More from OZ ~ Divorced dads fear rollback of parent laws

Gosh its been a whole 3 years since some brave Ozzy legislators passed laws to try and level the playing field in the war against dads and men. It hasn't gotten even close to level as only about 15% of dads have 50-50 custody but the vocal minority of socialist victim feminists, some of whom are listed in Overington's most recent diatribe against dads below, are getting most of the press. Note Overington's selectivity when interviewing ensuring most of those who are for a reversal to the good old days of absolute matriarchal supremacy when it comes to parenting get to promote the review covering up the real agenda of a WalMart style roll back. If it is reversed there will be a great backlash. Men have fought and died in wars to protect everyone including the victim feminists but especially their own children. As a dad I can attest nothing else matters to me than my children. Nothing!

DV in most western democracies is pretty much equal between genders. In some cases of IPV the female has been shown to be the initiator in 71% of cases. It has also been shown females will not get injured nearly as much if they don't initiate the violence. Single family mothers in the USA and parts, if not all of OZ, are clearly the biggest abusers and killers of their children far and away. The hysteria over dads wanting equality has got to stop and politically correct and gutless politicians need to evaluate it carefully.MJM

Caroline Overington | July 25, 2009

Article from: The Australian

THE shared parenting laws that have given divorced fathers more time with their children will be rolled back because of the power of left-wing feminist women in Kevin Rudd's cabinet.

That is the view of men's groups that lobbied for the laws when the Howard government was in power, and who now fear "that 15 years of progress in getting fathers and children to spend time together is about to be undone".

"I met with (Attorney-General) Robert McClelland a few weeks ago, and it was clear to me that these laws are being rolled back," said Sue Price, of the Men's Rights Agency.

"They (the Rudd government) say they are reviewing the law, but basically the law will change because in the Labor government there are a number of women who are well and truly indoctrinated in a 1970s feminist movement background, and they do not value the role of men in society.

"(Tanya) Plibersek pushes domestic violence based on incorrect data. (Nicola) Roxon dances a merry dance around men. The fact is that children are at far greater risk from their mothers. Mothers kill more children than fathers, and that's a fact."

Mr McClelland yesterday appointed former Family Court judge Richard Chisholm to review family law processes, using the case of Darcey Freeman, the girl thrown from Melbourne's West Gate Bridge, allegedly by her father, as a reason to consider change.

In a statement, Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant said she supported the review of "how the courts manage the important issues of violence in family law matters. I welcome any suggestions as to how we can improve with system."

Edward Dabrowski, of the Shared Parenting Council, was dismayed, saying: "Vocal minority groups, mostly women, have latched on to a few cases and are now saying the shared parenting laws are leading to situations

that are loaded with domestic violence.

"That is not the case, and if there is to be a review, it ought to be a public review. They should have a full inquiry and let's see what the public, including fathers, think about going back to the old days."

Ms Plibersek's spokesman said she was on leave but would perhaps comment when she returned to work on Monday.

However, NSW Acting Attorney-General Verity Firth entered the fray, saying there "seems to have been considerable problems" with the new shared parenting law in reconciling a child's right to a "meaningful relationship" with both parents "and the protection of the child from exposure to violence".

Ms Firth said there was some evidence that a "very strong pro-contact culture had arisen even where the safety of children couldn't be guaranteed".

Jen Jewel Brown, of the National Council for Children Post-Separation, welcomed the review, saying the new Family Law Act was working as a "wrecking ball for many damaged children and their parents, in particular, as they try to re-establish themselves after the breakdown of abusive relationships".

She said mothers had grown reluctant to raise allegations of violence in the Family Court because they feared being "accused of raising false allegations or not promoting a meaningful relationship with the other parent", which can mean they lose custody or face the entire bill for court costs.

The chairman of the Family Law Council, John Wade, said there was an "appetite for change" and "a feeling that we need to look at it again, and see whether it's working", but he said any changes were "bound to be controversial because it's the area of law that most Australians have contact with, either themselves or through their relatives."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25832215-5013871,00.html

In the UK ~ Amy gives the judge a twirl to 'prove' she didn't punch dancer

Yes Amy you are so innocent - a superlative victim who has already shown your 5' 2" impaired height is no barrier to beating up your male mate who is even bigger and stronger than this female. It looks like you got a break this time but as a paraphrase to the lyrics to a song by the 3 degrees go "when will we see you again."MJM

Amy Winehouse leaves Westminster Magistrates' Court in London yesterday in her ballet shoes. Photo: REUTERS/TOBY MELVILLE

By Steve Bird

Friday July 24 2009

AMY WINEHOUSE twirled in front of a judge and showed him her pink ballet shoes in an attempt to prove that she was a mere 5ft 2in tall and could not have punched a fan.

In one of her most bizarre public performances yet, the Grammy Award-winning singer insisted that she had not attacked Sherene Flash moments after being asked to pose for a photograph at a charity ball.

Instead, Ms Winehouse (25) claimed that Ms Flash, who is 5ft 7in tall and was wearing high-heeled boots, was drunk and being rude as she towered above her.

"Ms Flash came over and put her arm around me. She lent down. She's taller than me. I had flat shoes on," she said.

Asked what shoes she was wearing, Ms Winehouse jumped up from the witness box at Westminster Magistrates' Court and twirled in front of District Judge Timothy Workman to show her footwear.

"I'm probably 5ft 2in to 3in tall," she said before rearranging her 8in-high black beehive and adding: "But my hair does make a difference."

Smiled

She continued: "I had shoes on like this. In fact, these are the very shoes I had on that night. Look, they don't even have a sole. They don't have a heel."

After the judge reassured her that he was fully aware of what flat shoes were, she returned to the witness box, straightened her grey pinstripe mini-skirt suit, sat down and smiled.

The prosecution claims that she acted with "deliberate and unjustifiable violence" towards Ms Flash, a dancer who, like Ms Winehouse, had performed at the Prince's Trust charity ball in Mayfair, Central London, last September.

Other dancers have told the court Ms Winehouse appeared to be either drunk or high on drugs during the altercation.

Ms Flash said that after her performance she had been "tipsy" on champagne and had gone to Ms Winehouse's dressing room and politely asked her to pose for a photograph with her friend, Kiaran Connolly, who, by his own admission, was "hammered" on drink.

Ms Flash said: "She punched me forcefully in my right eye. She used a fist, her right one. I started crying with shock. I couldn't open my eye for a while."

A recording of Ms Flash's 999 call was played to the court. Asked by the operator who had assaulted her, she replied: "Amy Winehouse, of all f***ing people." She said that she was left with a headache and a scratch to her eye.

Ms Winehouse said that she felt scared of Ms Flash, who had ignored her offer to pose for a picture once she had seen a friend out of the venue.

"She kneeled down to try to pose next to me. Her friend came round in front. I said, 'Do I get a choice? Hello?' I wanted her away from me. It was like, 'Leave me. I'm scared of you.'

"I said I would be back in two minutes. It's just then she lent down all over me and put her face next to mine. It's just rude. My bodyguard was keeping an eye on what was going on. He stepped in. It was like, 'Let that girl be, she's drunk'."

Ms Winehouse denied hitting the dancer with a clenched fist, insisting that any injury was accidental. She added that she was worried that the woman was trying to sell her story to a tabloid newspaper. She added: "People are just rude or just mad these days. Or people can't handle drink."

Ms Winehouse denies common assault. The trial continues.

- Steve Bird

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/news-gossip/amy-gives-the-judge-a-twirl-to-prove-she-didnt-punch-dancer-1838182.html?from=dailynews

Winehouse found not guilty of assaulting dancer

• Share
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Stumble Upon
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
• Print
• Email
• Text Size
  • Normal
  • Large
  • Extra Large

Amy Winehouse has been found not guilty of assault. Photo: Getty Images

Friday July 24 2009

British singer Amy Winehouse has been found not guilty of assaulting a dancer at a charity ball in London.

The 25-year-old was accused of hitting burlesque dancer Sherene Flash in the face while backstage at the Prince's Trust Ball last September.

Winehouse denied assaulting the dancer and had insisted she was intimidated and scared by the drunken Miss Flash, who was demanding a photograph with the star.

The court heard the dancer had refused to wait for a few minutes after Winehouse agreed to the request and the singer had pushed her away.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/europe/winehouse-found-not-guilty-of-assaulting-dancer-1839503.html

F4J U.S.A. ~ PARENTAL JUSTICE MARCH

On July 26th, Parents Day, Fathers, Mothers, Grandparents and Children from all 50 states will be answering President Obama's call to "STEP UP".

As part of our second annual PARENTAL JUSTICE MARCH we will be stepping up from Upper Senate Park to President Obama's front door at Ellipse park where we will then demand that President Obama "STEP UP" and stop the Federal funding which is preventing good, fit, willing parents from parenting their children

So JOIN US! "STEP UP" Demand a change on Parents Day, July 26th.

In OZ ~ Shared parent laws for rethink

This looks and sounds ominous. If they equate Shared Parenting to the act of murder quoted someone hasn't got a clear perspective. They most assuredly have to look at the most recent OZ information on the abuse of children on an ongoing basis by single mothers, the very people wanting to end shared parenting. The abuse and killing of children by single mums is well documented in the USA far above the same stats for dads yet law makers just can't equate the negative social outcomes for children. Socialists often don't respond well to dad related issues so it currently doesn't look good. Overington must be tickled pinkiliciously. MJM






Caroline Overington | July 24, 2009

Article from: The Australian

FEDERAL Attorney-General Robert McClelland has pledged to make changes to the Howard government's contentious shared parenting laws - and to the entire family law system - to ensure the safety of children after divorce.

In a speech due to be delivered today, Mr McClelland will cite the case of Darcey Freeman, the little girl thrown from Melbourne's West Gate Bridge, allegedly by her father during a custody dispute, as a reason for the review.

Darcey's father, Arthur Freeman, faces a murder charge for allegedly dropping his daughter over the bridge in January, a day after coming to an agreement with his ex-wife about custody of their three children.

Members of Darcey's family have previously said they tried to warn authorities about their fears for the safety of the Freeman children, saying the judicial system failed them.

Mr McClelland has appointed former Family Court judge Richard Chisholm to conduct the review of the family law system, particularly in the context of family violence.

His decision to intervene comes after an avalanche of complaints about the way the family law system is working, particularly in relation to the custody of children.

The Australian understands several prominent women from Kevin Rudd's front bench, including Minister for the Status of Women Tanya Plibersek and Health Minister Nicola Roxon, are concerned about the way family law is operating.

There are concerns children are being forced into damaging shared parenting arrangements because of shared parenting laws introduced by the Howard government in 2006. The laws require the Family Court to presume the best interests of a child are served by a meaningful relationship with both parents after divorce.

Men's groups say the laws are working as they should but women's groups say the laws force mothers into ongoing relationships with violent ex-partners.

An advance copy of Mr McClelland's speech, provided to The Australian, says: "There will always be differing perspectives about how our family law system should function. That's especially true for those individuals and groups directly affected by the laws and processes."

But he says the Rudd government's priority is the safety and wellbeing of children, which may not always mean equal, or a lot of, time with both parents.

Mr McClelland's review is in addition to a review of the shared parenting laws that was built into the legislation when it was passed in 2006. That review, by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, is due to report in December. Mr McClelland says he will "await the findings of the AIFS report before proposing legislative change to the shared parenting law".

But, he said, "if it becomes clear that current laws and practices may jeopardise the safety of families and children, we must work together to address these shortcomings".

"It is paramount that our family law system is capable of identifying and responding to violence."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25826887-5013871,00.html

London Free Press ~ Letter to the editor and responses

The following is a letter to the editor on July 17, 2009 by a Father's Rights activist and an outpouring of passionate responses by disenfranchised dads including me.MJM

Letter to Editor

UNLESS otherwise noted, these letters are to be considered unedited. The opinions expressed in the letters and comments are those of the writers and not of The London Free Press.

parenting
Children
Deb Matthews is quoted in Friday's LF Press as saying, Parents Form Very Strong Bonds With Their Kids. This in regards to the Bankruptcy of Imagine Adoption, who assist in adopting children from 3rd world countries.

Well Ms. Matthews, what about the many Non-Abusive Fathers, who have had their children taken away from them at the hands of Ontario's CAS agencies. While I'm at it, For all of our area MP's, especially Mr. Pearson, who has spoken out about this tragedy. What about the many NON-Abusive Fathers who have been separated from their children at the hands of a bitter ex-wife and or corrupt Family Law system? Is there any help on the horizon for US! Oh that's right, we're just the average working Canadians, who are told to just shut up, keep working, or go to jail. So much for being loyal to your constituents, but it's always nice to see you keep your loyalties to your portfolio.

Please contact your local MP and have them support Bill-C422 for Equal Parenting, when the house resumes in the fall Robert Hebblethwaite

POSTED BY: Robert Hebblethwaite, London
POSTED ON: July 17, 2009

---

Comments

CAS Good post, Bob. It also needs to be mentioned that MPP Deb Matthews not only cares too little about the loss of a relationship between a father and a child; she also protects mothers who have been proven to be abusive to their own children. And when this father presented clear and convincing evidence of said abuse to Ms. Matthews - as well as evidence of two different CAS agencies hiding eviddence of the abuse - Deb Matthews instructed me to "take legal action" against her office. We also need to support Ontario's Bill 93, which would grant the Ombudsman oversight over Children's Aid Societies. POSTED BY: Brad Charlton

gender discrimination is a hate crime i applaud Mr.Hebblethwaite's post. When a father (me) is systematically stripped of his child, his reputation, and and his career, due to a system that escorts a mother, successfully through the process, baseless lies errupt from the mother, assisted in the lies of course, comes from the aid of corrupt members of the domestic division of the L.P.S., then a baseless accusation made against the father to the C.A.S.arises, leaving him stained none the less. Then the mother gains aid from overzealous nieve, and dishonest members of a couple of local baptist churches to seal her lies, and the father is thrown into the sewer of a domestic criminal & family court system, which is relevant to the Nazi treatment of Jews. I approached Deb Matthews office more than once regarding my situation as a citizen of London, who actally had financially supported local hospitals, universities, colleges, churches, and several womens and children's organizations for years, and had never had involvement with police in his life...but was never given permission to speak with Deb Matthews, regarding his distraught concern for his charter of civil rights, which were and are totally violated, i actually believed every Canadian citizen had the right to lay hold of that claim.... Obviously Deb Matthews has no care, no respect, and no time to display any gender equality to listen to a male, a father, and a long time contributor of what he thought was a fine city to reside in. And when the same father is told to his face by members of the L.P.S. (officer quote) "YOU ARE A MALE YOU HAVE BEEN STRIPPED OF YOUR RIGHTS, YOU ARE A FATHER YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS." (Sept 21st 2008) It is clear to me that hate crimes exists long after WW11, and it festers within the majority of local government organizations and local community services. So much for "community service, and deeds not words" It should read "community service for women" and "round up & arrest all men" POSTED BY: Derek McDonald

Bob's right UN recommendation that children need both parents. When will MP and MPP's stop the basic human rights violation of our family courts? POSTED BY: rob

your rights To all of you great dads who are systemically abused....email roadtripictures@yahoo.ca and you can have the opportunity to speak on camera about the abuse you have suffered. I am and have been working on a documentary film titled "Capital Injustice The War on Dads" for 2 years now and hope to be complete by the end of November. I also need professionals to speak if you know of any. POSTED BY: Tom Faer

It's time for a change Really, the time has come for the big change. C-422 is a step towards that big change needed or so long. Court system has done enough harm to this country's children. It's time no for equal parenting. Unfortunately, a whole generation of children grew up with the image of an hatred father, image given of course by the bitter mother, often as a scheme of vengeance or as a demonstration of power given by the gender bias of the court system. Often, a good proportion of lawyers keep the turmoil alive between divorced couples to increase their living. This time is reaching the end. Call your federal MP and tell him you support C-422. For the sake of our children. POSTED BY: Alain Roy

Deb Matthews ~ A Women's Woman Ms. Mathews is proud of her $208,000,000.00 budget for women's issues. Yes she actually said that. She rationalized spending that much by using mythological stats. She doesn't know DV is pretty much equal between genders in Canada. She doesn't know that single parent female homes have so many negative outcomes for children including a majority of child killing and abuse at the hands of the mother in the USA and Australia. We don't know the total Canadian figures because Stats Can refuses to break them down finely enough to determine the male perps. She doesn't know there are so many dads out of the picture because judges in a close to 9-1 ratio award physical custody to the mom. If this was any other group besides men it would be called a form of apartheid. This is a socially engineered nightmare created by people with a mind set similar to the local Police Chief who also doesn't understand gender dynamics. Perhaps the feminst MPP for London could muster her colleagues to support Provincial legislation similar to Federal bill c-422 to give equality to parents at the end of their marriages when it comes to custody and residency of children. That would truly be the right kind of feminism which started as seeking equality for all rather than just 50% of the population as it does now. POSTED BY: Mike Murphy

The reality is our society is growing increasingly tired of two-faced politicians who spew typical political rhetoric. The people are taking full advantage of the power of the internet to assemble and share information. I will do everything in my power to ensure that those in office are held accountable and liable for their actions and decisions. If you do not support equal parenting then you do not support the basic rights of Canadians and furthermore you support the abuse of children. How disgusting is it to know that some of our "elected" leaders would rather indirectly abuse our children then support then by providing them with an opportunity to know both parents equally. I proudly stand behind you Mr. Hebblethwaite. POSTED BY: Dave Flook, President Not All Dads Are Deadbeats

Family Court Injustices to Men

Townhall.com

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Phyllis Schlafly :: Townhall.com Columnist
Family Court Injustices to Men
by Phyllis Schlafly



Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled "child support," that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?

Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"?

Did you know that when corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly) or serving in our Armed Forces overseas, can't afford a lawyer, or never owed the money in the first place?

Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who the father of her child is, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father?

Did you know that alleged "child support" has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the "support" money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy?

These are among the injustices that the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men. The sponsor was former Democratic Senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley.

His name is affixed to the Bradley Amendment, a 1986 federal law that prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged "child support" even in any of the circumstances listed above. The Bradley law denies bankruptcy protections, overrides all statutes of limitation and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay.

Most Bradley-law victims never come to national attention because, as "Bias" author Bernard Goldberg said, mainstream media toe the feminist propaganda line, among which is the epithet "deadbeat dads." But one egregious case did make the news this summer.

Frank Hatley was in a Georgia jail for more than a year for failure to pay alleged "child support" even though a DNA test nine years ago plus a second one this year proved that he is not the father. The Aug. 21, 2001, court order, signed by Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledged that Hatley is not the father but nevertheless ordered him to continue paying and never told him he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one.

Hatley subsequently paid the government (not the mom or child) thousands of dollars in "child support," and after he was laid off from his job unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers and reduced to living in his car, he continued making payments out of his unemployment benefits.

But he didn't pay enough to satisfy the avaricious child-support bureaucrats, so Perkins ruled Hatley in contempt and sent him to jail without any jury trial. With the help of a Legal Services lawyer, he has now been relieved from future assessments and released from jail, but (because of the Bradley Amendment) the government is demanding that Hatley continue paying at the rate of $250 a month until he pays off the $16,398 debt the government claims he accumulated earlier (even though the court then knew he was not the father).

This system is morally and constitutionally wrong, yet all the authorities say the court orders were lawful.

Another type of feminist indignity is the use in divorce cases of false allegations of child sexual abuse in order to gain child custody and the financial windfall that goes with it. Former Vancouver, Wa., police officer Ray Spencer has spent nearly 20 years in prison after being convicted of molesting his two children who are now adults and say it never happened.

The son, who was 9 years old at the time, was questioned, alone, for months until he said he had been abused in order to get the detective to leave him alone. The daughter, who was then age 5, said she talked to the detective after he gave her ice cream.

There were many other violations of due process in Spencer's trial, such as prosecutors withholding medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse and his court-appointed lawyer failing to prepare a defense, but the judge nevertheless sentenced Spencer to two life terms in prison plus 14 years. Spencer was five times denied parole because he refused to admit guilt, a customary parole practice that is maliciously designed to save face for prosecutors who prosecute innocent men.


http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2009/07/21/family_court_injustices_to_men