Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

A sickness has fallen on the family law system

Time for change, How to change

The protection of women, however well intentioned, does not require the abandonment of families and fathers. However, this is what has happened since the radically feminist Family Violence Amendments were unilaterally guillotined through the Parliament in 2011.Divorce & DV protection orders now account for 65% of civil litigation profit. It is disgusting and time something was done.

An NCFM article on the Thomas Ball self-immolation led to the formation of the Parliamentary Committee for the Redress of Grievances is well worth reading.

It brings to light what has been suppressed by mainstream media, namely, a history of family court injustice and victimization spanning 10 years.

And a call to arms. “He said his act was an opening. He wanted people aggrieved by the courts to throw Molotov cocktails through the courthouse windows all across New Hampshire”

“Thomas Ball literally darkened the door, revealing the malevolence that inhabits so many courthouses today.”

In response to fathers and their new wives and families, grandmothers and grandfathers, standing up in New Hampshire the Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, Bill O’Brien, re-instituted a two-century old committee, the Committee on Redress of Grievances, that would call these judges to account, that would call court officers to account.

Robert Franklin wrote of the findings of this Committee in “NH Redress of Grievances Committee Excoriates Family Judiciary”
NH Redress of Grievances Committee Excoriates Family Judiciary

“…the Redress committee of the state House of Representatives hears citizen’s complaints about public officials, decides whether they’re founded or unfounded and recommends action by the full house. Sometimes it recommends that the official in question be impeached. Ain’t democracy grand?

The complaints about the behavior of family court judges and other court personnel are overwhelming.

The judges have a nasty little habit of ignoring laws, rules of procedure and evidence, and then, when a father tries to protest, simply refusing to give him a hearing thereby preventing any avenue of appeal.

The finding of the State of NH Redress of Grievances Committee:

“The resulting effect generally has been court ordered child abuse in the denial of her access to a loved parent for the period of two years. This has become a common report before this committee that the Family Court, established to protect children , actually inflicts the injury on the child itself.”

That’s right, “court ordered child abuse” by the family court.

The House committee recommends

1.Amend the statutes to allow citizens party to a case to enter into private prosecution of perjury and false swearing

2. introduce legislation to enable each parent in a divorce to have the appointed ICL permanently dismissed without cause at least once.

3 .To eliminate increases in or extensions of alimony pursuant to a final decree and when the receiving party has falsified evidence;

4. To make punishment mandatory in cases of false swearing and perjury by officers of the court in the Family Division,

5. Permit courts to deviate from equal parenting time distribution only in cases where there is clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect by one or both parents or it is requested by party receiving the lesser proportion of time;

6. Investigate Judges for impeachment for offending the dignity and undermining the integrity of the courts and the confidence of the people, for failing to uphold the laws of the State and for infringing on the natural and Constitutional rights of the petitioner; (2) Require that Rules of Evidence, Rules of Procedure, and all other Rules of the pertinent Court(s) be complied with by all judicial courts; (3) Require that all motions and petitions brought before a court of New Hampshire be docketed immediately and scheduled to be heard within six months after docketing;

Who would think it necessary for a committee of the legislature to instruct courts of the state to follow the rules of evidence and procedure?

Who would guess that perjury and false swearing would be such a routine and accepted part of everyday court practice, or that orders would be issued with no evidence to support them?

What person walking the streets would know that some of the worst violators of law are its family court judges and masters?

Fathers, that's who. Fathers know these things all too well, and now the members of the Committee for the Redress of Grievances know it too.

Most importantly the Committee called for the legislature to amend the laws to require a presumption of shared parenting”.

A presumption of equal shared parenting of children after separation caused divorce litigation to drop 55% in other countries.

It is time to lobby our representatives for the formation of such a "Redress of Grievances" committee - keep the bastards honest.

Last edit: by Secretary SPCA

Thanks for publishing. I would say that it is not only fathers that know these things but also mums.

The issue of false allegations is not unique to one or the other. I have had a recent case where some extraordinary allegations were made by the father, and orders made that favoured that position. When the allegations were exposed  and the child returned to the mother it was interesting that the father did not adhere to the orders made for contact at all.

Certainly it is time to lobby our representatives, for at the very least, an Inquiry into the overburdened Court system…

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
We should be able to learn from this successful precedent for reform by Steven Hitner. He spearheaded the most far-reaching reform bill in Massachusetts in memory. Amazingly, his organization got the bill passed by a unanimous vote of both houses of the Bay State Legislature. As such, he is uniquely well-placed to advise on how to change existing law.

A Guide to Changing Law
What does “Trouble in the Village” mean and how does it relate to changing existing law? The answer is simple — legislators do not act unless they have “Trouble in their Village.”

The secret to changing an existing law is proving that there is a problem. In most cases office-holders will not acknowledge that a problem exists. Your job is to dig up the bodies. In other words, find and expose the evidence of the need for family law reform.

The following are the steps necessary to accomplish legislative reform. When I took on alimony reform in Massachusetts, I was told “it’ll never happen.” Well, I proved them wrong. Not only did I make possible the most dramatic social policy change in decades, I did it with a unanimous vote from both houses of the legislature.

Now, let’s get to work. Here’s what you need to begin:

  1. You need horror stories.
  2. You need a website.
  3. You need a dedicated leader.
  4. You need abook of evidence showing the problem.
  5. You need an angel in the media.
  6. You need an angel in the legislature.
  7. You need an “evil” person or group as an adversary.
  8. You need credible victims who will share their situation with the media.
  9. You need second spouses (wives) and women who do not want to become second spouses to tell their stories.
  10. You will need money!
The Website: This will become your attractant to find the villagers to create the grass roots movement. They will Google “Shared Parenting” or “Alimony” or “Family Court Reform” and your website will come up. The website will also be an informational source to give legitimacy to your effort.

A Newsletter: A periodic newsletter with compelling stories and information about the law you are trying to change is a must. This newsletter will make you the authority and give you great credibility. You will need this to keep people’s interest and to raise money.

The Media: You need to make their job easy. Coach anyone being interviewed before the interview. Make sure they do not blame the lawyers, the judges, or anyone else. They must always blame the law. They must emphasize the positives about how things will change for the better with the reform you’re promoting.

Press Releases: You will need to announce the creation of your group in the press. Also, any horror stories should be sent to the press, including radio and television. And of course all successes you have must be announced via press releases.

Talk Radio: Get on as many talk radio shows as you can. This is easy. Seize on any news topic that deals with your issue (like shared parenting) and send out a media mailer announcing your availability to speak on the air. Many talk show programs will jump at the chance. Once on the air, promote your group by name and website.

The Horror Stories: These are critical to proving your case, but beware. If the stories are not factual you will lose credibility. Fact check everyone. Trust but verify!

Credibility is a must: You must be sure that everyone who represents your organization is credible, doesn’t exaggerate and is not critical of lawyers, judges or ex-spouses. Always be fact-based, calm, rational and emphasize the positive.

The Bill: You need to study the existing law and craft a solution to the current problems. Have a lawyer put your solution in the form of a bill that you will convince your legislator to introduce at the proper time. The purpose of your bill is to get into the “Ball Park.” Once there, you will need to learn how the game is played.

The Legislature: The Legislature will only act if it is proved to them that there is, “Trouble in the Village”. When visiting legislators, I heard many say, “I understand the problem, but nothing ever gets done around here.” But “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” If there’s a problem, a persistent organization can accomplish change. Typically, that means one of two things — hiring a lobbyist or bringing your grassroots movement to bear on legislators.

Lobbyist: Some reform movements have raised a lot of money and hired a paid registered lobbyist. This can help, but what can be far more effective and cheaper is 500 — 1000 constituents educating their legislators and asking for their help. Without a registered lobbyist, I was able to get a unanimous vote from the Judiciary Committee, the House and the Senate to pass alimony reform.

A Task Force: Your goal is to get media attention in your favor so that the legislative committee appoints a “Task Force” with all the interested parties on it. Most importantly, you must insist that you be appointed as one of the participants.Bring a friendly lawyer with you to represent your group. He will keep them honest. Other participants will be lawyers representing the bar association, legislators and probably opponents of the effort. Your job will be as an informational source, advocate for the victims and provider of the evidence.

A law written by an appointed Task Force will most certainly be passed, provided that all participants get their respective organizations to endorse it.You must get a commitment from the group representatives that they will convince their organizations to come out in support of the final product.

The Book: The book will have the existing law, the new law, horror stories, media attention, studies, history of the issue you’re working on and anything else you can find of interest. It must be professional and informative.Use the MAR (Massachusetts Alimony Reform) Book as a guide.

The Evil Opposition: You probably will have opposition from bar associations who will say that the situations you are talking about do not exist. That is when you pull out your book with the evidence. The media will want to know why the lawyers are against reform. Your answer will be “I can‘t understand why”. Let the media make them the bad guys. The media will be more willing to feature your subject if they can find a villain.

Your Group: You will need to register with the Internal Revenue Service as a 5014 tax exempt entity or a 5013. I advise you check with a CPA to verify and do the proper paper work. Elect a president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer. It is also a good idea to have a small Board of Directors to use as a sounding board and to help with all the work. In the beginning you will have meetings to hear all the horror stories. After your bill has a number, the work begins.

Education is Key: You will need to have meetings around your state educating the victims on how to tell their stories. It will be their job to educate their legislators on the need for a change in the law. They will not know how to approach their legislators unless you teach them.

  1. Find out where the legislator is having an event.
  2. Go to the event with a small donation.
  3. Tell the legislator the victim’s story and how the existing law is harming their family and themselves.
  4. Explain what part of the existing law is in need of reform, and how the new law will fix the problem.
  5. Have a neighbor, a relative a parent and anyone else they can recruit to approach the legislator with a similar story.
  6. It will only take 3 or 4 people to tell their stories and the legislator will realize that there is “Trouble in their Village”.
  7. Ask for the legislator to support the bill.
  8. Monitor all the legislators as to whether they are a Major Sponsor, Co-Sponsor, in favor or against. You need to know your enemies!
  9. The legislators will not want to talk to you, but they will always talk to one of their constituents.
Bar Associations: You must attend their seminars concerning divorce law, parenting time, etc. This will teach you how they think. Learn the walk, the talk and the rules. It is highly unlikely that you will get any law reform without the backing or approval of the bar associations.
The state and local bars will most certainly be against any kind of reform, especially the women’s bar. They will say that a cookie cutter approach will not work. They will say that the non-working spouse (usually a female) can never regain her earning potential after being a stay at home mom for so many years. They will say the system works just fine the way it is. My experience taught me the following:

  1. The lawyers are afraid to challenge the status quo for fear of upsetting the judges.
  2. They will deny that the problems exist.
  3. Your argument is going to be this:
The same fact pattern will have a different outcome from different judges;

There should be consistency and predictability from one court to another;

Therefore, guidelines and structure, with a judge being able to deviate for special situations, would bring consistency and predictability;

You will be surprised by their reaction and answers. I have found that most judges want more guidelines and structure and that many lawyers are afraid to alienate the judges. When you are all in a room as equals and you are the deliverer of the evidence and they are the keepers of the status quo, they will begin to submit.

The Judges: Most will do what they want. Some will rule by the new law, some will ignore it and tell litigants to appeal if they are not happy. I asked a judge at a bar association meeting the following question: “Based on your experience on the bench, would you welcome guidelines and structure with the ability to use your judicial discretion for outlying cases? Or would you like the system to continue the way it is with no consistency or predictability? There was a hush in the room of several hundred Lawyers. The judge replied: “Based on what is going on in the Family Law courts, I would prefer to have more guidelines and structure. It would make my job much easier and people would have an idea ahead of time as to the probability of their outcomes. The lawyers in the room were shocked.

Be Approachable: It is extremely important that you are available 24/7 by phone and by e-mail. In order to grow the group you want to talk to anyone who joins. Listen to their “Horror Story” and ask them if they will go public. Eventually you will become the “go to” person for the media and anyone else interested.

Money: You will need money to fund the effort. The money will go for press releases, the web site, meeting expenses, phone, gas, tolls, etc. Get a Pay Pal Account so that people can donate from your web site.

Time: It took me 8 years to change the law. You must be patient and persistent. Never let up.

Advice: Never, never, never blame the lawyers, the judges, the legislators, or the ex-spouses. Always blame the law. It is antiquated and draconian. It is the job of the legislators to fix it.

Stephen K. Hitner

An excellent outline of what we have to get done.

I have started arranging meetings with local electorate Federal MP's. Others need to do the same. I particularly like #7 as there are no shortage of those who link all of this with some plot to destabalise women and their important role in the family. ALL I want is a fair deal for both mums and dads who are separating so that the angst of not seeing their children and the decimation of any family asset pool can be avoided.

It is interesting the degree of hostility that arises from a couple separating where one parent refuses to allow contact with the children for whatever reason. It is an insidious hatred that builds like a snowball running down a mountain , getting bigger and more believable as time goes on.

The simple act of a parent withholding permission for a passport for the child or children to have a short overseas holiday with the other parent seems to generate the most momentous hate and jealousy against the parent doing the travel. I have dealt with four cases this year on the simple issue of getting a passport and you would never believe the amount of effort, and time that goes into such a simple matter.

The system, in its current form has a sickness that cannot be fixed with a few Parliamentary pills. It needs some serious and intelligent discourse from experts in this field and the many who have been impacted.

The ideas to move this forward need to be firmed and moved to some serious dialogue through a proper parliamentary inquiry.  

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
Senator John Madigan has started a series of meetings around Australia

It has now been 12 years since a comprehensive review of the Family Law system occurred. The current family law system is crumbling under a weight of impossible constraints placed on the judicial system and is fast nearing a complete meltdown.

Enormous harm is being done to Australian families, and of most concern, to Australian children.

This is the first in a series of public meetings to put the Family Court back on the public and political agenda.
Wednesday, 2 September 2015 from 6:30 PM to 9:30 PM (AEST) - Add to Calendar

Fitzroy Town Hall - 201 Napier St Fitzroy, VIC 3065 AU - View Map

Register for Melbourne

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
Senator John Madigan


We don’t have a justice system in this country, we have a legal system. In fact, it’s not a system but an industry.

I am appalled at the way our Family law industry exploits and capitalises on people in distress. I have seen the damage done on families and individuals by the Family Court.


‘Death is easier than divorce’
July 24, 2015 by John Madigan

This trailer (below) for the US documentary Divorce Corp would suggest Australia is not alone in having a deeply troubling and damaging Family Court system. In this country, we must do everything we can to put the Family Court back on the political and public agenda.

Only then, will the government respond and change will happen.

The makers of Divorce Corp have a website. You can check it out here. Please note: that references to an online petition for legislative reform during the trailer refer to a US project. We’re considering doing something similar here.

In 2015 Member for Dawson George Christensen and I officially launched the Parliamentary Friends of Shared Parenting Group. We need to end parental alienation because every child deserves a meaningful relationship with his or her mother and father.

This starts by repealing the Family Violence Amendments of 2011 which underhandedly repealed the shared parenting reforms of 2006.

Gillard’s “Hate Men” laws – effectively take “he said” out of “he said, she said” and remove the penalties for lying. Family violence has been redefined so widely that it is whatever the accuser thinks it is and the protections against false allegations were repealed because women don't lie in court and parental alienation is a fiction by men to abuse women [Michael Flood research]. And as an aside, DV protection orders are rarely used for custody advantage.

In effect, the Family Violence amendments eviscerated the presumption of innocence and repealed the protections from perjury.

Western democracies are not supposed to make laws like these.It is bad law guillotined through a impotent Senate.

Family Law is now just a race to the courthouse – no evidence required; no need to prove anything and no penalties for lying.

Unsurprisingly litigation (and profit) has skyrocketed. What was supposed to protect women and children has actually put us all at risk.

Watch the Divorce Corp film trailer. Join Senator John Madigan and and tell him what you think about Family Law. Only together can we change the system

Last edit: by srldad101

Make sure you vote for Mr CRAIG KELLY Liberal member for Hughes (NSW). He gives a damn about Family Court scam.

This just in from Australian Member of Parliament, Mr Craig Kelly, Liberal member for Hughes. who recognizes a problem of a single expert being allowed into a family law proceeding.

Footnote 1: The actual recommended rate for legal briefings is $353/hr, not $238, putting it closer to lawyers' actual rates.
Footnote 2: A psychiatrist is a very different beast from a psychologist, and *does* routinely charge significantly more under all circumstances, up to double.
Footnote 3: He fails to mention lawyers' rates, which can be over $1000/hr.

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:18): Deputy Speaker, this morning I would like to talk about a rort—a rort that is going on in the Family Courts of Australia.

It is a rort that involves excessive fees, price gouging and virtual extortion; it is nothing other than a scam.

I am not going to name names today, but I put those on notice involved in this rort. If necessary, I will name names in this parliament.

Now Deputy Speaker, in a truly competitive market, I have no objection to anyone charging what the market will bear. In our free market, capitalist society, they are entitled to charge as much as the customer will FREELY pay.

However, where we have a situation where the Family Court orders a so-called ‘single expert” to do what is called a 'report' or an 'analysis', the court is granting them a monopoly.

And these people should not be allowed to exploit that monopoly position granted to them by the Family Court, by price gouge and charge excessive fees.

This is an area which should have government regulation where we set and regulate the fees where the Court does grant them a monopoly.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to give you an example of one of the current practices. I have a Family Court order in front of me, and it states that the participants in the Family Court, the father and the mother, should attend a particular ‘Mr X’ (name withheld) on a certain date for a further ‘single expert report’.

It goes on that the cost of ‘Mr X's’ report will be borne equally by the parties and that they will pay the sum of $8,000 each.

So Mr X is entitled to a sum of $16,000. (And parent of the child is unable to pay, they will be denied the right to even see their child, so the child is a victim of this rort as well)

When it was asked how this is calculated, it worked out at a fee of $700 per hour. That’s right Deputy Speaker; $700 per hour.

Now this is for a psychiatrist. If I look at the Australian Psychological Society's national schedule of recommended fees—the recommended fee schedule in place from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016—it sets out the recommended level of fees for an hour of consultation at $238.

So, because the courts are giving this particular individual a monopoly position—

(debate interrupted - Proceedings suspended from 11:21am to 11:34am) (debate resumed 11.34am)

-I will continue where I left off.

I was giving an example of the current practice of this rort whereby the scheduled fee recommended by the professional association is around $238 an hour (that’s $9,520 for a 40hr week – nice work if you can get it).

But in this case because the so-called expert involved has a court-ordered monopoly, they are able to charge what they like.

And they are charging 200% ABOVE the scheduled fee recommended by their professional association —a charge, including GST, of up to $700 an hour.

Deputy Speaker, I have no objection if in a fair, free and open competitive market if they want to charge $7,000 an hour, and someone is willing to pay this of their own free will.

But where the court compulsory orders a participant in the court proceedings to see an ‘single expert’ thereby granting such an individual a monopoly, and they charge such an excessive fee—a 200 % uplift, a $500 per hour UPLIFT (on the scheduled fee recommended by the professional association —it is nothing other than an absolutely rort.

Deputy Speaker, I am not one for excessive government regulation,however we should have legislation that sets a maximum schedule of fees for these 'single experts' if they are to be given a court ordered monopoly.

For the current situation is very similar to what I remember in an old Chevy Chase movie, 'National Lampoon's Vacation', where Clark W. Griswall (played by Chevy Chase) crashed his car and had to get his car repaired. He pulls out this wallet and asks, ‘What do I owe you?'

And the repairer said, 'How much you got?' And when Clark complains about such price gouging, the repair pulls out this sheriff’s badge.

Deputy Speaker, his is akin to the same situation that we have going on in our Family Court today, and it is totally unacceptable.

Secondly, I have great concerns over some of the secrecy provisions in the Family Court. I would like to quote one Mr J Robert Oppenheimer from the 1950s. He said, which well applies to our Family Court today:

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism … We know that the wages of secrecy are corruption. We know that in secrecy error, undetected, will flourish and subvert.”

We need to end a few practices in our Family Court. We need to end the practice of secrecy.

We need to shine a bright light on the practices that are currently going on in our Family Court.

If we are going to continue to have the practice of single experts, a practice which I am greatly concerned about, we must have a schedule of professional fees they can charge. which must be reasonable.

And Deputy Speaker, regarding the current practices—these current rorts that I have outlined —I am putting these people on notice that they are being watched. This parliament is going to shine a light on their activities. (time expired).

Last edit: by Secretary SPCA

"Erasing Dad" - The Movie

Erasing Dad” is a truly international film exposing the corruption of the family court system the world over. It is more than a documentary it is a movement. And with your active participation, this movement can keep growing. Please share. [N.B. click the CC button for English subtitles]

We need to continue to educate the public about parental alienation and uncover the system that makes money off of children’s suffering.

This film captures, on camera, professionals such as lawyers, psychologists and advocates admitting with pride that do everything possible to prevent a father from seeing their child, even when there is no proof that these visits will harm the child. These professionals who have always claimed to act in the best interests of the child now face an outraged public.

Erasing Dad is a controversial documentary. It couldn’t premier in theatres. It’s producers are being discriminated against for telling men’s stories.

The professionals interviewed in Erasing Dad had signed appearance releases but hated how the film exposed them making money from prolonging family conflict and creating orphans of children with living parents. They got the premiere of Erasing Dad to be cancelled on multiple occasions and got a court order to remove the film from Youtube and censored in its homeland of Argentina.

This censorship only made the film bigger news and people began to distribute it privately. 6 months later the Court Order was reversed. The film had a huge social impact. Argentina finally approved a joint custody law and other countries passed legislation against parental alienation.

The second part is now in production and needs your help.
Please contact them at

Last edit: by srldad101

srldad101 said
This just in from Australian Member of Parliament, Mr Craig Kelly, Liberal member for Hughes. who recognizes a problem of a single expert being allowed into a family law proceeding.

Thank you for this excellent post as it is important we identify those Parliamentary members who realise the travesty that exists today in the court system.

We have written much about the incompetent role of the ICL and Family Reporter. This article exposes the rort that is perpetrated on family law litigants in the 'best interests of the child'.

Last edit: by Secretary SPCA

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
Posts from this topic have been moved by Secretary SPCA. 1 post have been transferred to One Nation Policy aligns to "A sickness has fallen on the family law system".

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets