traffic stats

Exploitation of Family Law

Oct 232010
facebook fued

A MOTHER in the middle of a custody dispute has been caught boasting on her Facebook page how she thought about ripping her husband off for another $20,000.

“Felt like being a smart arse,” she wrote, signing off “Bwahahaha lol.”

Lawyers are now advising their clients locked in Family Court fights to take down their Facebook pages as the networking site has become both the latest weapon and target for warring spouses.

In one case a woman discovered her husband was a bigamist when she was tipped off to look at wedding photographs of him with another bride on the other woman’s Facebook page.

In another case a husband discovered he had been set up by his wife with a woman he thought he met on an internet site. He discovered the woman was a “friend” on his wife’s Facebook page.

“I tell my clients just don’t bloody do it, don’t be silly” family law expert Michael Taussig QC said.

The woman who boasted she had thought about dragging out the Family Court case to cost her ex-husband an extra $20,000 in legal bills found it backfired on her.

Justice James Barry granted custody of the two children, aged nine and eight, to their father with the mother getting visiting rights.

He then ordered the mother to pay $15,000 of her ex-husband’s estimated $35,000 legal bill, saying the mother’s behaviour had been the “stuff of nightmares”.

She had already strung the case out by falsely claiming her ex-husband had been sexually assaulting their children after one judgment went against her. Then she falsely claimed the father’s new wife had been assaulting them.

“The mother has over the years attempted to manipulate the court system,” Justice Barry said.

Nov 172009

Most people on the street would be quite familiar by now with an avalanche of newspaper articles over the past year condemning Australia’s shared care laws and suggesting that they put Australia’s children at risk of abuse.

These articles have been so effective that most people actually believe that the current research supports this suggestion.

Articles such as ” Courts continue to grant access to violent parents “, ” Shared-parenting is ‘gobbledegook’ “, “‘Flaws’ in John Howard’s parenting law”  & ” Replace shared care with Canada model ” have been so one-sided and misleading in their depiction of these laws, that there is a clear expectation in the community that the 2006 shared parental responsibility laws will as a matter of certainty be repealed by the Rudd government.

This avalanche of articles were primarily the work of two journalists, Caroline Overington  from the Australian and Adele Horin  from Fairfax, who seem to have closely aligned their message with that of Barbara Biggs, a toxic extremist who promotes the idea that men on the whole are sexual predators and inherently violent, and cannot be trusted in the care of their children.

In response to these articles, I have often been asked by members of Fathers4Equality why I have not made important research available to the likes of Caroline and Adele, in order for them to provide more balanced and informative reporting on this very important issue.

And there is an overwhelming amount of credible research to debunk these stereotypes of men and shared parenting promoted by those who have questionable motives in replacing Australia’s shared care laws.

For example, recent research from the WA Department of Child Protection  (amongst others) has shown that up to 80% of all child abuse occurs in single mother households, research from the Australian Institute of Criminology  (amongst others) has shown that family violence is instigated equally by both men and women, a report from Childline in the UK  has reported the skyrocketing of allegations by children against women for sexual abuse, and an article in the Wall Street Journal has reported on a German study  highlighting the neurological damage caused to children who are raised without the ongoing presence of a father.

Further articles have highlighted the recent national poll in Canada showing 80% support  for the replacement of their sole-custody family law model with shared care family laws, or the unprecedented outburst by UK Lord Justice Ward  who spoke out against the sole-custody UK family laws by saying that the courts were powerless to help decent fathers to see their children if vengeful mothers stood in the way.

When one was to view all the research in this area on the whole, the conclusion is unmistakable. That there is a foundation of research and broad recognition within the community that sole custody laws are bad for children, and that shared care on the whole is in the best interests of children. In fact, the natural transparency afforded by shared care provides the best safeguards against the risk of child abuse or neglect.

Now, truth be told, I have corresponded with the likes of Caroline and Adele quite extensively in this past year.

So one would assume that given our history, that both Caroline and Adele would be open to reading and/or reporting on vital information on Child abuse and Shared parenting passed on to them by Fathers4Equality.

Given that Caroline and Adele have devoted significant time and effort in writing article after article suggesting that children’s welfare is at stake if they have shared care arrangements with their fathers, then as any credible investigative journalist would do, they would cross-reference their conclusions with the latest research and information on these claims.


Well, No, not so.

Fathers4Equality have gone out of our way to inform both Caroline and Adele on very important research that critically undermines the premise that shared care is bad for children. At the very least it provides a strong counter-argument to the repeated mantra from these two.

So have they reported on it?

Well, based on the below return receipts from emails sent to both Caroline and Adele on this very important research, not only haven’t they reported on it, but they have also refused to even read it. They simply deleted it from their inbox without reading it.

Let me repeat that. They have DELETED, without reading,  emails purporting to contain key information on the very topics they have devoted so much time on. And then they proceeded to write further articles on this topic, and done so in selective ignorance of the facts.

Investigative journalism? I think not! Not convinced? Just look at the emails below and ask yourself why they were deleted without being read.

Image:Investigative journalist or lobbyist? The shared care debate in Australia

Image:Investigative journalist or lobbyist? The shared care debate in Australia

Image:Investigative journalist or lobbyist? The shared care debate in Australia

Image:Investigative journalist or lobbyist? The shared care debate in Australia

Image:Investigative journalist or lobbyist? The shared care debate in Australia

Image:Investigative journalist or lobbyist? The shared care debate in Australia

Image:Investigative journalist or lobbyist? The shared care debate in Australia

Image:Investigative journalist or lobbyist? The shared care debate in Australia

Bookmark and Share