Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Andrew Thompson from Australia found in the Netherlands - Mom arrested

After almost three years, missing son finally surfaces

Eamonn Duff

September 9, 2010 - 6:45AM 

A BOY believed to be the kidnapped son of the former NSW deputy fire chief, Ken Thompson, has been found in northern Europe after a two-and-a-half year global search.

Andrew Thompson was three years old when he was abducted in Sydney by his mother, Melinda Stratton, on April 24, 2008, after a custody battle.

Ms Stratton eluded the Australian Federal Police, Interpol and missing children's organisations until she was picked up on Monday after attempting to enrol Andrew in school.

Noticing the six-year-old's passport had expired, the school's principal ran a security check and discovered the boy was the subject of more than 180 Interpol alerts.

Mr Thompson, who quit his job in May to cycle across Europe on a public crusade to find his son, was on a train to the city last night from Stuttgart. He told the Herald he was reluctant to elaborate on the case as it may hinder investigations.

But a family friend, Robin Bowles, said police had contacted Mr Thompson advising him that his son was safe with welfare officials and his former wife was in custody. Arrangements for her extradition were due to be raised in a court appearance yesterday.

"Ken's ecstatic, emotional, relieved, overjoyed and still in a total state of shock," Ms Bowles said. "It is no secret there were fears for both Melinda's and Andrew's safety and the longer time went on, the fear grew deeper within Ken that maybe he'd never see his son again. He wants to see him. He can't wait a moment longer."

Ms Stratton fled Australia four months after she and Mr Thompson failed to reach a custody settlement. She flew with Andrew to Germany, then vanished. In a letter to her family, she claimed she was forced to flee after losing faith in the Family Court over its handling of serious allegations she levelled against her former husband.

But in December 2008 Mr Thompson (ed note: changed from original Stratton) successfully lobbied the Family Court to lift a ban on identifying Andrew and his plight.

In granting the order, the court allowed Mr Thompson to release a psychiatric report – compiled before his former wife's disappearance – revealing she had a paranoia disorder that severely impaired her ability as a parent.

Mr Thompson made an emotional plea before heading to Europe: "The journey will never end until I find my son ... Melinda, if you're reading this, or if you should hear that I'm passing through a town near you in the coming weeks, I beg you, please get in touch. Free me from this nightmare."

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Top 7 Divorce Lawyer Secrets

There is much truth in the following points by a Divorce Lawyer. My ex racked up close to $30,000.00 in legal aid fees (imagine if it had been at the Lawyer's regular tariff)  and he dropped her before trial because legal aid ran out so she had to represent herself.MJM


No. 7

 Minimum billings contained within your retainer agreement for specific services are the fast way to eat through a client's retainer.

Many lawyers place minimum billings for certain services within their retainer agreements.  For example, some attorneys charge 1 hour minimum for each time they are in court.  These minimum billings are well known to be a fast way to eat through a client's retainer, while spending the least amount of time on the case.  For some attorneys, eating through your retainer balance as fast as possible is important, because by the time you figure out you should fire your lawyer, he or she does not have the responsibility to refund unearned fees; they are all gone.

No. 6

Lawyers love the trigger words of "custody" or "order of protection" when they first meet with you.

When first meeting with clients, lawyers are accomplishing a few things all at once.  Obviously, they are writing down the facts of your case to make a determination of the best route in order to best represent you.  But many spouses are unaware that the lawyer is also thinking about what he or she will charge you on an hourly basis, and how much he or she will require from you in the form of an initial retainer.  How much you earn and your assets have a lot to do with this process.  However, key trigger words of "custody" and "order of protection" will likely result in the attorney asking more in the way of his or her hourly fee, and more for your initial retainer.  Therefore, to keep the fees down, try to avoid telling the attorney that you really, really, want an Order of Protection, or you believe that this will be a custody battle.

No. 5

What most spouses do not realize is that their lawyer and the lawyer for their spouse, despite all their arguing and animosity for each other, are buddies behind closed doors. 

The only reason they do not act "chummy" in front of you is because of their fear that you do not trust them, and you and your spouse will fire them and hire different lawyers.  The reality of your case is that the lawyers likely get along famously behind closed doors, and they compare their personal notes about your case, even after your case is over.

No. 4

Your lawyer knows upfont whether or not you can afford a trial in your case. 

The biggest mistake that spouses make within a divorce process is believing that their attorney will stay in the case from start to end.  This is a fatal assumption.  When you first hire attorney, that lawyer will immediately size you up; they will know from experience whether or not you are going to afford the entire process, and if they believe you cannot, which many spouses cannot (unless you earn $300,000 per year), that lawyer has already set into his expectations that he or she may not prepare your case for trial (because you will not be able to afford it).

No. 3

Hourly rates and retainer amounts are arbitrarily set by lawyers only after hearing about your case, your earning potential and how much you have in assets.   
 Some spouses seek out and retain lawyers that charge the most per hour or the most for a retainer because they believe that he or she must be the best lawyer in town.  The reality of the situation is those spouses are victims of the oldest form of lawyer's marketing.  Many lawyers increase their rates because other attorneys have, or it has come up in discussion within a Bar Association Meeting.  Others set super-high rates so that prospective clients think that they are getting the best.  Having your client think you are the best accomplishes two missions.  First, that client is more likely to pay on their attorney fee bill when they believe the services they receive are superior.  Second, the lawyer has little to worry about what's called client control, because clients will more likely take their lawyer's recommendations.  What clients should be doing is listen to their own inner and likely better judgment.  Because this attorney's secret costs clients a lot of money, it is rated No. 3.

No.2
Divorce lawyers can drop your case (while you are in the middle of it) with a simple and fast process.
Most spouses in the divorce process have no idea that during the process, for just about any reason whatsoever, their lawyer can drop their case and them as a client by showing the Judge a simple motion.  Lawyers sometimes drop a client and their case because the client is too difficult to deal with; however, the typical withdrawal is when a client refuses or fails to pay on their lawyer's fee bill.  I am suprised at spouses I meet that thought their lawyer couldn't drop the case, even if they didn't pay.

The withdrawal of attorneys in the middle of a divorce case is fairly common, fairly routine, and you can count on it if you fail to replenish your retainer.  That is why I always suggest to spouses that when you hire a lawyer, see if he or she will agree to a payment plan (IN WRITING), once your retainer deposit has run out.

And the No. 1 divorce lawyer's secret:
Unless your case is uncontested (meaning you and your spouse have already agreed on everything), the average case will cost each spouse over $10,000.00!  Most people do not realize how fast attorney's fees accrue in a divorce. . .well, divorce lawyers do.  Divorce lawyers will not tell you this upfront, because they know it is NOT what you want to hear, and they are fearful that you will not retain them.  Most spouses will evetually hire the lawyer that makes them feel more comfortable about the fees.  Expressions like "we can wrap this up for about $2,000 to $3,000" are false.  The truth is that if some support issues are at issue, you could easily spend $10,000 each for fees.  If custody complicates things, the case could cost close to $40,000 or more.  If the case involves a number of assets and custody, your fees could easily grow to $100,000 or more.  No kidding.

http://www.divorceinfosite.com/id48.html

Monday, September 6, 2010

In the U.K. ~ Four in ten domestic violence victims are men

Its good to see this get some sound publicity in the U.K.  I suspect the 40% figure is actually on the low side.MJM

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:27 AM on 6th September 2010
Four out of ten victims of domestic violence are men, a report claimed yesterday.

But it added that men who complain of being attacked at home are often ignored by police who prefer to believe that a woman is the real victim.

The study comes at a time of complaints that men are treated unfairly by the justice system.

Ignored: A new study reveals that one in four domestic violence victims are men but that police and magistrates often ignore their plight
Ignored: A new study reveals that one in four domestic violence victims are men but that police and magistrates often ignore their plight

Role reversal: Campaign group Parity claim that more than half the male victims of domestic violence suffer injury

Role reversal: Campaign group Parity claims more than half the male victims of domestic violence suffer injury.
A new set of guidelines for judges on fairness in the courts has been criticised for playing down the likelihood that women attack men and pushing for judges and magistrates to go easier on women offenders.

The study by the Parity campaign group based its assessment of the number of male victims of domestic violence on Home Office statistics and the British Crime Survey.

It said that the average proportion of male domestic violence victims was 40 per cent.

The charity report added that more than 41,000 men were prosecuted for domestic violence in 2008/09 but only 2,700 women.

More than half the male victims of domestic violence suffer injury.

The report comes amid protests over the latest guidelines published by the Judicial Studies Board, the body responsible for training judges.

Its revamped court manual states that domestic violence ‘consists mainly of violence by men against women’.

Mark Brooks, of the ManKind campaign group, which supports male victims of domestic violence, said:

‘For a document that claims to be about gender equality, it leaves the impression that male victims are seen as second class.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1309312/Four-domestic-violence-victims-men.html#ixzz0ylyuSBuV

Saturday, September 4, 2010

In the UK - Shared Parenting Orders Bill gets First Reading

On Tuesday 13 July 2010 the following Bill was announced. It is very close to the bottom of the page of Hansard.MJM


Bill Presented

Shared Parenting Orders Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57 )

Mr Brian Binley, supported by Dr Thérèse Coffey, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Peter Bone, Mark Reckless, Caroline Dinenage, Mark Pritchard, Harriett Baldwin and Mr David Nuttall, presented a Bill to provide for the making of Shared Parenting Orders and to create a legal presumption that such Orders enhance the welfare of the child unless certain exceptions apply; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June 2011, and to be printed (Bill 56).

A Bill to provide for the making of shared parenting orders and to create a presumption that such orders enhance the welfare of the child unless certain exceptions apply; and for connected purposes. 

1. Purpose of the Bill
(1) The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that, wherever possible, children benefit from the full involvement of both parents in their upbringing.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to conflict with or undermine in any way the paramountcy of the welfare of the child, as established under section 1 of the Children Act.


2. Shared parenting orders
(1) Section 8 of the Children Act is amended as follows.

(2) In section 8(1), after the words “In this Act—”, the following words are inserted:-
“ “a shared parenting order” means an order settling that both parents have a full involvement in the upbringing of a child, particularly in respect of major long-term issues, and requiring that the child must spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents;”.

(3) After section 8(2) the following subsection is inserted:-

“(2A) When making a section 8 order, and subject to the considerations set out in sections 1(3) and 8A, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for both of the child’s parents to have a full involvement in the upbringing of the child.”

(4) Before section 9(1) the following subsections are inserted:-
“(A1) Where a shared parenting order is in force in relation to a child, the court may not make another section 8 order in relation to that child.
(B1) A shared parenting order may only be made in relation to a child where no other section 8 order is in force in relation to that child, or where those orders are discharged before the shared parenting order comes into force.”

(5) The Schedule makes consequential amendments to the Children Act relating to shared parenting orders and hereby has effect.

3. Welfare of the child: definition
(1) The Children Act is amended as follows:
(2) After section 8 the following section is inserted:

8A Shared parenting orders: additional factors relating to the best interests of the child
(1) In considering what is in the best interests of the child under section 8(2A), the court shall have regard to the fact that the child’s welfare is enhanced by:-

(a) ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives;

(b) protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or domestic violence;

(c) ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and

(d) ensuring that both parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.

(2) The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is demonstrated that it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):-

(a) children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together;

(b) children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (including grandparents as well as other relatives);

(c) parents should jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children;

(d) each parent should be involved in the child’s daily routine and occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and

(e) parents should agree about the future parenting of their children.

4. Shared parenting: time spent with both parents

(1) After section 11 of the Children Act the following section is inserted.

“11AA (1) When making a shared parenting order, the court must apply a presumption that the child should spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents.

(2) When applying the presumption under subsection (1) the court must consider:
(a) the factors set out in section 1(3); and
(b) whether it would be reasonably practicable for the child to spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents.

(3) In determining, for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend a substantial and significant time with each of his parents, the court must have regard to:

(a) how far apart the parents live from each other;
(b) the parents’ current and future capacity to ensure that the child spends a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents; and
(c) such other matters as the court considers relevant.

(4) Where the court, in making a shared parenting order, decides not to provide for the child to spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents, it must:
(a) provide for the child to spend as much time as is practicable with both parents, given the considerations set out in subsection (2); and
(b) have regard to the desirability of the child spending at least 25 per cent of his time, in any one calendar year, with each of his parents.

5. Major long-term issues

(1) The Children Act is amended as follows.

(2) After section 105(1), there is inserted:-
“(1A) In this Act, “major long-term issues” means issues about the care, welfare and development of the child of a long-term nature and includes issues of that nature about:
(a) the child’s education (both current and future);
(b) the child’s religious and cultural upbringing;
(c) the child’s health; and
(d) changes to the child’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent.

A decision by a parent of a child to form a relationship with a new partner is not, of itself, a major long-term issue, within the meaning of this section, in relation to the child.”

6. Interpretation
In this Act—
“Children Act” means the Children Act 1989 (c. 41);
“major long-term issues” has the meaning given in section 5; and
“shared parenting” is interpreted in accordance with section 2(2).

7. Expenses
There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament–
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of this Act by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.

8. Extent, short title and commencement
(1) This Act may be cited as the Shared Parenting Act 2010.
(2) This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) This Act extends to England and Wales only.

Schedule

1. The Children Act is amended as follows.

2. In section 9(5)(a), after the words “making a” the words “shared parenting,” are inserted.

3. In section 10:
In subsection (4)(b), after the words “favour a” the words “shared parenting or” are inserted.
In subsection (5), after the words “apply for a” the words “shared parenting” are inserted.
In subsection (5)(c)(i), after the words “where a” the words “shared parenting or”

4. In section 11(5):
after the word “Where” the words “a shared parenting order has been made with respect to a child, or”
after the words “the residence” the words “shared parenting or” are inserted.

5. In section 13:
In subsection (1), after the words “Where a” the words “shared parenting or”.
In subsection (2), at the end insert the words “, or, where a shared parenting order has been made, by one of the parents”.
In subsection (3), after the words “making a” the words “shared parenting or

Friday, August 27, 2010

Canadian Greens endorse Equal Parenting in their Policy Platform

HOUSE OF COMMONS
CANADA

 
Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin
 
Vellacott commends Green Party
for passing Equal Parenting motion
 
 
For Immediate Release                                                               August 26, 2010
 
OTTAWA – Saskatoon-Wanuskewin MP Maurice Vellacott commends the Green Party for adding a commitment to equal shared parenting as a party policy. Last year, the Conservative MP introduce Bill C-422, which would amend the Divorce Act to require judges to order equal shared parenting for divorcing parents unless it is not in the best interests of the child to do so.
 
Over the weekend, the Green Party passed a policy motion declaring that “the Green Party of Canada will make the necessary changes to the Canada Divorce Act so that in the event of a marital breakdown, the Divorce Act will mandate a default of equal parenting – defined as equal time and responsibility unless there is consent from both parents, or there are specific criminal convictions related to the children that preclude equal parenting.
 
“My work for equal shared parenting has always been a non-partisan effort,” said Vellacott. “Equal parenting groups in Canada are also talking to Members of Parliament from all parties,” he added.
 
“A survey I conducted shows a large majority of Canadians supports equal parenting, regardless of what political party the respondents support,” Vellacott said.
 
“Congratulations to the Green Party for voting to add equal parenting to their party policies.”
 
– 30 –
 
For further comment, call (613) 992-1966 or 297-2249

Monday, August 16, 2010

Andrew Thompson's 6th Birthday Celebration in Australia

This is an email note from Ken Thompson with respect to his search for his abducted son Andrew.  He is currently bicycling across Europe in his quest to find his only child abducted and alienated by his wife.MJM
An invitation is attached to attend a celebration to mark Andrew's 6th
birthday on the steps of the Sydney Opera House. The event will take
place this Thursday 19th August 2010 at 12:30 pm.
 
This event has been organised by people in Australia who are maintaining
Andrew's profile in his own country while I'm continuing my search for
him in Europe. It is also part of my campaign to raise awareness to
other kids who have been abducted from Australia.
 
People who attend will be asked to release a balloon with Andrew's
picture on it. The balloons will be released in front of a 10 metre long
banner that will be displayed at a very prominent location at the Opera
House.
 
This event has been approved by Sydney Opera House media.
 
Kind Regards
Ken (about 50 km from the Germany/Poland border).
www.findandrew.com