Fathers4Equality Blog - Father Matters, child custody, fathers rights, shared parenting, divorce

Honoured campaigner for Dads in Distress is forced to sleep in car

Not Credited — Wed, 1 Sep 2010 19:49:52 +1100

A man recognised with one of the nation's highest honours for his work with divorced and separated fathers is now living on the street.

Tony Miller, the founder of Dads in Distress, will accept his Order of Australia medal in Sydney today.

He says he has been sleeping in his car on the New South Wales mid-north coast because he lost his housing and is unable to work due to stress.

Mr Miller says there an urgent need nationally for refuges for homeless men.

"It's not about me," he said.

"The reality is there's a lot of blokes out there, a lot of people out there that are homeless and I'm asking the government to look at that situation.

"Where are the men's shelters in this country? There's women's shelters all over the country and rightly so, but there are no men's shelters in this country. Where does a bloke go when it all hits the roof?"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2994199.htm

Dishonest Reporting on Australia’s Shared Parenting Laws starting to Wear Thin

Belinda Fehlberg — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:20:02 +1100

Editorial Note: This is what happens when you cry wolf too often. People simply stop believing you. Just read the comments below to get an idea of how people react to the "distortions" in this article by Belinda Fehlberg. The general public can detect an agenda a mile away.

Belinda Fehlberg has a long history of calling for the Shared Parenting reforms to be repealed, and this is only her most recent effort. These articles should not be seen as being written by a Professor of Law, but by a malicious women's rights lobbyist who sees men as the enemy, and children as the battle ground.

Bizarrely she accepts that these laws have been an 'overwhelming' success, but she still wants them repealed because a minority of children have been "apparently" put in high-conflict arrangements. Although I do not doubt that some children have fallen through the cracks of the law, anyone who knows anything about the law knows that Judges and Magistrates have final say on what arrangement a child is placed in, and if a judicial officer believes any arrangement is not in a child's best interests, then they have the mandate to choose what arrangement is in the child's best interests, whether that arrangement has been sought or not.

So when these distorted case studies are being referred to, make an effort to find the judgement, and you may find that all is not as is claimed by Ms Fehlberg.

The articles from writings Belinda Fehlberg should however continue to be read as a lesson in spin, but take it as being a reflection on the ideological underpinnings of the author, not a reflection on the law.

Shared care laws damaging many children
Belinda Fehlberg
August 26, 2010

Relationship breakdown affects many Australian families. About 40 per cent of marriages end in divorce and the rate of de facto relationship breakdown is higher. The family law system has a more direct and personal impact on our lives than most other areas of law. Yet in the lead-up to the election, we heard almost nothing about family law reform.

In the meantime, the Howard government's 2006 shared parenting changes to the Family Law Act continue to damage a significant minority of children.

For example, a case recently before the Full Court of Family Court of Australia, known as "Collu & Rinaldo", involved a four-year-old child who had been travelling month-about between Sydney (where his father lived) and Dubai (where his mother lived) for 14 months, while the case awaited court hearing. Why is our family law system so poorly resourced that a case like this must wait so long to be heard? And what encouraged the parents and their legal advisers to think the care arrangements for this child were acceptable, until the appeal was expedited after "medical evidence was presented about trauma the child suffered during a flight from Sydney to the UAE"?

Such arrangements may suit parents, but this case – and the research – show the psychological damage that can result from constant disruption and lack of stability for such young children.

Earlier this year, I wrote about key findings of reports by the Australian Institute of Family Studies and the Chisholm Inquiry. These reports, both commissioned by the federal Attorney-General's Department, showed that shared parenting time is not working well for a significant minority of Australian children. They showed that fathers have been encouraged to seek shared care and more mothers now feel pressured into it. They also showed that shared care is now used by a substantial minority of parents with significant problems (such as high parental conflict, substance abuse and/or mental health issues). It is being agreed to by parents and, even more often, ordered by courts in cases where it seems not to be in children's best interests, partly due to community and professional misunderstandings about what the law says.

We now also have three more recent reports commissioned by the federal Attorney-General's Department and released in July, which, in different ways, establish the same points.

Most significantly, a report by clinical child psychologist Dr Jennifer McIntosh and colleagues underlines the significant negative impact of shared care arrangements on children under the age of four "regardless of socio-economic background, parenting or inter-parental cooperation".

A report by social work professors Dale Bagshaw and Thea Brown and their colleagues on parents' and children's perspectives on family violence and family law in Australia underlines yet again that the family law system does a poor job of supporting and assisting victims of family violence.

There were major criticisms of the way violence was dealt with in mediation. In court, those reporting violence felt their reports were "disbelieved, minimised, or sometimes accepted but put to one side in the ultimate decision".

Finally, a report from the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales is broadly consistent with previous research finding that shared care is experienced differently by mothers and fathers and is most problematic when mothers have serious concerns about their children's safety or there is high parental conflict. The report concludes that factors such as the level of parental co-operation and conflict are more important than the structure of parenting arrangements. In other words, shared care of itself is not necessarily better for children than other care arrangements. Given this, there seems to be no justification for our current legislative approach, which encourages parents in this direction.

Of course, shared care can work well for some families – typically a small select group who decide this for themselves and without reference to what the law says.

In the lead-up to the election, the Gillard Labor government indicated that it was considering the recent reports before responding but was committed to "further improving" the family law system. The Liberal Party said nothing about shared parenting or family violence reform. The position of the independents isn't clear. Most clearly in favour of reform have been the Greens, who called in January this year for change "as a matter of priority in light of the findings of the Chisholm report — highlighting that the Greens opposed the Howard government's amendments at the time because of these very concerns".

However our government is structured in the coming weeks, it should act on consistent evidence showing us that a significant number of children are being damaged by our shared parenting laws. What we need are laws that require us to determine children's best interests on a case-by-case basis without pre-conceived ideas, and laws that require us to take family violence seriously at every step along the way.

Professor Belinda Fehlberg is professor of law at Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne specialising in family law.

COMMENTS

Why do my antennae start vibrating when I read article after article that links the issues of shared parenting with that family violence?

Surely some context would be helpful. In what percentage of divorce involving children is family violence reported? If some people who allege family violence are being disbelieved is there any data that helps the general public distinguish truth from fiction? Are there any other issues that are important? Is there any empirical data that actually look at the effects of different parenting models on children? Why do I have the feeling that the "the best interests of children" arguments are cover for other agendas?

I wish had the sense of getting insight into the real issues, rather than a sense of being subject to an exercise in perception management.

worried dad | Melbourne - August 27, 2010, 8:09AM

This article reminded me of two sisters, aged six and three who were in full time long day care where I worked a couple of years ago.

Their day extended from about seven thirty am to six pm each day, and care alternated weekly between parents.

That year they both stayed in day care for the whole summer holiday too, while first their mother went overseas with her new partner, while the dad worked and dropped the kids in day care, and then the dad went to Bali with his new girl while the mum left the kids at day care and worked.

I thought it was very sad.
Christine | Perth - August 27, 2010, 8:48AM

I am a father who had to spend 10s of thousands of dollars just to be able to see my young daughter. I would like to see the following Family Law reforms adopted as a matter of priority;

1 In the absence of any evidence of violence or abuse, it is an offence for any parent to prevent a child and the other parent seeing each other . Conversely, a father is entitled to see their children at least every 2 weeks and on key occasions such as birthdays and Fathers Day. No parent should have to incur crippling legal fees in order to merely see their children.

2 If a parent wishes to leave a marriage - fine. But the departing parent (father or mother) should have no right to remove the children with them then demand financial support, especially when moving into another relationship. ie Move interstate or overseas, but you need a court order to take the children with you.

3 Any adult who wishes to strike up a domestic relationship with an estranged parent and live under the same roof as someone else's child, should require a police clearance first.
Mike | Armadale - August 27, 2010, 9:11AM

Re "The Liberal Party said nothing about shared parenting or family violence reform"

The three major parties actually did address their policies on shared parenting to the NCSMC. You can read where they stand on shared parenting in the SingleMum.com.au article "federal election 2010 - a single mother's guide"here:
http://www.singlemum.com.au/articles/single-mothers-guide-federal-election_20100820_sm.html

(The coalition support current shared parenting laws)
SingleMum.com.au | Australia - August 27, 2010, 9:37AM

As someone who came from a split parenthood, this article is breathtaking in its naivety. If not for a very long and very costly legal battle, I would not have had my Father as a part of my life. The relationship between my Father and Mother caused massive disruption and problems in my life, but I have never questioned whether it was worth it, my relationship with my Father is now one of the central pillars of my life.

Of course children are going to go through some tough times under shared parenting arrangements, but to simply judge the shared parenting outcomes on the child at that age completely ignores the immeasurable benefit that those parents have throughout the childs life.

The fact that I had a relationship with my father at all caused huge disruption and angst in my life, but I'd laugh in the face of anyone stupid enough to think that I'm worse off because of it.
Regularchap - August 27, 2010, 9:46AM

"The report concludes that factors such as the level of parental co-operation and conflict are more important than the structure of parenting arrangements".

I see. You mean when Mother decides to take the kids to another city, and blatantly breaks Court orders and refuses to co-operate in making the children available to be with Father? Yeah, that would create conflict So that would be a case for Father to not see children? Been there and lived it. Thats right folks, the Prof wants to turn the clock back to this!

Really Prof, and the "Child psychologist" hangers on, the world has moved on: In most cases children are MUCH better off in having a meaningful relationship with both parents, and that means spending significant time together beyond the token "alternating weekend" rubbish that the Prof would like to see returned.

Simmo - August 27, 2010, 10:31AM

"In the meantime, the Howard government's 2006 shared parenting changes to the Family Law Act continue to damage a significant minority of children."

Right. Lets get this clear: MINORITY OF CHILDREN. Ergo its a GOOD THING for the MAJORITY OF CHILDREN. So why should the reforms be abandoned when they are in the best interests of most children? And the Law doesn't bind the Family Court in making shared care mandatory for all cases. Thats based on the individual circumstances as supported by the evidence. Thats right, Professor, evidence. If the evidence shows it will be harmful to the child, then the Family Court can reject the application for shared care.
This is agenda-driven drivel to turn the clock back to the dark times when "mother knew best",no matter what, despite all the evidence to the contrary. But having shared care means Mother has no case to demand 85% of all assets, and exhorbitant Child Support payments. Get it?

My son has thrived since I litigated and won shared care, despite his mother wanting the "alternating weekend" nonsense. That litigation still cost my my life's work-only because it was contested without any basis by the mother, but its been worth every cent. To abandon shared care, as the Prof wants, would harm the majority of children.

Just a Dad - August 27, 2010, 10:19AM

MIke, I'm sorry to hear you had to go through that. I'd amend your second point to clarify that if a spouse has to leave the family because they've been abused, then they are the ones who have the children.
Very good point about the parent's new partner. So many cases of abuse are the boyfriend, the new husband. I know it sounds like painting all stepfathers in that light, which I'm not trying to do at all, but it does occur often enough to be chilling.
LL - August 27, 2010, 10:09AM

yes, the concern for me is that when Professor Fehlberg says "children's best interests" she assumes the view, expressed many times by feminists in articles like this in the Age, that "children's best interests" are identical to "mother's best interests" - and that the father is irrelevant. They then reason that, therefore, whatever the mother wants must by definition be best for the child. If the Family Court actually assessed cases on the evidence and merits, rather than 'preconceived ideas' such as that all women always tell the truth, and that all men are violent towards their children, that would be fair. But they don't. Instead, the history is that women are always favoured by these decisions, no matter waht the circumstances. Professor Fehlberg, I'm afraid, is just another feminist idealogue. She writes here to provide support to the feminist view that men's role in parenting is to pay chid support to their children's mothers, take the kids for a couple of days every now and then so the mother can have some free time, and otherwise stay out of the picture. Professor Fehlberg, for all her remarks about violence, provides in her article only one parenting case as an example, and in this case it appears that the mother left for Dubai, and the Family Court insisted the child must travel there regularly, despite it being not in the child's real interests. And the the professor concludes from this that men should not have contact with their children! Brilliant!
Jeff | Melbourne - August 27, 2010, 10:10AM

LL - point taken.
I agree the courts must be able step in and apply common sense where there is violence or abuse.

But there must be common sense default positions that eliminate the need for fathers to incur crippling legal fees just to obtain a base level of contact with their children.
Mike | Armadale - August 27, 2010, 11:08AM

Regularchap - August 27, 2010, 9:46AM - Thank you for your insights from the view of a person actually impacted by it. The 'think of the children' crowd need to listen to the likes of you before assessing these reports as the initial impact on the children can be unclear.
I'm not sure parents are the most constructive sources for these sorts of reports. They too often think of their own needs rather than that of the child's. For example they will claim the 'right to see my child' rather than the child's right to have that parent in their life. It is an important distinction but I wish the focus was on the right of the child and not the right of the parent because too often the parents are so wrapped up in their hate of each other the child is just a weapon.
narc | Melbourne - August 27, 2010, 1:33PM

The Children should be given the family home. 50% of each parents income should be given to the children's expenses and the parents should move in and out of the home. Why is it that children always have to do the bag packing every 2 weeks. It should be the parents. The children need the stability.
lizzie - August 27, 2010, 1:58PM

It is very sad that so much of this debate is taken up by parents arguing for their own rights and self-interests rather than placing paramountcy and precedency on the needs, wishes, and rights of children. Of course they try to dress it up in the vaguely defined `Best interests of the child', a concept which is infinitely variable and highly subjective in its application.

What is know from years of research is that children's primary needs are for consistency and constancy in their day-to-day care, the security of familiar surroundings and personal items, continuity of relationships with their friends and extended family, and most important of all, security and protection from harm. Shared parenting after separation is not an issue as both parents retain full legal duties and responsibilities to their children, but sharing the care of children needs very careful thought about the insecurity, instability, and emotional turmoil this can cause to children and leads to high levels of anxiety, emotional harm, disrupted education and social development, and trauma where children are abused or neglected. This occurs whether the shared care arrangement is agreed or is Court-Ordered. Currently State child protection agencies are working to prevent child abuse and to protect children, while Family Courts are placing children in situations where there is a high risk of abuse and exploitation, ignoring or failing to competently investigate, prior evidence of domestic violence and child abuse. Urgent and significant reforms are need to the Family Law so that children's Needs, Wishes, and Rights are given paramountcy and precedence by Family Courts, and particularly that they are protected from abuse and exploitation, and it is not simply about parent's demanding their rights and pursuing their self-interests.
Chas3931 | Melbourne - August 27, 2010, 2:12PM

this is just feminist claptrap.
vast majority of divorces have nothing to do with violence.
woolly - August 27, 2010, 3:44PM

Mike | Armadale & Just a dad : I know exactly what this is like.
When my ex left, the children were initially left with me, without warning whilst she spent a month gallavanting with her new bloke, then when a laywer pointed out the financial risk she was taking, she suddenly collected the kids from school without warning and claimed she wanted full custody.

No matter how much parents love their kids, they can do stupid, stupid things in the face of biased one sided laws that seem to reward one parent and punish another. Such laws then create greater conflict which flows down to the children and does MUCH more harm than anything else.

In my case, I was hit with everything.... accusations of threats of violence.... continual run around..... almost $30k worth of legal bills from laywers that saw me coming and rubbed their hands in glee.
The result was that I won a case and my children have been settled in a share care arrangement for 10 years, but the cost in stress alone was incredible.

With the default of shared-care and the fairer child-care formula my situation would never have arisen.

Yes, there may be a MINORITY of children that need a different approach.... but why destroy lives of the majority and go back to the dark age system we used to have. I know what my kids would say. They love both their parents and wouldn't want to miss out on life with either one of us!!

Oz | Melbourne - August 27, 2010, 3:45PM

Here we go again, the latest wave of feminists continuing the fight to ostracize fathers from their children. Lets demonise all fathers in broken relationships as wife beaters or child molesters or drug users in order to get our way. Of course mums are all the very incarnation of Gaea.

Burn | Melbourne - August 27, 2010, 3:49PM

As someone working in this area I have encountered the attitude from police and DOCS that if a parent (gender neutral) makes a complaint about violence against the other parent, even violence towards the child, during a court case, then they are reluctant to get involved, saying it should be dealt with in Family Court. I'd like to think these are in the minority but even so, I think allegations of abuse should be treated the same regardless of other court cases and that assuming allegations are a ploy is just endangering the children. All allegations should be investigated thoroughly and if the allegations are found to be deliberately false then throw the book- that's what it is there for. More funding for DOCS and police as well as clear education to these services as to their obligations in such case would go a long way. But the idea that having both parents share the parenting is automatically better for the child contributes to the problem, and even if only a minority of children are in danger isn't that too many? Too many parents involved aren't able to make rational decisions due to emotion and wanting to beat the other parent, although it will burden the majority of parents who do the right thing isn't it worth it to know that the court is looking after your kids?

The Devil You Dont - August 27, 2010, 4:11PM

There are two questions I would like to ask Professer Fehlberg. 1. Is she a feminist? 2. Did she have no father, or did she have a bad relationship with her father? Her view smacks of evidence that she is one or both. The very fact that "the Howard government's 2006 shared parenting changes to the Family Law Act continue to damage a significant minority of children" suggests that it is good for the majority. And common sense tells us that is the case. The greatest single cause of major social problems today is fatherlessness. The alienation of one parent (almost always the father) is the most harmful act that can be done to a child. When are we going to see the balanced view reported in the media? One of the few good things the Howard government did was modify ever so slightly the most damaging piece of legislation ever passed in this country - the Family Law Act of 1975. I voted Labor in 2007. I voted the other way this time for this very reason.
Nurturing Dad | Gold Coast - August 27, 2010, 5:27PM
Comments are now closed

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/shared-care-laws-damaging-many-children-20100826-13tqm.html?comments=18#comments

Subscribe to Articles About Men now & receive these important Articles

Sonja Hastings — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:59:18 +1100

Subscribe to ArticlesAboutMen.com now and receive these important Articles in your mailbox.

http://www.articlesaboutmen.com

Sharing is caring: everyone wins in this split family

Rachel Olding — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:13:51 +1100

SEAN BROGAN is ''enormously proud'' of what he and his ex-wife, Ayela Thilo, have achieved for their family.

Divorced for nine years, they share custody of their three children, Arielle, 17, Sienna, 13, and Oliver, 11, in a ''week on week off'' arrangement.

Mr Brogan agreed with the findings of the Shared Care Parenting Arrangements study that shared custody is positive for both parental satisfaction and children's wellbeing.

''In a funny kind of way it has given the kids a sense of stability,'' he said. ''They know where they'll be at any given time, if they've got something coming up they see whether they'll be with mum or dad and talk to that person about it.''

The arrangement has also improved his relationship with Ms Thilo by increasing co-operation and joint decision-making.

''We were determined to make it work for the children,'' he said. ''It has certainly healed any rift we might have had. We talk regularly, we talk about school things. Another upside is that it allows the non-custodial parent time out in their week off and time to do all the things they want to pursue.''

It was difficult to adjust at first, he said, but the weekly arrangement still works after nine years.

''We made a conscious decision that the kids come first and we were determined that they would have equal access to both of us. It wasn't based on anything we'd heard or read, we just thought why don't we try doing a week on and a week off.''

He believes a sense of equality is vital for children going through a divorce.

''Kids are unswervingly loyal and they don't want to see their parents warring. These days we have three very happy, healthy, emotionally healthy children.''

http://www.smh.com.au/national/sharing-is-caring-everyone-wins-in-this-split-family-20100827-13vzd.html

Next government must confront the dangers in family law reforms

Adele Horin — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:14:29 +1100

Editorial Note: Adele Horin has a very long historically of being critical of any type of family law reform that may promote shared care, or promote a greater say by separated fathers in the lives of their children. Her articles are neither impartial nor accurate, and in this piece she misrepresents many of the views of the figures she refers to, and in others she refers to researchers and judges who have made it clear that they have an ideological objection to fathers having a shared say in the decisions involving their children. She also conveniently does not mention the conclusion of the AIFS study into the shared parenting laws, which interviewed over 26,000 parents in shared care arrangements and found no link between shared care and any increased risk of family violence. Very convenient omission by Adele Horin otherwise she would be hard pressed to explain her ongoing resistance to these laws. In any case this article is another case of single mother advocacy at all costs, rather than any form of impartial investigative journalism. Read this article as a piece of clever advertising for mother's rights above and beyond that of a child's best welfare. Despite her clever rhetoric, this is simply another attempt by her to encourage the rollback of the 2006 shared parenting reforms.

In an election degraded by bipartisan fear-mongering on asylum seekers and climate change, we can be grateful the hot-button issue of family law remained safely off limits.

Who gets the kids after parents separate, for how long, and in what circumstances is an issue that is far from settled, despite the changes in the Family Law Act the Howard government introduced in 2006 with Labor's support.

Awaiting the incoming attorney-general is about $7 million worth of freshly minted, government-commissioned research on the effect of the changes, specifically the impact of shared care arrangements where children spend equal or near-equal time with both parents.

So sensitive is the subject that a senior officer in the Attorney-General's Department remarked to a researcher this year: ''We have to slow this down; we know it's worth 1 million votes.'' Any suggestion of rolling back the 2006 reforms risked reigniting emotive campaigns by men's groups that considered the changes a victory for fathers' rights.

At last count there were six separate reports, delivered in recent months, from impeccable research bodies, such as the Australian Institute of Family Studies, as well as a retired Family Court judge, and the Family Law Council of Australia. Nearly all indicated the need for some changes in the legislation to better protect vulnerable children from ending up with violent or abusive parents, and to make the law clearer to parents, and simpler for judges. Even the architect of the 2006 reforms, Patrick Parkinson, a professor of law at the University of Sydney, favours amending the legislation in view of the confusion it has helped to sow.

The Labor Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, has done his best to bury the reports. Three were slipped on to the departmental website last month, including a two-volume examination of violence and family law, without any official publicity. Earlier, he had released three reports simultaneously, in the late afternoon, including a tome from the AIFS that itself ate up $6 million of the research budget.

The good news to emerge from some of the empirical studies is that shared care can work well. Most of the parents involved - and they are still a small minority - are happy, and the kids seem to be doing all right.

But even the most positive of the studies carry reservations. The new system is letting down a sizeable minority of separated parents - 16 to 20 per cent, the AIFS says - who fear for the safety of their children because of parenting arrangements.

Shared parenting can work well when parents are co-operative. But the studies point to situations where parents locked in acrimonious disputes, or those who fear for their child's safety, or their own, are also being forced into the arrangement. One study on the Attorney-General's desk, from Dr Jennifer McIntosh, also shows that children under four who spend substantial time away from the primary carer are doing less well than other children on a range of developmental measures, with higher levels of anxiety, aggression and eating disturbances.

Support is growing for reforms advocated by the retired Family Court judge Professor Richard Chisholm, whose report was given short shrift by McClelland earlier this year. In essence Chisholm advocates shifting the emphasis off shared care by making it one of many equally good options judges could consider, instead of singling it out in the law. He also proposes to make it less risky for parents to raise issues of violence - current provisions imply the system is suspicious of those who make such allegations.

Rick O'Brien, the deputy chairman of the Law Council's family law section, has advocated similar amendments. ''A law that cannot be understood by the people affected by it - or, worse still, lends itself to being actively misunderstood - is a bad law,'' he has said. A significant proportion of the community thinks the 2006 reforms mandate equal shared time. They do not. Shared care is only an arrangement judges must consider, though consider it they must after going through various other steps.

As well, lawyers and mediators are required by the law to raise the possibility of shared care. As a result, unrealistic expectations and fears have been raised. And, without doubt, many people have been led to believe they have no choice but to agree to equal time, and that not to do so may count against them should they end up in court. Some of these agreements, based on misinformation, may not be in the children's best interest.

Even more worrying is the big increase since 2006 in the proportion of judicial determinations of shared care, from 4 per cent to 33 per cent. Only a small minority of couples end up before a judge but they are clearly the ones least likely to make shared care work.
No one is calling for a return to the days when separated fathers saw their children every second weekend and half the school holidays. And few believe simplifying the law by itself will solve the remaining problems. It is a relief the issue did not become politicised in the election. The new government can make a considered decision about how to make a good system better. It should heed the voices of respected legal experts and researchers. Doing nothing is the coward's way out.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/next-government-must-confront-the-dangers-in-family-law-reforms-20100827-13vx8.html

Teenage girl jailed for knifing her lover

Aleks Devic — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:39:12 +1100

A GEELONG teen who stabbed her boyfriend in the heart and lungs grinned after being jailed yesterday for 5� years.

Kasey Neville, 18, also pleaded guilty to armed robberies, one just two days before the stabbing, the Geelong Advertiser said.

County Court Judge Paul Lacava said, despite Neville's age, her actions were too serious for a penalty other than prison.

The Victoria court heard Neville and boyfriend Ronin Will, who was also high on drugs, had an argument on March 6 at a friend's Grovedale home after she told him she was pregnant.

He punched her in the face and tried to slash his wrists.

They took their fight outside where she stabbed him, piercing his lung and heart, the court heard.

Neville then called 000 and cried: "What have I done?"

Will was left fighting for his life in the Geelong Hospital and continues to have surgery.

Two days before the stabbing, Neville, armed with a knife, and a co-accused robbed a Shell service station on Moorabool St.

The court heard Neville threatened the attendant saying: "Hurry up or I'll slit your f---ing throat."

They fled with $455 in cash and used the money to buy heroin and pay drug debts.

Yesterday Judge Lacava said Neville, who later discovered she was not pregnant, was lucky not to be facing a murder charge.

"You and Will argued and you stabbed him in the chest and he collapsed on the roadway," Judge Lacava said.

"You had been drinking heavily and consumed half a bottle of bourbon and beers and swallowed 20 valium tablets.

"Fortunately for you, he regained consciousness. One cannot help but wonder that he didn't die."

Judge Lacava detailed Neville's tragic life, which included being kicked out of home aged 15 because of excessive substance abuse, being homeless and being in an abusive relationship with Will.

"I have been told there is not a drug that you haven't tried. It's a path too many young persons have trotted," he said.

Neville sobbed in court when a birthday card she wrote to her mum was read in court: "Dear Mum. I'm really sorry I can't be there at this time. I hope you have a good day and enjoy the things you like doing. I promise you I will do good and make you proud. I'll be home hopefully sooner than later."

Judge Lacava said Neville had been drug free since in custody and showed remorse by confessing to police.

Neville pleaded guilty to intentionally causing serious injury and also pleaded guilty to separate armed robbery charges.

She must serve a minimum of three years before being eligible for parole.

For local updates visit the Geelong Advertiser.

The Social Web - Join Fathers4Equality now on Facebook, Reddit or Articles About Men.

Ash Patil — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:49:32 +1100

Given the pervasiveness of technology today, please consider taking advantage of the SOCIAL INTERACTION facilities that Fathers4Equality are involved in. Please joining and share your opinion with tends of thousands of others who share your concerns.

Articles About Men

http://www.articlesaboutmen.com

Articles About Men is an international article library on all topics related to Men.

Whether it be health, happiness, relationships, parenting or family law, Articles About Men covers it.

However Articles About Men needs more articles from Men.

If you have an opinion or a story to tell, please register now and publish your article on one of the fastest growing web libraries of male related

Hi, my name is Sonja Hastings from Sydney, Australia. I feel strongly about Shared Parenting and the welfare of young boys and men.

I feel sickened by the attitudes of some women's groups, and felt compelled to show the world that not all women are full of hatred for men. So I started writing on issues I knew about.

Please read my most recent article on Shared parenting below.

Top 10 Myths about Shared Parenting (Child Custody laws) in Australia

Join us on Facebook	Register & participate on Reddit
http://www.facebook.com/fathers4equality	http://www.reddit.com/r/fathers4equality
There is no holding back progress, and so we need to move with the times. Facebook is a social interaction website that helps people with a common bond or common interest keep in contact, no matter where they live or how busy they are. If such social website sounds too complex or intimidating, well you are not alone, but there is no holding progress back. So consider this a great opportunity to learn an important new technology, and to help our cause at the same time. The Fathers4Equality Fan page currently has over 200 fans. Please become of fan and make our numbers count. Join now and help us.	Fathers4Equality have just launched their own social bookmarking channel on Reddit. This social bookmarking channel allows you to publish an interesting News article that you have read, which can then be discussed and voted up or down by other subscribers. Voted up articles receive massive web traffic, and this is a tool that can be used to address the media imbalance on important issues. So if you want to promote and discuss a worthy News article, a short story you wrote or even a short comment from you, register now. The more of us, the more traffic that gets generated
Hi folks, if you feel game, please come to my Ash Patil Facebook page, and become my "friend." Its a great way to share information, voice your opinion and learn more about each other. Join the Ash Patil Facebook page and get in contact with 1,700 people with similar concerns to you.	We have only just started this channel so we are looking for go-getters to help the discussions start. So please be one of the first to join, and help us start off something big.

SBS Insight looking for men to talk about sexual harassment [Australia]

James West — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:11:35 +1100

James West from SBS TV is looking for men to talk about sexual harassment for an upcoming Insight program.

If you are a male and have been the victim of harassment or witnessed harassment and would like to speak about it on TV James would like to hear from you.

More details and James’ contact number is below and attached.

SBS TV’s Insight program is Australia’s leading current affairs forum.

On Monday September 13, Insight is hosting a forum on Sexual Harassment in the Australian workplace and beyond: is it still active in the community?

Insight wants to create a forum that’s fair, balanced and diverse. Insight is asking Australian men to join our audience to share their personal experiences of sexual harassment in the workplace.

� Have you been on the receiving end of sexual harassment yourself?

� Have you witnessed sexual harassment at a workplace where it’s the norm?

� Have you regrettably crossed the line, only to realise you took it too far – and you’re now willing to

� speak out about it to help other men?

� Or do you think political correctness gone too far by limiting normal human behaviour?

�

Insight would love you to get involved. Get in touch with us as soon as possible.

James West

Associate Producer

SBS TV Insight

+61 419 437 327

james.west@sbs.com.au

Good Question: Are Child Custody Cases Fair?

Jason DeRusha — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:16:59 +1100

When Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren had their divorce approved, few would have been shocked if their children were taken away from Woods. But he's not exactly the normal dad who goes in front of family court.

For years, fathers have complained that in a divorce proceeding, the law and the judges are biased in favor of mothers. It spawned a "Father's rights" movement and lawyers who specialize in fighting for fathers. But is it true? Do fathers get a fair shake in family court?

"There's a lingering perception of that," said Dan Butler, a St. Paul attorney who specializes in family law. Although Butler said his firm represents both men and women, he authored a 1995 article called "Fathers Get The Shaft in Family Court."

Today, he says: "I think we've come a long way from that concern."

Partially, he thinks so because judges have simply turned over.

"I think we've got a new generation of judges on the bench. The old school has passed on into retirement," said Butler.

However, it's not just judges changing, according to Pamela Waggoner, the head of the family law section for the Minnesota Bar Association, and an adjunct professor at William Mitchell College of Law.

"I think it's a reflection of a change in society. You no longer have the traditional family unit where there's one breadwinner and one stay at home parent. Right now, you have two people -- where both people work," she said.

The mother doesn't have the same ability to walk into court and stake her claim as the one parent who's been doing all the childrearing. That idea used to have standing in a family law courtroom, according to Butler. It was called the "tender years doctrine."

The theory was that "children, especially young children, do better and belong with their mothers. And we've moved a long way from that in this day and age," he said.

Still, even though Minnesota law is technically gender neutral when it comes to awarding custody, Butler said that dads "have to work harder" when they fight for custody, as many judges still presume that the mother is the more fit parent.

Minnesota law has a presumption of joint legal custody, which means that both parents get the right to make decisions about their child, unless there's some strong reason why one of them should not have custody (like a history of drug abuse or domestic violence).

It does not have a presumption of joint physical custody, however, a point that some father's rights advocates have taken issue with.

Waggoner said the area where the law hasn't caught up to society relates to children of unmarried parents. "If the parents have signed a recognition of parentage, the mom retains sole legal and sole physical until such time that dad brings a petition," she said.

Considering at least a third of Minnesota children are born to unmarried parents, this is already starting to "overwhelm" family courts, said Waggoner.

The good news, according to both Butler and Waggoner, is that more and more parents are setting up joint physical custody arrangements outside of court.

"I do see a lot of cases settled under the parenting plan," said Butler, "most commonly 5-2-2-5," which is a setup where a child is with the mother for five days, father for two, mother for two, then father for five.

"It is progress, we just need more of it," said Butler.

http://wcco.com/local/child.custody.fathers.2.1877563.html

Federal Way woman accused of faking pregnancy for child support payments

Not Credited — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:10:38 +1100

A Federal Way woman faces multiple charges in a case involving a faked pregnancy and thousands of dollars in child support payments. Carmen Lynn Johnsen is accused of forgery, first-degree theft and first-degree perjury after an investigation by the Federal Way Police Department. Her arraignment is set for Aug. 26 in Kent, according to the King County Prosecutor's Office.

In December 2008, Johnsen told a man she was seeing that she was pregnant with his child, and the man eventually began paying $700 a month in child support, according to court documents. Johnsen continued cashing the man's checks after receiving negative results on three pregnancy tests; he paid Johnsen a total of $3,500 in child support, according to documents.

On July 2009, the man confronted Johnsen and questioned the validity of the pregnancy. That month, Johnsen petitioned for a protection order with Superior Court of Washington/Pierce County, and perjured herself by testifying she was pregnant, according to court documents. Johnsen perjured herself three more times while testifying under oath that she was hospitalized due to pregnancy complications, according to court documents. In July 2009, Johnsen claimed she had lost the baby. Throughout the summer of 2009, she pressured the man to pay on her hospital bills, according to documents. Investigators learned that the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) had paid for Johnsen's treatment and that her medical expenses were covered by Medicaid. Federal Way police discovered that letters related to Johnsen's medical history had a forged signature from a doctor at the Women's Health Care Center at St. Francis Hospital, according to court documents.

As president of a bottle collector's club, Johnsen printed an obituary for Rebekah Lynn Johnsen in the December 2009 edition of the Ghost Town Echo newsletter, which also said "Becky died of placental abruption before she was born," according to charging papers. An article in the January 2010 edition of the newsletter contained information for a memorial service at St. Vincent de Paul Parish in Federal Way. A pastor at the church testified that Johnson came to him for a funeral service, saying she miscarried the baby as a result of a car accident and that the she had cremated the body, according to court documents.

The entire incident was reported to police in January 2010. In May 2010, Johnsen admitted to Federal Way police that she knew she was not pregnant at the time she was receiving $700 a month for child support, according to documents.

View the court documents here:
CANONCIVIL1_EXCHANGE_08232010-092551

http://www.seattlepi.com/sound/425615_sound101319679.html

Wandering Child Leads To Charges Against Mom

Not Credited — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:10:15 +1100

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A 5-year-old found wandering around an apartment complex led to charges against the child's mother.

One Of Sanders' Children Nearly Drowned In July

It's not the first time Formeka Sanders, 29, has caught the attention of the Department of Children and Families. Investigators said one of her children nearly drowned in a swimming pool in July.

A hearing was held on Monday at the Juvenile Justice Center in Orange County to determine custody arrangements for the children.

Sanders was charged with child neglect after a security guard found the wandering child in a parking lot at Oak Glen Apartments on Mercy Drive.

Investigators said Sanders was at a club while her children were at home.

Judge Anthony Johnson ordered home studies to be done with several relatives to try to find placement for Sanders' six children.

Sanders had requested that her mother get custody of the children, but Johnson denied the request. The next court date was set for Sept. 13.

http://www.wesh.com/news/24728697/detail.html

Mother found guilty of child’s manslaughter

Ash Patil — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:07:34 +1100

A woman who left her baby to die in a bathtub has been found guilty of his manslaughter.

The 29-year-old Auckland woman, who has interim name suppression, was charged with murdering her 13-month-old son on November 8 last year.

She pleaded not guilty to the charge when her trial began in the High Court at Auckland last week.

A jury made up of 11 women and one man found the woman guilty of manslaughter by unanimous decision this afternoon after deliberating for five hours.

Last week the quietly-spoken woman gave evidence in her own defence this morning and spoke of the day she found her son's body in the bath.

She said she left her son - known as Baby A - to play with his "fish toys" in the water while she prepared breakfast for her daughter in the kitchen. Fifteen minutes later she "suddenly remembered" she had left him in the bath.

"When I went back into the bathroom I saw [Baby A] he was on his stomach facing down into the bath.

"I picked him out of the bath and checked for his pulse on his neck. He wasn't breathing. His body was quite heavy and flaccid and his mouth was blue."

The woman said she picked him up and checked his vital signs.

"I knew he was dead. At that stage when I saw that he had no pulse and he wasn't breathing I thought that it was too late.

The court heard the woman's father had been killed in a plane crash when she was six, her aunty had committed suicide by jumping off a building and her mother had burned to death.

Both her mother and her aunty had a history of severe mental illness and had spent long periods in psychiatric hospitals in Fiji, the court heard.

The woman said she had been raised by various relatives because "my mum was not capable of taking care of me".

At age seven she was raped by one of her relatives.

The woman's lawyer, John Anderson, earlier told the jury they would have to decide what was in the woman's mind on the morning of the death.

Mr Anderson said his client had become "progressively mentally unwell" after the births of her children and had been in a "major depressive episode" when the baby died.

When the woman discovered her baby lying limp in the bathtub she had checked for vital signs, he told the court.

"When she realised [Baby A] was dead she went into a disassociated state and that is why she appeared to people who saw her as emotionless."

This also explained why the woman had spent time on various internet sites, including Facebook, immediately after the baby's death, Mr Anderson said.

Mr Anderson told the jury the death of the woman's baby was an accident.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/4052011/Baby-bath-death-verdict

Officials: Ex-wife killed man and torched body in car

DEEPA BHARATH — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:04:36 +1100

Police in New Jersey have arrested a 36-year-old woman in connection with death of 42-year-old Stephen Moore, a Huntington Beach native, whose burned body was found Wednesday in the trunk of his mother's car in Long Branch, N.J.

According to a news release issued by the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office on Monday, Kathleen Dorsett, Moore's ex-wife, has been arrested in connection with his death. She has been charged with one count each of first-degree murder and fourth-degree tampering with physical evidence, officials said.

Prosecutors accuse Dorsett of murdering Moore and then concealing his body in the trunk of his mother's burned 2001 Nissan Altima off of Seaview Avenue in Long Branch. Officials say Moore was reported missing Aug. 16 to the Manchester Township Police Department by his employer, a local auto dealer, after he did not report for work that morning.

About 4:10 a.m. Wednesday, Monmouth County dispatchers received several 911 phone calls regarding a fire on Seaview Avenue. Officials say that was when Moore's body was found in the trunk of the burning car. Officials determined with the help of dental records that the body was that of Moore. An autopsy later revealed that Moore's death was a homicide, officials said.

Moore and Dorsett were married in 2007 but divorced in June and had a 20-month-old daughter. Prosecutors say under the terms of their custody agreement, Moore dropped off the child at Dorsett's home in Ocean Township the morning of Aug. 16. He was not seen or heard from after he dropped off his daughter at Dorsett's home, officials say.

Monmouth County Prosecutor Luis A. Valentin said in the release that the investigation is ongoing and police "are actively pursuing numerous leads regarding the circumstances surrounding the victim's death and how his body came to be in the trunk of his mother's burning automobile."
Valentin said authorities are seeking the public's help in identifying anyone who played a role in Moore's death and the disposal of his body.

Dorsett faces life in prison if convicted of the murder charge and an 18-month prison term if convicted of tampering with evidence.

She remains at the Monmouth County Correctional Institution in lieu of a "cash only" $1.5 million bail. Her court appearance and bail review have been scheduled for Tuesday.

Anyone with information about this incident is asked to contact Detective Jeffrey Wilbert of the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office at 800-533-7443, Long Branch Police Department Detective Michael Decker at 732-571-5695, Albert Vega of Manchester Township Police Department at 732-657-6111 or Ocean Township Police Detective Patrick Martin at 732-531-1800.

Contact the writer: 714-796-7909 or dbharath@ocregister.com

Plotting ex-wife gets 7-14 years in jail

JAMES A. KIMBLE — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:06:50 +1100

BRENTWOOD – Kristin Ruggiero will spend 7 to 14 years in state prison for what police say was part of a years-long ploy to use the criminal justice system against her ex-husband, who was thrown in jail and nearly lost his career during a bitter divorce.

Judge Kenneth McHugh said Ruggiero's attempt to set up her ex-husband and use the legal system as a weapon was unlike any other case he has seen.

"There's a lot of people, usually women, who have been subjected to abuse by their significant others," McHugh said, during Ruggiero's sentencing yesterday. "As a result of her actions, their cases, their safety, their security has been damaged. The web for this is much greater than what has just happened to Mr. Ruggiero."

A jury found that Kristin Ruggiero registered a disposable cell phone under her ex-husband's name and sent herself a dozen threatening and suicidal text messages. She then reported to East Kingston police in May 2008 that her ex-husband had violated bail conditions tied to a criminal threatening case, which police learned was also fabricated by the 34-year-old mother.

RUGGIERO

By portraying herself as a victim, she duped local police and portrayed her ex-husband, Jeffrey Ruggiero, as a violent monster while the couple was going through a contentious divorce in family court, according to prosecutors.
The couple battled over finances and their 7-year-old daughter.

While Jeffrey Ruggiero was being investigated, his ex-wife called him at all hours and taunted him over the phone, according to court testimony.

"She mocked him. She laughed at him. (She said) 'I took all your money, I took your daughter and now I am going to take your career'," Assistant County Attorney Jerome Blanchard said in court yesterday.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Plotting+ex-wife+gets+7-14+years+in+jail&articleId=14addb23-2910-4e11-8279-d6466abd6fe5

Daughter accused of murdering father

Not Credited — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:17:22 +1100

Legal Aid Commission solicitor Robyn Fraser did not seek bail but asked that Ms Fernando receive "medical attention" for mental health issues and diabetes while in custody.

Magistrate Michael Price adjourned the matter to Sydney's Central Local Court on October 26.

The shooting occurred at an apartment on Victoria Road, Glebe, about 3.15pm yesterday.

Court documents list the address as the home of the accused.

Before today's court appearance, police said Mr Fernando had suffered numerous gunshot wounds to the head and body.

Emotional family members attending court declined to speak to reporters other than to confirm the deceased was Ms Fernando's father.

Legal Aid Commission solicitor Robyn Fraser did not seek bail but asked that Ms Fernando receive "medical attention" for mental health issues and diabetes while in custody.

Magistrate Michael Price adjourned the matter to Sydney's Central Local Court on October 26.

The shooting occurred at an apartment on Victoria Road, Glebe, about 3.15pm yesterday.

Court documents list the address as the home of the accused.

Before today's court appearance, police said Mr Fernando had suffered numerous gunshot wounds to the head and body.

Emotional family members attending court declined to speak to reporters other than to confirm the deceased was Ms Fernando's father.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/daughter-accused-of-murdering-father-20100823-13f5o.html

Mother guilty of baby’s manslaughte

Not Credited — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:14:41 +1100

A woman accused of murdering her baby boy by allowing him to drown in a bath has been found guilty of manslaughter.

The 29-year-old migrant, who has name suppression, was charged with murder for intentionally leaving her baby in a full bath for 15 minutes, to drown.

But after deliberating for about five hours, a jury in the High Court at Auckland delivered the lesser conviction of manslaughter.

Justice Tim Brewer remanded the woman on bail until September 28, when she will be sentenced.

Her lawyer John Anderson had said the death was an accident but should the jury find it was the result of gross negligence then it amounted to infanticide, not murder.

The baby and his sister, five, were taken into Child, Youth and Family (CYF) care after their mother left them unattended and it was decided she was not fit to look after them alone, as her husband was not allowed to see his family after he had assaulted the woman.

While in CYF care, the daughter was sexually abused by a 13-year-old boy living in the same foster home. The court was told that the woman, a victim of sexual abuse, became severely depressed upon learning this.

The baby died two days after being returned to his parents' care.

For the crown Christine Gordon, SC, argued the woman's depression did not stem from her son's birth, but from the distressing circumstances in her life.

These included financial and social problems arising from being a new migrant, an abusive relationship with her husband and her children being taken from her care by CYF.

Gordon said that the woman had deliberately left her baby to die in the bath because her life would be much easier with him gone.

She knew the risk she was taking by leaving him alone in the water, because she had seen him fall face first in a much smaller baby bath two weeks earlier.

"The way to deal with it was to let (your son) go and so you just let him slide away into the bath, didn't you?" Gordon had asked the woman.

She replied: "It's not true, I didn't intend for (my son) to drown. I thought that he would play with the fish (toys in the bath) and I thought he was strong enough."

The woman knew how to do CPR but did not attempt it nor did she call emergency services because she "thought it was too late."

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/mother-guilty-baby-s-manslaughter-3727595

Toddler victim of alleged torture by 3 women

Not Credited — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:05:03 +1100

THREE women are facing torture, assault and drug charges after an incident involving a two-year-old boy and a teenage girl.

The women, aged 21, 22 and 29, from Brisbane's northern suburbs, will face court next month over the violent episode on August 17.

Police have charged them with torture, assault, supplying dangerous drugs and alcohol to a minor, and possessing property suspected of being used in relation to a drug offence.

A police spokeswoman would not say which charges relate to which child.

She said officers were not notified of the incident until two days after it happened.

The women have been bailed and will appear in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on September 20.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/toddler-victim-of-alleged-torture/story-e6frf7l6-1225908822642

Nappy change dads still the kings of cringe

Neil Keene — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:53:49 +1100

IT'S a moment most of us know and dread - you're in public, you're with your father and he starts telling a joke.

Inevitably, it ends with a lame punchline. The same one you've heard hundreds of times.

On a good day there are a few obligatory chuckles but more likely it's a groan and an embarrassed roll of the eyes if it's particularly bad.

It should come as no surprise then that two-thirds of Aussies believe their father's sense of humour gets worse over time and that almost 70 per cent of us think their dad is either "moderately" or "extremely" embarrassing.

A survey of almost 3000 people by online gift-giving company Red Balloon found that almost six in 10 needed to bribe their father for a favour with food, clothes or tools.

But while dads are evidently still the kings of cringe, their role in the family is changing for the better.

Fatherhood expert Dr Richard Fletcher said yesterday that when they weren't telling bad jokes, dads nowadays were changing nappies, minding the kids, going to antenatal classes and generally interacting a lot more with their child than they did 30 years ago.

Dr Fletcher, of Newcastle University Family Action Centre, said the average age for first-time fathers in Australia was now 33.

"The idea that a father would be involved in nursing, carrying a baby around or pushing it around in a stroller - all of that has changed in just one generation," he said.

Port Stephens father-of-two Scott Spackman said his "nappy change" with the arrival of the first of his two children was a wonderful part of his life: "It was something I was more than happy to do and I cherished it."

Germany’s women’s groups attack Court ruling giving unmarried father’s access to their children

David Levitz — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:18:06 +1100

Women's shelters in Germany fear a court ruling to grant unwed fathers custody will put abused women in greater danger. Others hailed the Federal Constitutional Court's decision as a victory for single fathers.

Germany's women's shelters have joined the country's largest single parents' organization in opposing increased rights for unmarried fathers.

Until now, the fathers of children born out of wedlock in Germany had no legally guaranteed custody rights. Mothers had the right to withhold joint custody, leaving the father to sue the mother for visitation rights.

But Edith Schwab, head of Germany's Association of Single Mothers and Fathers, says the Federal Constitutional Court's decision last week to grant custody rights to unwed fathers is bad news for single mothers, who themselves will now have to fight to keep unfit fathers from raising their children.

Now courts can award single fathers full custody

"Mothers who refuse to share custody have very, very good reasons for their decision - meaning that the potential for conflict between the parents is so great that the mother has rightly chosen to deny joint custody," she said.

Worse yet - according to Heike Herold, who works with an organization that coordinates women's shelters across Germany - in abuse scenarios, increasing fathers' rights can undermine the safety of mother and child.

"It becomes problematic when there's domestic violence, but also when you think of cases in which children are conceived by rape," Herold told Deutsche Welle. "When you think of the legislature automatically giving these fathers custody, it becomes quite critical."

A victory for single fathers

On August 3, Germany's Constitutional Court ruled that "the current legal situation excessively encroached on paternity rights for fathers of children born out of wedlock, because they could only take part in raising the child with the mother's consent," according to spokeswoman Judith Blohm.

The constitutional court ruled that fathers should have the same rights as mothers

Blohm said that until now "the fathers also didn't have the right to have a court determine what arrangement was in the best interest of the child."

The case for increased rights was mounted by a father who had no way to prevent the mother of his child from moving to another city and taking the child with her. The decision, which is expected to be drafted into law when the legislature returns from its summer break, was heralded as a victory for fathers' rights.

Thorsten Nitz, an underground train driver, was one of the many fathers across Germany who welcomed the decision. Nitz, who has been denied custody of his children since splitting up with his former partner, said he was "relieved when the ruling came," adding, "It's been overdue for years."

Harder to cut ties with abusive partners

Herold sees the flipside to this new right. Although she welcomes increased paternity rights in principle, she feels there needs to be a system in place to review fathers' suitability before granting them joint custody.

The decision makes it much more difficult for unmarried women to cut off ties with abusive partners, Herold said, adding that unmarried women who left abusive relationships "didn't have the problem that their partner, as the biological father of the child, necessarily had access to the child as part of his visitation and custody rights."

Increased fathers' rights could threaten abused mothers' anonymity

Under the new law, she says, a victim of abuse will "potentially have to mount a court case to protect herself and her children."

"Giving the father custody rights also means that the mother cannot decide alone to move to another city or switch her child's school," Herold added.

Tracking down mothers through their children

As it is, she said, visitation rights alone often give abusive fathers the opportunity to track down their child's mother, forcing abused mothers to flee from one halfway home to the next.

Herold added that, in cases of children born within wedlock, German courts already assume that contact to the father is nearly always in the child's best interest. She worries that more children will now have to live with abusive fathers.

"We know from experience that many family courts operate on the premise that joint custody is the new way of doing things. They ask the parents to ‘please settle their disputes in the interest of the child' - but that doesn't work when one side uses violence against the other," she said.

According to Herold's shelter coordination network, some 20,000 abused women seek shelter in halfway houses every year in Germany - with another 20,000 children accompanying them. Germany's federal family ministry estimates that a quarter of the country's female population will be physically abused by a sexual partner.

Author: David Levitz
Editor: Ben Knight

Fathers4Equality - Men’s Policies per Party Checklist - Election 2010

mensvote.com — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:42:55 +1100

Australian Election 2010 Special - from Fathers4Equality

http://www.f4e.com.au

http://www.facebook.com/fathers4equality

http://www.reddit.com/r/fathers4equality

http://www.articlesaboutmen.com

Subscribe to our daily summary email and stay informed the easy way.

**An Article Worth Reading: Top 10 Myths about Shared Parenting (Child Custody laws) in Australia

----Download a PDF of this Checklist - Right Click here----