of a patriarchy and cannot get ahead because of that.

Most of this is BS but it's hard to change the thinking that is so ingrained with the parallel notion of "Apple Pie" in American discourse. Unfortunately this powerful and wrong headed approach to families spreads outside its borders with lots of copy cats ready to take up the banner of victim hood. It sells well.

Other studies show these entitlements along with others serve as an inducement for women to divorce and lead to poor social outcomes, increase the rates of divorce and contribute to poverty. Poverty is a leading indicator for further social problems of our children. The social engineering by judges, who don't have a clue about the damage they have caused for two generations through their feminized approach to custody and marginalizing fathers, is evident across, not only this nation, but most western democracies and has spread to south Asian countries like India.

I would invite all reasonable families to boycott Lifetime TV.

After reading the Philadelphia article read the following one from the Cleveland Plain Dealer that clearly shows the route victim feminism takes and it's impacts. No doubt the dad was given the restraining order because of false allegations. No doubt the judge will say she is a good mother but needs more child support.

Finally the last article is an example of child support bureaucracy zealots gone mad, also in Pennsylvania. It's a very sorry state of affairs when this kind of corruption evolves.MJM

Tue, May. 26, 2009

By Fatimah Ali
Philadelphia Daily News

JUST WHEN I thought TV couldn't sink any lower with some of its toxic programming, yet another new reality show is poised to hit the lineup - "Deadbeat Dads" on Lifetime.

The show targets fathers who refuse to pay child support, and features businessman Jim Durham's collection agency, called National Child Support.

My first "primal thought" was darn, they got here 15 years too late to help me. But my more spiritually evolved side knows better, and I realize those evil thoughts are just wrong. Durham and the Lifetime producers who created the show are the ones who should be flogged - for using the woes of single mothers and their children to boost ratings.

Unfortunately, my evil twin rears her ugly head from time to time, and recaps the unpleasant memories of what it was like not getting child support from my ex-husband. When I was a single mother, he accrued more than $150,000 in unpaid court-ordered child support, which kept me in a tizzy for years.

He made enough money, yet he neglected his obligations because he was angry at me, not because he didn't love our kids.

Despite the fact that I worked two jobs, my children and I were always struggling without his contribution. But I was a wimp and never petitioned the courts to issue an arrest warrant for his blatant disregard of our children's needs. His sudden demise made the judge's order moot. It can be almost impossible to collect back support from a dead man with a tangled-up life.

While he was still alive, the reasons I didn't want him imprisoned were simple, as well as selfish. I didn't want to have to take our children to visit him in jail because I knew it would be traumatic. But mostly I realized that having him arrested would prevent him from working and put yet another stigma on our already challenged life.

Two decades later, I still feel just as strongly that throwing deadbeat parents in jail is a stupid idea. And it definitely shouldn't be televised. This only causes. more problems in a child's life. The residual effects that deadbeat parents have on kids are way deeper than the unpaid money and leave deep psychological scars.

While researching the effects absentee fathers have on their offspring, I came across a publication called "The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man, the Annual Public Costs of Father Absence." Written by professors Stephen Nock and Christopher Einolf, of the University of Virginia and St. Paul University, respectively, their research shows that fatherless households cost U.S. taxpayers $98.9 billion a year. But this is just the tip of the iceberg of the many problems that female-headed households face.

Their findings also show that children of single parents are more likely to do poorly in school and drop out of college and are at greater risk of being incarcerated or on drugs than children who have both parents in the home.

Just a year ago, President Obama caught flak for telling black fathers to take more responsibility for their children during a speech at a Chicago church. With Father's Day just around the corner, I anticipate that his message this year will have a much wider reach than just for African-Americans.

The issue of absentee fathers isn't just a black problem, it's now an American one. And it touches nearly every community and crosses all racial and socio-economic barriers. I also think many women must share some of the blame for deciding that we can go it alone. Ladies, we've screwed up royally and our children are suffering because of it.

Feminists will probably jump all over me, but here's the real deal.

Many of us joined the women's movement decades ago without looking ahead to see what repercussions our actions would have on both our families and the economy. Now, most of us have to work, which leaves our husbands and children angry because no one is at home tending the hearth.

Our choice to be independent of men financially and of the family structure creates a wide range of problems in our children. And many men feel displaced and angry now because women are competing with them at work.

Far too many women are willing to go it alone and risk poverty and instability for shallow reasons of "self-empowerment" rather than trying to work out their marital challenges. Families need both parents in the household - not just economically but also spiritually and morally.

The whole idea of a "Deadbeat Dads" show is ludicrous. The creators are using the program to exploit what is really a much larger social problem - America's broken families. *

Fatimah Ali is a journalist, media consultant and an associate member of the Daily News editorial board.

Cleveland mother arrested after leaving 2-year-old home alone

by Mark Puente/Plain Dealer Reporter

Wednesday May 20, 2009, 11:22 AM

Updated at 8:12 p.m.

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A Cleveland mother faces child-endangering charges after police said she left her 2-year-old home alone hooked up to an empty feeding tube.

Valencia Davis, 28, left her daughter alone Tuesday afternoon with a tube running from her stomach to an empty plastic bag hanging on a wall in an East 84th Street house, according to a police report. The girl suffers from a brain condition and cerebral palsy, Davis told police.

The toddler's father called police after he visited the house to check on her. The man, who also is the father of one of the woman's two other children, told police he was barred from the home by a temporary protection order but feared for the safety of the children and went inside. Officers found the 2-year-old unresponsive, with dried mucus on her face, and living in filthy conditions, the report said. Police called an ambulance.

Before paramedics arrived, Davis returned home with the two other children and screamed at the man for having called police. Davis told police she was the real victim and that it was not wrong to leave the 2-year-old alone, according to the report.

Officers searched the house and did not find any food, except for cereal strewn on the floor.

The 2-year-old was in stable condition Wednesday at Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital.

Davis was in City Jail and could not be reached for comment.

Man files suit after ID error put him in jail

Patriot-News, Central PA

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

BY PETE SHELLEM pshellem@patriot-news.com

A Philadelphia man who was thrown in the Dauphin County Prison four times for failing to pay support for someone else's child has filed a federal lawsuit.

In his suit, Walter Andre Sharpe charges that officials tampered with his personal information to make him appear to be the father.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. Middle District Court comes on the heels of Dauphin County District Attorney Edward M. Marsico Jr.'s announcement that no criminal charges would be filed in the case.

Sharpe's attorney, Spero T. Lappas, said the lawsuit might change his outlook.

"Maybe after he reviews the information we assembled during our investigation of the lawsuit, he might want to reconsider his position," Lappas said.

The lawsuit says domestic relations officials in Montgomery County changed Sharpe's name in their computer system because he at one time used his mother's maiden name. Changes were also made in Dauphin County's systems and in a statewide computer network in 1999.

The changes in the system forced Walter Sharpe to pay $12,000 in support for another man's child and landed him in the Dauphin County Prison four times for not keeping up with the payments.

The problems began when Sharpe signed for a certified letter in 2001 addressed to Andre Sharpe, the real father. Walter Sharpe ignored the letter, thinking it was a mistake.

A county judge ruled Walter Sharpe was the father and the Domestic Relations office ordered him to pay $447 a month support, along with $5,730 in back payments.

The suit says employees of Dauphin County Domestic Relations changed his information and fought his attempts to prove he was not the father.

It took The Patriot-News less than a hour to find the real father, who said he had custody of the child.

The agency has declined to comment on the case. Officials from Montgomery County Domestic Relations have not returned phone calls.

The suit seeks unspecified damages for civil rights violations.