Lawyers weekly ~ Why custody labels matter

Here's the legal mindset shared parenting advocates are facing. She describes the OZ situation as creating increased conflict but offers no attribution for any of the comments. Her conclusion is likely based on anecdotal reports and highly biased feminist articles in OZ newspapers or blogs. There is no conclusive scientific evidence the shared parenting regime in OZ has created overall greater conflict. She ignores the situation in dozens of jurisdictions who have this in place across Europe and in many USA states.

I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about why this so called "award winning lawyer" with a "boutique" practice wants the status quo with a custodial label. Can you imagine someone touting their firm as a "boutique" (A small business offering specialized products and services: an investment boutique; a health-care boutique - now a place to shop for family law ) when involved in the destruction of families! Could it be she is a victim oriented feminist with an agenda? She doesn't mention which parent should wear the custody label but I think we can certainly guess accurately without benefit of any scientific analysis. What's your opinion - you now have mine. Here's the real facts relating to Shared Equal Parenting as opposed to the idle and vacuous chatter of a lawyer with a vested interest.

Note item 4 in particular. This is from

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHILD CUSTODY, ACCESS AND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY: THE SEARCH FOR A JUST AND EQUITABLE STANDARD

Edward Kruk, M.S.W., Ph.D.
The University of British Columbia
December, 2008

1. Sole maternal custody often leads to parental alienation and father absence, and father absence is associated with negative child outcomes. Eighty five per cent of youth in prison are fatherless; 71 per cent of high school dropouts are fatherless; 90 per cent of runaway children are fatherless; and fatherless youth exhibit higher levels of depression and suicide, delinquency, promiscuity and teen pregnancy, behavioural problems and illicit and licit substance abuse (Statistics Canada, 2005; Crowder and Teachman, 2004; Ellis et al., 2003; Ringback Weitoft et al., 2003; Jeynes, 2001; Leonard et al., 2005; McCue Horwitz et al,, 2003; McMunn, 2001; Margolin and Craft, 1989; Blankenhorn, 1995; Popenoe, 1996; Vitz, 2000; Alexander, 2003). These studies also found that fatherless youth are more likely to be victims of exploitation and abuse, as father absence through divorce is strongly associated with diminished self-concepts in children (Parish, 1987).
   
   
2. Children of divorce want equal time with their parents and consider shared parenting to be in their best interests. Seventy per cent of children of divorce believe that equal amounts of time with each parent is the best living arrangement for children, and children who have had equal time arrangements have the best relations with each of their parents after divorce (Fabricius, 2003).
   
   
3. A recent meta-analysis of the major North American studies comparing sole and joint physical custody arrangements has shown that children in joint custody arrangements fare significantly better on all adjustment measures than children who live in sole custody arrangements (Bauserman, 2002). Bauserman compared child adjustment in joint physical and joint legal custody settings with sole (maternal and paternal) custody settings, and also intact family settings, examined children’s general adjustment, family relationships, self-esteem, emotional and behavioral adjustment, divorce-specific adjustment, as well as the degree and nature of ongoing conflict between parents. On every measure of adjustment, children in joint physical custody arrangements were faring significantly better than children in sole custody arrangements: “Children in joint custody arrangements had fewer behavior and emotional problems, higher self-esteem, and better family relations and school performance than children in sole custody arrangements.” The positive outcomes of joint custody were also evident among high-conflict couples.
   
   
4. Inter-parental conflict decreases over time in shared custody arrangements, and increases in sole custody arrangements. Inter-parental cooperation increases over time in shared custody arrangements, and decreases in sole custody arrangements. One of the key findings of the Bauserman meta analysis was the unexpected pattern of decreasing parental conflict in joint custody families and the increase of conflict over time in sole custody families. The less a parent feels threatened by the loss of her or his child and the parental role, the less the likelihood of subsequent violence.
   
   
   
5. Both U.S. and Canadian research indicates that mothers and fathers working outside the home now spend comparable amounts of time caring for their children. According to the most recent Health Canada research (Higgins and Duxbury, 2002), on average, each week mothers devote 11.1 hours to child care, fathers 10.5 hours. According to Statistics Canada (Marshall, 2006), men, although still less involved in primary child care, have significantly increased theirparticipation in recent years. As the gender difference in time spent in child care has diminished, shared parenting after separation has emerged as the norm among parents who are not involved in a legal contest over the custody of their children (Statistics Canada, 2004).

MJM

By Martha McCarthy September 25 2009 issue

Most family lawyers in Ontario likely received at least one elephone call from a distraught client this winter following the series of national newspaper articles on parental alienation. Many of my clients called with a self-diagnosis: they were clearly “being alienated.” A handful of helpful clients clipped one of the articles out of the paper and mailed it to me personally. Sadly (but somehow not surprisingly) many of my clients had the pleasure of receiving a copy from a former spouse. The dialogue surrounding alienation has caught the attention of not only the family law community, but also the public at large. Amidst the flurry of attention that it has garnered, we need to reflect on the reality that alienation does not occur in a vacuum. It exists as one of the many problems that lawyers, judges and other helping professionals face when confronted with a high-conflict family. Although many issues surrounding alienation are hotly contested, it almost always occurs in the context of high-conflict families following a separation. High-conflict families exist and interact in a state of perpetual dysfunction and disorganization, which leads to further emotional and psychological strain. Alienation or not, high-conflict families are not able to manage their interactions and communication at any level. They require, sometimes on a daily basis, the assistance and intervention of lawyers, judges, doctors, social workers and other helping professionals. They fight about travel, schooling, tutoring, soccer and music. Tragically, in spite of the significant efforts made to identify and address the causes of conflict in post-separation families, we are confronted with not a decrease but an increase in high-conflict cases, including more alienating parents and alienated children. One of the major problems we face in dealing with high-conflict families arises from the major shift over the last ten years in our attitudes about identifiers and basic concepts of custody and access. Structured definitions have become passé in the past decade, joint custody or label-free settlements have been considered by many to be the norm and requests for sole custody have become almost politically incorrect. This shift in attitudes is a result of a variety of social and political developments that have fundamentally altered the language of and attitudes about post-separation parenting roles across Canada. In 1998, the Joint Senate House of Commons Committee on Custody and Access released its report, “For the Sake of the Children.” The report was the result of a political compromise reached when the federal child support guidelines were in the Senate and Senator Ann Cools imposed her fathers’ rights agenda on the process. The report suggested an increased emphasis on the maximum contact principle, a movement away from the language of “custody and access” and a presumption of joint custody in every case. Although not adopted as law, the report and the fathers’ rights agenda have been highly influential on the public, legal and judicial mindset. There has been an increased preoccupation in custody and access litigation with elevating the maximum contact principle through the language of shared parenting. Clients often feel pressured by mediators, mental health professionals, judges or their own counsel to agree to joint custody. “Just give it to him and the conflict will end;” “Why would you object?” and “Nothing will change anyhow; you will still make all the decisions in a practical sense” are the common arguments. I have said these things myself. When respected authorities put this kind of pressure on individuals who are already quaking under the emotional and financial costs of conflict, the result is pretty much assured: joint custody or label-free “deals.” Sometimes spouses agree to these arrangements because they hope that conflict will abate if the other spouse’s role is ratified. Sometimes they believe that there will be few changes to the reality of the parenting roles and that a little joint custody label will not change that. In high-conflict cases, another compromise has been joint custody with the appointment of an arbitrator or parenting coordinator to assist with decisions that cannot be made jointly. Unfortunately, these rationales and compromises are almost always flawed. Australia adopted radical new custody and access legislation in 2006 that established mandatory mediation of all custody cases and imposed a presumption of joint custody. The result has been increased conflict and custody litigation. This lesson translates to the issue of labels. Joint custody mixed with arbitration/parenting coordination can often create a forum for increased or continuing conflict by allowing access to a person who can be called, day or night, to referee issues that might actually not arise, or might get resolved naturally, if that opportunity for accessible conflict was not there. Label-free arrangements can also lead to ongoing conflict and difficulty with third parties. Teachers, doctors and immigration officials require more than the language of “shared residency” or “parenting time.” In practice, many require opinion letters about what the terms mean, or refuse to take direction from one parent because they are unsure. In abduction and jurisdictional issues, the absence of custody can be devastating to an enforcement or Hague Convention proceeding. Police enforcement can also be very challenging without labels that everyone understands. Sometimes the label the parties have put on their arrangements also matters to judges. In mobility cases, we are instructed by the Supreme Court to give the views of the custodial parent “great weight.” What is a court to make of a label-free parent, or the one who acts as a primary or sole parent but carries the label of joint? Or, when joint decision-making fails or parties become exhausted by parenting coordination, a material change is required and the judge wonders why he or she should change the former agreement, which the parties must have thought was in the best interests of their children at the time they settled. While it is true that we all had good reasons and lofty ideas when we moved away from structured concepts, we need to re-examine these ideas in the context of high conflict cases. Parents and children who are embroiled in conflict need the certainty and stability that traditional concepts provide. Labels matter. Martha McCarthy is a certified specialist in family law and the recipient of the Ontario Bar Association 2007 Award of Excellence in Family Law. She operates a boutique family law firm located in downtown Toronto. http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&volume=29&number=19&article=2

My letter to the editor of the magazine:

Tim Wilbur, Managing Editor

The Lawyers Weekly

Suite 700

123 Commerce Valley Drive East

Markham, ON

L3T 7W8



My Dear Editor:

http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&volume=29&number=19&article=2



Ms. McCarthy appears to have some credentials as a lawyer but might I
suggest her research on this is wanting with a lack of attribution in
this article. She appears to denigrate Anne Cools who was one of the
first proponents of Domestic Abuse Shelters in Canada. Is Ms. McCarthy
a feminist who has something against Father Rights?



She describes the Australian situation as creating increased conflict
but offers no attribution for any of the comments. Her conclusion is
likely based on anecdotal reports and highly biased feminist articles
in OZ newspapers or blogs. There is no conclusive scientific evidence
the shared parenting regime in OZ has created overall greater conflict.
She also ignores the situation in dozens of jurisdictions who have this
in place across Europe and in many USA states. If you wish an
up-to-date compendium of the worlds jurisdictions having share-equal
parenting I have the most comprehensive one in existence right here. http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/2009/05/custody-situations-in-various-countries.html



She doesn't mention which parent should wear the custody label but
hopefully it isn't females only which is now the case in over 90% of
cases in Canada. Here's the real facts relating to Shared Equal
Parenting scientifically done by a Canadian expert in custody matters.



Note item 4 in particular. This is from



"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHILD CUSTODY, ACCESS AND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY: THE SEARCH FOR A JUST AND EQUITABLE STANDARD"

Edward Kruk, M.S.W., Ph.D.

The University of British Columbia

December, 2008



1. Sole maternal custody often leads to parental alienation and father
absence, and father absence is associated with negative child outcomes.
Eighty five per cent of youth in prison are fatherless; 71 per cent of
high school dropouts are fatherless; 90 per cent of runaway children
are fatherless; and fatherless youth exhibit higher levels of
depression and suicide, delinquency, promiscuity and teen pregnancy,
behavioural problems and illicit and licit substance abuse (Statistics
Canada, 2005; Crowder and Teachman, 2004; Ellis et al., 2003; Ringback
Weitoft et al., 2003; Jeynes, 2001; Leonard et al., 2005; McCue Horwitz
et al,, 2003; McMunn, 2001; Margolin and Craft, 1989; Blankenhorn,
1995; Popenoe, 1996; Vitz, 2000; Alexander, 2003). These studies also
found that fatherless youth are more likely to be victims of
exploitation and abuse, as father absence through divorce is strongly
associated with diminished self-concepts in children (Parish, 1987).



2. Children of divorce want equal time with their parents and consider
shared parenting to be in their best interests. Seventy per cent of
children of divorce believe that equal amounts of time with each parent
is the best living arrangement for children, and children who have had
equal time arrangements have the best relations with each of their
parents after divorce (Fabricius, 2003).



3. A recent meta-analysis of the major North American studies comparing
sole and joint physical custody arrangements has shown that children in
joint custody arrangements fare significantly better on all adjustment
measures than children who live in sole custody arrangements
(Bauserman, 2002). Bauserman compared child adjustment in joint
physical and joint legal custody settings with sole (maternal and
paternal) custody settings, and also intact family settings, examined
children’s general adjustment, family relationships, self-esteem,
emotional and behavioral adjustment, divorce-specific adjustment, as
well as the degree and nature of ongoing conflict between parents. On
every measure of adjustment, children in joint physical custody
arrangements were faring significantly better than children in sole
custody arrangements: “Children in joint custody arrangements had fewer
behavior and emotional problems, higher self-esteem, and better family
relations and school performance than children in sole custody
arrangements.” The positive outcomes of joint custody were also evident
among high-conflict couples.



4. Inter-parental conflict decreases over time in shared custody
arrangements, and increases in sole custody arrangements.
Inter-parental cooperation increases over time in shared custody
arrangements, and decreases in sole custody arrangements. One of the
key findings of the Bauserman meta analysis was the unexpected pattern
of decreasing parental conflict in joint custody families and the
increase of conflict over time in sole custody families. The less a
parent feels threatened by the loss of her or his child and the
parental role, the less the likelihood of subsequent violence.



5. Both U.S. and Canadian research indicates that mothers and fathers
working outside the home now spend comparable amounts of time caring
for their children. According to the most recent Health Canada research
(Higgins and Duxbury, 2002), on average, each week mothers devote 11.1
hours to child care, fathers 10.5 hours. According to Statistics Canada
(Marshall, 2006), men, although still less involved in primary child
care, have significantly increased their participation in recent years.
As the gender difference in time spent in child care has diminished,
shared parenting after separation has emerged as the norm among parents
who are not involved in a legal contest over the custody of their
children (Statistics Canada, 2004).



Michael J. Murphy

Promote Bill C-422 Equal Shared Parenting

The Discriminatory Policies of The Status Of Women (Canada)

This was first published in 2006 but is still highly relevant. Nothing much has changed and SOW Canada still pumps out propaganda or supplies our hard earned money to other feminist groups, to describe how women are such victims and need constant scrutiny and attention/protection by the nanny state. It is done not for the sake of equality but to elevate feminists to a state of superiority at the expense of men. It s unfortunately working only too well. For those of you who don't know SOW Canada is the official Canadian Government tax supported agency that helps fuel the ongoing gender wars and official feminist propaganda that sometimes slanders legitimate groups within the country who are trying to change the laws to reflect fairness rather than gender bias. They hire feminist men under contract, sometimes as translators to/from English/French on occasion who will dutifully act as evangelists for the cause - for a fee of course. Perhaps not all contracts SOW Canada gives are as meritorious as one might expect them to be with tax payers money. On one occasion they gave a contract to some feminist Profs from Quebec to do a study on mens and fathers rights groups in Canada and these radical feminists recommended the police monitor the web sites, suggested the fathers groups might be dangerous and basically slimed any group who might offer a critical view of feminist privilege. They were sued and found to be guilty of slander.MJM

From the REAL WOMEN Magazine REALity: May/June 2006

http://www.realwomenca.com/page/newslmj0607.html

Since 1973, the federal taxpayers have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to feminist-only organizations by way of the Women’s Program at the Status of Women Canada. The mission statement of the Status of Women is “to promote gender equality and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country”. Its practical effect, however, is that only feminist objectives and feminist women in Canada are promoted by the agency. Other women’s organizations, which have differing perspectives from that of feminism are denied funding and recognition.

The Status of Women refuses to fund organizations that are not feminist on the premise that it funds only “equality – seeking” women’s organizations, and in its view, only feminist organizations are validly seeking equality for women. This is highly discriminatory since most women support the equality of women – but there are different ways to interpret and achieve this objective. For example, the promotion of the equality of women is one of the objectives included in the Objects of Incorporation for REAL Women, yet the Status of Women does not accept our organization as an “equality – seeking” organization.

It is important to note that feminist organizations do not represent Canadian women in general but rather a special interest group of women whose ideology is that of feminism. The feminist ideology does not now, and never has had the support of the vast majority of Canadian women. Thus, this funding of the special interest group of feminists by the Status of Women is highly biased and discriminatory, and provides an uneven playing field for all other women’s organizations in Canada.

Because of its discriminatory policies, the Women’s Program of the Status of Women has made only a few token grants to REAL Women of Canada over the years and these small grants were stopped entirely in 1996. Nor has REAL Women been invited to participate in activities supported by the Status of Women. An exception arose in December of 1999 when the Status of Women sponsored a Consultation on Gender Equality, to which REAL Women was given an invitation. However, the feminist participants at that conference, whose organizations depend solely for their existence on the Status of Women funding, insisted that REAL Women’s invitation be withdrawn. When our representative refused to leave the conference, the feminist participants isolated, ignored and then booed her and refused to permit her to participate in the conference in any way. Since that conference, REAL Women has not been invited to participate in any further conferences sponsored by the Status of Women, even though our organization represents the views of over 55,000 Canadian women.

Extent of Funding to Feminist Organizations

An application was made under the Access to Information Act for information about the funding by the Status of Women in the ten-year period from 1992 – 2002. A further application was made under the Act for information about funding for the fiscal year 2004 – 2005.

According to this material, hundreds of feminist organizations receive government funding each year from the Program. For example, between 1997 – 2003 alone, the number of recipients and the total of the grants awarded to them by Status of Women were as follows:

Year	Number of Recipients	Amount
1997-1998	343	$ 8,286,059
1998-1999	262	$10,321,916
1999-2000	207	$ 8,502,412
2000-2001	227	$ 9,810,390
2001-2002	215	$10,385,851
2002-2003	222	$12,297,090

Organizations funded by the Status of Women include national, provincial and regional feminist organizations, such as the following:

Ø The legal arm of the feminist organization, The Legal Education Action Fund (LEAF) received $900,334 over a 10-year period, 1992 – 2002, which enabled this group to intervene in court cases and to mount their own court challenges. In contrast, REAL Women of Canada was obliged to fund its own pro-family interventions before the courts.

Ø The National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) received $1,648,318 in the same 10-year period. In the fiscal year 2004-2005, this organization received an additional grant of $474,879.

Ø The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, (NAC), the umbrella group for the feminist organizations of Canada, received $984,551 in the 10-year period, and In the fiscal year 2004 – 2005 received an additional $150,000.

Ø Child Care lobby groups, such as the Canadian Child Care Federation and the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, received $1,362,209between 1992 and 2002. These organizations form the pressure group for a national child care plan as recently proposed and implemented by the former Liberal government.

In the fiscal year 2004 – 2005 these child care lobby groups received a further $483,753 from the Women’s Program. This large grant was given during the time that the former Liberal government was negotiating with the provinces for a national child care program.

On February 16, 2006, the tax funded Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada launched a Canada wide campaign called “Code Blue” to lobby for and work with the provincial / territorial governments and parliamentarians to prevent the present Conservative government from cancelling the federal / provincial agreements on child care made last year by the former Liberal government.

It is significant that these child care lobby groups have the most to gain from a national child care plan since such a program would provide them with financial security by placing them on the government payroll with secure income and benefits.

Ø In the 20-month period preceding December 4, 1998, lesbian organizations received $250,918. In the fiscal year 2004 – 2005, an additional $90,280was awarded to a homosexual / lesbian association.

Ø 524 women’s shelters across Canada have been funded by the Status of Women, even though such shelters fall within provincial jurisdiction. These women’s centres serve as agents of change for feminists in communities across Canada. Feminists claim they provide protection from male assault, in spite of the fact that a Statistics Canada study, released in July 2003, found that more men were killed, hurt, or threatened by their partners in 2001 than in previous years. The study “Family Violence in Canada,” funded by the Federal Family Violence Initiative, found that spousal violence has increased for both men and women. In 2001, there were 344 incidents per 100,000 women, and for men, there were 62 incidents for every 100,000 – the latter is up 40% from six years ago. Although there were many more incidents of assault against women, this does not mean that men should be neglected.

Ø The pro-abortion organization, BC Pro-Choice Action Network, initially received $60,220 in the 10-year period fro 1992 - 2002. In 2004 – 2005 it received an additional $27,400. According to information on their web site, the spokesperson for this organization, Joyce Arthur, stated that opposition to abortion “comes primarily from religious justifications for oppressing women” and is due to a need to “maximize [the Catholic Church’s] membership levels to maintain their worldly influence and wealth”. This pro-abortion organization also accused pro-life Christians of being “religious fanatics” who do “little or nothing for children once they are born”. She stated that pro-life Christians are “anti-woman and anti-child,” and had views which were “uninformed, sexist, cruel”. She also accused pro-life Christians of lacking the ability to empathize, which “breeds intolerance, hate crimes, and war”. Ms. Arthur further stated, according to the web site, that pro-lifers’ attitude towards women is like “the slaveholder’s attitude to blacks, and the Nazi’s attitude to Jews”. That an organization that expresses such bigoted views, receives public funding is shameful and an unpardonable offense to the Canadian taxpayer.

Ø Organizations to promote the decriminalization of prostitution in Canada, namely the Canadian National Coalition of Experiential Women (CNCEW), received $325,000 to actively campaign to decriminalize solicitation for prostitution. In the fiscal year 2004 – 2005, it received an additional $322,646 from the Women’s Program. This large grant was made at the time that the Liberal government had established a sub-committee of the Justice Committee to study the issue of prostitution. This Committee recommended that prostitution be decriminalized.

House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women in Canada (FEWO)

It is also a concern to us, that the House of Commons Standing Committee of the Status of Women, which was established in October, 2004, serves to promote only feminist organizations and their feminist agenda in Canada. The Committee stated that it promotes “equality – seeking” women’s organizations. Of course, its narrow definition of “equality” excludes all other women’s organizations. The Committee’s first report, tabled in the House of Commons on February 10, 2005, recommended that funding for women’s [feminist] groups be increased by 25%. In its second report, tabled in the House of Commons on April 19, 2005, the Committee recommended that a “gender analysis” be carried out on all federal government departments, their policies, and proposed legislation. In practical terms, the purpose of this proposal is to ensure that all government actions be subject to feminist overview and approval in order to ensure that the feminist ideology is spread throughout Canada.

Such extreme recommendations by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women expose it as being out of touch with the views of most Canadian women. This group’s recommendations fail to comply with the democratic process in regard to a full consultation and fair treatment of all organizations.

Therefore, we request, that the discriminatory Status of Women, as well as the Standing Committee on the Status of Women (FEWO), be disbanded, since they represent only the singular views of a special interest group of feminists. In short, these two agencies serve no purpose but to promote the views of a handful of extremist feminist organizations at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. These feminist ideologues serve only to increase intolerance and disrespect towards those who do not share their views.

In this regard, it should be pointed out that women’s organizations, being special interest organizations, should be self supporting as REAL Women of Canada has been since it was federally incorporated in 1983. REAL Women has managed to exist without debt, financed solely by the donations and dues of our grassroots members with only a few minor grants from the government. Similarly, all special interest groups should be required to do the same.

Summary

Feminist groups have few, if any, members, and are, in effect, mostly phantom organizations sustained only by the funding they receive from the Status of Women. Since these organizations represent no one but the radical feminists who run them, they should not receive financial support from the Canadian taxpayer.

In OZ ~ Because Lying in the Family Court is Child Abuse

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

By Amfortas

The Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, Diana Bryant, has recently launched an extraordinary attack on Australia’s internationally regarded 2006 Family Law amendments, by writing to the Attorney-General and asking him to urgently repeal important provisions within the amendments.

According to Ash Patil, President of shared parenting group Fathers4Equality, “These provisions in the family law act were specifically implemented to reduce the epidemic of false allegations and parental alienation that permeate every corridor of the Family Law Courts, to the clear detriment of the innocent children caught in the cross-fire.

But Bryant wants them removed, and fails to explain how the innocent victims of maliciously false allegations would be protected without them.

James Adams adds, “What is more astonishing it seems is that unlike the parliamentary committee that recommended these laws in the first place, the Chief Justice has not consulted widely before making such an extraordinary intervention (in fact she has not consulted with any fathers’ groups at all).

Rightly or wrongly, Bryant will now be perceived to have compromised views on this issue, denying her the opportunity to have played a unifying force in the process of family law reform in this country, much like the wasted opportunities of her predecessor.”

The two provisions Bryant wants specifically removed include:

*the order of costs, at the Judge’s discretion, against a parent who has been proven to have “knowingly” made false allegation in Court,

and

*unspecified actions, at the Judges’s discretion, against a parent who has purposely alienated or deliberately maligned the children against the other parent.

The importance of these provisions Patil explains. ”These provisions have been specifically implemented to reduce the disturbingly common practices by some separated parents in making contrived and sinister allegations in Court against the other parent, and to otherwise engage in concerted efforts to destroy the relationship between the child and the other parent. This is done knowing full well the children will be irrevocably harmed in the process, both psychologically and emotionally.

Yet it goes on and will continue to go on given human nature, unless we have laws to help it stop.

“So these are ‘good’, modest provisions designed to stop misguided parents from misusing the system and abusing innocent children” were introduced only after extensive community consultation.

According to Adams “These provisions were agreed to by a bi-partisan parliamentary committee (both Labor and Libs/Nats) that went around Australia canvassing the views of all Australians for over two years.

Finally this committee was so appalled at the extent of institutional abuse in the Family Court that it recommended measures to protect innocent children and parents who were victims of contrived allegations and parental alienation by spiteful ex-partners.

” But Bryant wants to override the will of the Australian people and the will of Parliament, and to completely remove all disincentives against lying in the Family Court.

Really soft penalty for a very serious crime.

Patil, who claims that many F4E members are subjected to false allegations, states that “Proving that someone has ‘knowingly’ made false allegations rather than ‘mistakenly’ or ‘recklessly’ is quite a tall order. The standard of proof in these matters is a very tough hurdle to pass, and as a result ‘knowingly false’ allegations have only been proven in a relatively few cases in recent years.

If they are proved, they may result in a costs order, although this has been rarely applied in children’s matters by the judiciary. “Now given that perjury in any other Australian court may result in 10 years or more jail time, one must be mindful of the fact that this is a really soft penalty for a very serious crime.

It is a provision however that can work as a disincentive, albeit a modest one, in dissuading many parents from lying in the Family Court in the first place.” So these are “good”, modest provisions designed as a disincentive to those misguided parents who may in a moment of weakness be tempted to make contrived allegations in Court.

Measured responses to issues of concern Patil and Adams are frustrated by the logic used by the Chief Justice, and Patil adds that “Bryant justifies the need for these changes by suggesting that some people have misunderstood these provisions.

Even if this is true, her suggested fix is a remarkable over-reaction to an issue that could be addressed through a number of simple measures.” “Given that most parents in family law proceedings are either represented by lawyers, have visited a family relationship centre or have sought government funded legal services, a simple review could identify the cause of this misinformation from within these service providers, and provide an opportunity for corrective measures to be implemented.”

Adams wonders why the Chief Justice needs to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and opines that “a request to the Attorney General to implement an educational campaign to educate parents about these provisions would go a long way in addressing any existing misconceptions, and would be a more measured and effective approach to the issue at hand.”

Adams continues “Given the unprecedented nature of these family law amendments, what is required are sensible, well-measured & ultimately timely approaches to these issues, in order to allow for proper outcomes based research to develop. Anything less than this would put at risk the very wellbeing of those we are trying to protect.”

Broader consultations as a first step Fathers4Equality would like to encourage the Chief Justice to put some thought into what checks and measures she would alternatively suggest be implemented, if the current provisions are removed, to protect children from the devastating damage resulting from alienation and perjury in Court.

Given that lying in the Family Court and parental alienation are forms of child abuse, we stress the importance of carefully considering the implications to the welfare of children if these safeguards are removed.

Secondly and in reference to a recent campaign that has promoted a less than accurate reflection of these new laws, we would ask the Chief Justice to consider making a public statement to the effect, as is the case, that no evidence exists of any escalation of child abuse as a result of the new amendments.

This would be an important statement from the Chief Justice in the interests of an informed community discussion on this matter, and would help ensure that the debate is discussed in terms of facts, not innuendo.

Finally, we would like to draw attention to the increasingly under-resourced and overworked child protection authorities in this country, and the fact that too many cases of genuine abuse are not thoroughly investigated, in part because of the level of false allegations emanating from the Family Court.

It must be recognised that for every hour that a child protection officer is investigating a false allegation, it is one hour less protection that can be given to a child in genuine need, and this is a cost that the children of Australia simply cannot afford. Fathers4Equality would be open to discussing these important issues further with the Chief Justice, if she is willing to accept our invitation.

Amfortas is a Psychologist and Men's Rights Advocate living in Tasmania; the mania inflicted by Feminist-Socialism. He is the Past-Chairman of mensnewsdaily.com Ask, Who Does the Grail Serve. | More from Amfortas

No One Believed Me

When men are victims of domestic violence.

By Glenn Sacks, M.A. and Ned Holstein, M.D.

Four Sacramento County Sheriff's cars pulled up in front of David Woods's house. He tried to explain to them what happened. But the lead deputy cut him off: "Yeah, that's fine. Put your hands behind your back."

David said, "No, wait, she stabbed me ... there's the knife. See the knife? See my neck wound? See?"

"Put your hands behind your back. Turn around," the deputy replied.

"No," David protested. "She stabbed..."

The deputies drew their weapons. David's little daughters came running out of the back bedroom pleading, "Leave Daddy alone! Mamma tried to hurt him with a knife!"

One deputy, a woman, took the children in the bedroom and shut the door. David stood there, cuffed.

How the fight began

David's wife Ruth had taken the kids out for a walk in 39 degree weather -- for seven hours.

"By the time she got back their fingers were blue, their lips were blue, their ears were blue," David says. The children were soaked; she was soaked. We argued for an hour. "We had to put them in a warm bath to warm them up; they were hypothermic.

Then she started cutting up vegetables for dinner. She had a serrated vegetable knife with a blade about seven inches long. She turned around and she stabbed at me.

"I tried to block it, but I was surprised. I was off balance...the knife went right through my collar and gave me a little nick on my neck.

"She reared back to stab me again. I tried to block it again...I hit her in the mouth. She dropped the knife, ran to the telephone, called 911, and told them, 'My husband is hitting me! I think he's gonna kill me.'

"When she dropped the knife, I stood over it. I wouldn't let her hide the knife. I was going to say to the police, 'See? She tried to stab me.'"

The truth came from the kids

After 15 minutes, the female deputy returned from the bedroom after talking to David's children. She told the other deputies, "It's true. Both of the daughters saw it. She tried to stab him with the knife."

They took the cuffs off David. "Your wife obviously needs help," the lead deputy said. "She works for Kaiser, you've got health insurance that covers mental health, you need to call the emergency number and get her an appointment."

David says there's a double standard when it comes to charging men. "Now, isn't that strange? When she had a fat lip, it was a felony and I was going to jail. But when they finally realized that she tried to stab me in the neck, it stopped being a crime, and instead it was a mental health issue."

The history of their case

David Woods is a partially disabled former Marine who endured years of abuse at the hands of his wife Ruth and the law enforcement and domestic violence system which unwittingly enabled her.

Woods, a former construction worker, suffered disabling work-related injuries early in his marriage. He says:
"The violence really began in our family about 10 days after Ruth realized that she had all the power [financially]. I knew I had to get my kids out. I called the largest domestic violence shelter agency in Sacramento County several times. They told me, 'Men are perpetrators of domestic violence; women are victims of domestic violence,' and hung up.

"I had no way out. I had no money. Whenever we bought a car, Ruth insisted that the car be in her name only, so that if I took it and went to the movies without her approval she would call the police, and report, 'I'm estranged from my husband, and he stole my car.' She did that several times."

Worst of all is what David's children endured. One daughter says, "No one would help. Teachers, parents of friends, anyone I tried to talk to about what was going on at home told me I didn't understand, that my mother couldn't possibly be the violent party. When the police came to our home, they would always be ready to arrest my father, sometimes putting handcuffs on him. It was up to me to scream as loud as possible that it was my mom and not my dad, so they wouldn't take him away and leave me alone with her."

Domestic violence committed by women against men is generally ignored or minimized, yet more than 200 studies have found that women initiate at least as much domestic violence (DV) against their male partners as males initiate against their female partners. Research shows that men comprise about a third of DV injuries and deaths. Women often compensate for their lack of physical strength by employing weapons and the element of surprise -- just as David Woods' wife did, and just as recently murdered former NFL star Steve McNair's girlfriend allegedly did.

But in 2008, David Woods was partially vindicated. He was the principal plaintiff in a successful lawsuit against the State of California. The Third District Court of Appeals ruled that it violates equal protection that California's funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women but not to men.

Recent research on domestic violence

The most recent large-scale study of DV was conducted by Center for Disease Control and Prevention researchers and published in the American Journal of Public Health. The study, which surveyed 11,000 men and women, found that according to both men's and women's accounts, 50 percent of the violence in their relationships was reciprocal (involving both parties). In those cases, the women were more likely to have been the first to strike. Moreover, when the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70 percent of the time.

The Obama administration recently appointed Lynn Rosenthal as the first-ever White House Advisor on Violence Against Women. Vice President Biden, who wrote the Violence Against Women Act, said that creating the post will help the White House focus on stopping domestic violence.

Many of the world's leading authorities on domestic violence recently gathered at the "From Ideology to Inclusion 2009" conference in Los Angeles and detailed new research contradicting this view and offering solutions that will benefit all. Researchers emphasized their findings that ignoring female-perpetrated DV puts children, men, and also women in harm's way. The conference was presented by the California Alliance for Families & Children and co-sponsored by the Family Violence Treatment & Education Association.

DV researcher Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D., a social scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center, told the conference that the most dangerous DV scenario for women is that of reciprocal violence, particularly if that violence is initiated by women. The best way for many women to be safe is to not initiate violence against their male partners. "The question of initiation of violence is a crucial one ... much DV is [reciprocated], and initiations -- even that seem minor -- may lead to escalation," she explained.

Dr. Capaldi's research shows that whereas men are often thought of as the only abusers and also as serial abusers, a young woman's DV is just as predictive of her male partner's future DV as the man's own past DV.

While Rosenthal and numerous others have created many programs and services to help abused women, there are very few services available to abused men. Those who seek help often face hostility or indifference from domestic violence hotlines, service providers, and law enforcement.

Denise Hines, Ph.D., of Clark University in Worcester, Mass., has studied why many abused men hesitate to leave their female partners. Hines told the conference that while some of the men's reasons for not leaving were similar to those of abused women (love, not believing in divorce, hoping the partner will change, etc.), the men's overwhelming concern was for their children.

Men often don't want to leave their wives because this would leave their children unprotected in the hands of an abuser. If the men choose to take their children away from the home, when they're found, the children are likely to be taken away and given to the mother, and the men might be arrested for abducting their children. Moreover, they would possibly lose custody of their children in the divorce anyway, again leaving their children in harm's way.

In Hines's study of male victims of domestic violence, 64 percent of the men who called a DV hotline were told that they "only helped women," and over half were referred to programs for male perpetrators. Overall, only 8 percent of the men who called hotlines classified them as "very helpful," whereas 69 percent found them to be "not at all helpful." Worse, when an abused man called the police, the police were more likely to arrest him than to arrest his abusive female partner.

Children end up victimized

In any kind of spousal violence, children often end up being victimized. In the highly publicized Socorro Caro murder case, Socorro often abused her husband Xavier, a prominent Northridge, California rheumatologist, and once assaulted him so badly he had to have surgery to regain his sight in one eye. Trapped and not knowing what to do or where to go, Xavier endured the abuse, once telling his wife, according to reports, that "One day you are going to do something that cannot be undone." A short time later, Socorro shot and killed three of their four children. Their baby survived only because Socorro ran out of bullets. She was later convicted and sentenced to death for the murders.

According to John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterers' treatment provider, even when the children themselves are not abused, "There is an overwhelming, irrefutable body of research indicating that children are adversely affected by witnessing inter-parental violence, regardless of the perpetrator's gender."

David's daughter gives her example:

"I grew up paranoid and feeling like the safety in my house was something only I was responsible for. If Mom became violent, it meant I failed. I learned the only way to survive was to watch every argument they had and be ready to interject myself as a distraction before violence happened.... My next task was to try to break it up: the screaming, threatening, pleading, whatever. I had to make sure no details escaped me, because if the cops got called they'd just believe my mom without question. It was my job to make sure the truth got heard."

Glenn Sacks, M.A., is the Executive Director of Fathers & Families. His columns have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. Ned Holstein, M.D., is the organization's Chairman of the Board. Their Web site is www.FathersandFamilies.org.

http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=20968901&page=0

RADAR ALERT: Want a Good Laugh? Check Out the SAFE Act! HR 739

Are the sponsors of this bill collaborators in fraud using lies and misinformation to enact a piece of legislation? Is this what the Government of the U.S.A. has come to in the 21st century. Democrats have used lies to engage in war - remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, or more recently the Bush Republican Administration WMD big lie over the invasion of Iraq amongst many. It is a sad picture that taxpayers keep forking out more money based on some misandry (see VAWA as well as this one), The conspirators are shown below who would try and push legislation through congress based on imaginary factoids. As an example intentional injuries to females amounted to 1.4% of Emergency Department Visits in 2006 according to the Dept. of Health & Human Services http://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa08/hstat/hi/pages/226i.html. Less than 1% of these visits are related to DV.Men represented 2.7% of visits for intentional injury. How many Legislative Acts are in place to help them - some of those injuries are related to victimization by females.

These elected reps don't appear to know that DV is pretty much equal between genders and that children are most likely to be killed or abused by the single mom. The so-called empowerment is at the expense of the other gender it would appear as is the case with Biden's VAWA.

This is the title of HR 739 "economic security and safety of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and for other purposes." It is also known as the SAFE Act.

These are the sponsors: Follow the money - are they getting campaign contributions from NOW or other feminists organizations. Did these contributions start as tax donations to these groups. Is this a form of tax payer money getting recycled back into the pockets of these people. What motivates elected representatives to propose legislation based on lies and misinformation. Lots of questions - few answers.MJM


Sponsor


Representative
Lucille Roybal-Allard
D-CA

Co - sponsors

• 
  
Rep. Donna Edwards [D, MD-4]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D, NY-14]
Rep. Dennis Moore [D, KS-3]
Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2]
• 
  

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h739/show

What if you knew a bill had been introduced in Congress in which most of the findings were misleading, outdated, or simply false? Welcome to wonderful, wacky world of HR 739, the Security and Financial Empowerment Act (SAFE).

The bill contains 53 different claims. Only 4 of those claims can be verified as accurate, current, and truthful. As for the remaining 49 claims, whoever dreamed up this stuff has an incredible sense of humor!

The following bold-faced quotes come straight from the SAFE Act findings. They are followed by the actual facts. So get ready for some side-splitting humor:

1. "Violence against women has been reported to be the leading cause of physical injury to women."

   Here's what the website of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows (http://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa08/hstat/hi/pages/226i.html):

   

   Under the graph the DHHS states, "All of the leading causes of injury in 2006 were unintentional." But domestic violence is an intentional cause of injury. In other words, DV is not even on the list of leading causes of injury.

2. "According to recent Government estimates, approximately 987,400 rapes occur annually in the United States"

   Here's what the FBI really says: "In 2007, the estimated number of forcible rapes (90,427) decreased 2.5 percent from the 2006 estimate." http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html So the SAFE number is off by about 900,000. We'll just call it a rounding error.

Now ready to have a real belly laugh? Check out RADAR's critique of the SAFE findings: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARanalysis-HR739Findings.pdf

After you see all the misleading claims, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods, tell your Representative that people shouldn't be making a joke of domestic violence.

Tell your congressman to vote 'No' against the SAFE Act. As always, please remember to be polite.

To find your Representative's contact information go to http://www.house.gov and enter your zip code in the upper left corner.

---

Date of RADAR Release: May 4, 2009

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence

http://www.mediaradar.org