Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

International Boycott Of Family Courts

You and each member of your family, are now able to personally forward a one page protest document to each of your country's elected political representatives, both State and Federal.

For the past 3 years InternationalParents Alliance,have been committed to developing an effective practical solution, designed to help bring to an end the crisis in international family law. This gratuitous human rights crisis, is now responsible for the world's largest, state sponsored destruction of parent/child relationships catastrophe, in human history.

For everyone - parents/grandparent/uncle/aunt/cousin/niece/nephew/victim child - Download or review INTERNATIONAL BOYCOTT OF FAMILY COURTS details from the website.
Welcome to the home of  "INTERPAAL". We are a dedicated International Parents Alliance, who for the past 3 years have been committed to developing an effective practical solution, designed to help bring to an end the crisis in international family law. This gratuitous human rights crisis, is now responsible for the world's largest, state sponsored destruction of parent/child relationships catastrophe, in human history.

Government agencies such as Family Courts and Social Services head the list of administrators of these violations of our human rights, which our global community should no longer tolerate.
Parents Alliance have finanally achieved their objective and now 16th June 2010present in 11 different languages to all the decent, honourable parents and children of the world, with a self empowering document "INTERNATIONAL BOYCOTT OF FAMILY COURTS"

Last edit: by OneRingRules


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  M K Gandhi
Thanks Calista for this link.

The idea that the world recognises the travesty of the family court injustice and that ultimately it is we who must do something is empowering. Paragraph 3 in particular resonated.

3.  If you decide to go to court, you will undoubtedly at some point during proceedings, reach the conclusion that you've been had.  It will become clear to you, that you have no legal parenting rights, and are therefore fighting a loosing battle, against a system structured to separate you from your children, property, health and savings a system that refuses to uphold your human rights, and is in the process of destroying the relationship you have with your children.

What makes me angry is that our representatives elected to the Australian parliament have enacted legislation able to redress these family court iniquities but the judiciary refuse to implement it. I refer to the 4% increase to 17% of court ordered shared care parenting arrangements since the amendments. Instead of change we get re-animated old family court dinosaurs like Chisholm trying to scare us back to the dark ages. We must reject his family violence witch hunt and his evidence conjuror McIntosh and the politics that commissioned a report to support his already known conclusions.

I will take issue with the proposition that poor drafting and the tangle of legal technicality of the amendments has led many parents to "wrongly assume" the laws meant shared parenting except in cases of violence and thereby the Chisholm recommendations that

1.       the definition of family violence be expanded [inevitably to be whatever the accuser says it is and that s 117AB (costs for false allegations) be repealed] and
2.       the legislation be simplified the court must not assume that any particular parenting arrangement is more likely than others to be in the childs best interests


I am not a lawyer but from a background of mathematics and programming logic it seems from the relevant sections of the Act ss 61DA (the presumption) and sub-ss (1) and (2) of s 65DAA (parenting time) that

IF the presumption of shared parental responsibility is satisfied THEN
     IF        equal time is in the best interests of the child and practicable THEN
                     Make the order 7/7
     ELSEIF substantial time is in the best interests of the child & practicable THEN
                     Make the order 9/5
     ELSEIF alternate weekends is in best interests of the child & practicable THEN
                     Make the order 11/3
     ENDIF
ENDIF

The fact that the Act now requires the court to consider first and then rebut that equal time is in the best interests of the child and then progressively reduces that time by rebuttal until it is in the best interests of the child seems in effect to presume that maximum time with both parents if practical is in the child's best interests. In my humble opinion it is a challenge to argue the amendments otherwise.

I note that the High Court was all over the relevant ss 61DA and sub-ss (1) and (2) of s 65DAA in MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4 but disappointingly failed to take the opportunity to confirm or deny the legislative intent of maximum time with both parents.

It therefore falls to us in this election year to make it plainly known to our representatives that we will not allow the most important family law reform of the past 30 years to be defeated by semantics, scaremongering or junk science. We will not tolerate a judiciary which refuses to implement the mandated and fundamental human right of civilised society to parent equally ones own children.  We will not countenance a legal system which determines social policy by self-interest and destroys responsible parent/child relationships on the pretence of protecting them. It should be made clear that a negative response, or no response at all, will translate into a Lost Vote.

To help facilitate political awareness I have provided a link to a list of all federal politicians by constituency and their voting positions on shared care from the fathers4equality website. The survey is a bit old but provides interesting information regarding Liberals support for 50/50 while the ALP clearly does not. An overt presumption of equal shared parenting was compromised to equal shared parental responsibility to get bi-lateral support.  The inherent intent of maximum time remains but has been lost in much the same way as we are cajoled at interim to consent to less on the promise that equal time will be difficult to argue against at final. Shoot the lawyers.

One has to wonder why in an egalitarian civilised society the ALP opposes shared care. Surely this is not some vestigial policy remnant from the 1950s Bowlby research that became the Tender years doctrine. This theory was commissioned by the US government to get women out of the workforce to provide employment for servicemen returning from the war. Bowlby himself later debunked it.



Last edit: by srldad101

srldad101 said

What makes me angry is that our representatives elected to the Australian parliament have enacted legislation able to redress these family court iniquities but the judiciary refuse to implement it. I refer to the 4% increase to 17% of court ordered shared care parenting arrangements since the amendments. Instead of change we get re-animated old family court dinosaurs like Chisholm trying to scare us back to the dark ages. We must reject his family violence witch hunt and his evidence conjuror McIntosh and the politics that commissioned a report to support his already known conclusions.

I will take issue with the proposition that poor drafting and the tangle of legal technicality of the amendments has led many parents to "wrongly assume" the laws meant shared parenting except in cases of violence and thereby the Chisholm recommendations that

1.       the definition of family violence be expanded [inevitably to be whatever the accuser says it is and that s 117AB (costs for false allegations) be repealed] and
2.       the legislation be simplified the court must not assume that any particular parenting arrangement is more likely than others to be in the childs best interests
Some good observations not lost on us at all.
srldad101 said
I note that the High Court was all over the relevant ss 61DA and sub-ss (1) and (2) of s 65DAA in MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4 but disappointingly failed to take the opportunity to confirm or deny the legislative intent of maximum time with both parents.
I am glad you raised that case as it sits right on the top of my pile on the floor space that is currently still available… (The usable desk desk for files has long gone). One of the Family Law specialists gave me a copy a few weeks ago and suggested more work needed to be done on reviewing that determination in the High Court of Australia.
srldad101 said
It therefore falls to us in this election year to make it plainly known to our representatives that we will not allow the most important family law reform of the past 30 years to be defeated by semantics, scaremongering or junk science. We will not tolerate a judiciary which refuses to implement the mandated and fundamental human right of civilised society to parent equally ones own children.  We will not countenance a legal system which determines social policy by self-interest and destroys responsible parent/child relationships on the pretence of protecting them. It should be made clear that a negative response, or no response at all, will translate into a Lost Vote.
I am convinced after being in Canberra most of the week before last and listening to a number of Ministers speak at the LFAA conference that there will not be much of a roll back of anything (except maybe the proposed Mining Tax). Our big concern (As raised in John Flannagan's submission) are the draconian ALRC proposals and measures. Thanks for the post and link.


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
 
srldad101 said
One has to wonder why in an egalitarian civilised society the ALP opposes shared care. Surely this is not some vestigial policy remnant from the 1950s Bowlby research that became the Tender years doctrine. This theory was commissioned by the US government to get women out of the workforce to provide employment for servicemen returning from the war. Bowlby himself later debunked it.

I think it's quite simple, for the sake of the tree, they cannot see the forest or to put it another way, for the minority they legislate for the majority they have no real consideration. They appear to want hero status for being the demon.

Secretary_SPCA said
I am convinced after being in Canberra most of the week before last and listening to a number of Ministers speak at the LFAA conference that there will not be much of a roll back of anything (except maybe the proposed Mining Tax).
But there will most certainly be no stepping into the future to improve the situation to reduce the abuse of children by the tearing away of such children from both of their parents. That really is sad. By threatening and concentration and the backwards move they have effectively countered the contemplation of moves for the better.

We still have situations e.g. Knibbs & Knibbs, where a parent gets away scott free with gross abuse of the children and the other parent by the way of making false allegations of sexual abuse. The moral that will obviously be perpetuated by the groups who urge their members and the gender to take this action will be to continue to wreak such abuse on children and on the decent members of the public simply so they can have a free ride on the gravy train and for some so they can continue getting paid for their societally useless and societally damaging work.
The newly appointed shadow attorney-general, Mr George Brandis SC, is appearing as a panellist on Q&A next Monday 9:35pm on ABC-1. This program invites real time twitter and video questions from viewers and directly from the Sydney audience to "put the Australian public directly in touch with the politicians and playmakers - to give them the opportunity to get some answers, eye to eye".  

George Brandis, Rhodes Scholar and barrister SC, recently delivered the oppositions successful rebuttal to the Semple report recommendations that the FMC be amalgamated into the Family Court.

Perhaps we might frame some questions for Mr Brandis along the lines of
if the Liberals are elected what does he intend to do about the failure of the family court to implement the shared parenting amendments, namely only a 4% increase in shared parenting.
Is the intent of the legislation to presume maximum time with each parent, why isn't this happening? Are Australian fathers really such bad parents that they need default family violence orders against them? Is it just for Australian men to have their children, property, health and savings ripped from them on the whim of making false allegations? Can we repeal the gun laws? edit help please.

This cyber "town hall" meeting is an opportunity to reignite shared parenting as an electoral hot issue with tens of thousands of voters watching nationwide.

80 words questions can be lodged electronically at Q&A | ABC TV
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets