Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Illusion as a tactic to cause unnecessary action

There seems to be a surge of energy coming from some group or groups of persons lately who are against shared parenting. Perhaps they are after the ear of a new parliament.

Illusion as a tactic to cause unnecessary action, a trick played upon individuals, govts,courts and the masses.

There seems to be a surge of energy coming from some group or groups of persons lately who are against shared parenting. Perhaps they are after the ear of a new parliament.

When should we believe media reports? When is both sides of the argument actually in opposition?

As for claiming a bond between a parent that needs to be nutured overules all is part of the "new" shared parenting laws,I recall a 1995 case, that is a decade and a half old wherein a father clamed the removal of the chld by the mother was interfering with his right to be a father, and the child was gven to him. The location of the home the child lived in was dictated by the Court. Then, a mother would probably get nil to little access (no access)), as one parent usually got all. Today, under shared parenting, regardless of which parent has the home where the child is located, the other parent can get meaningful access, and/or shared custody.

I think that the article in The Australian by Caroline Overington as on your website wants us to believe that a whole raft of things never happened before shared parenting came along.

In the case of the mother who wanted to move out of the rural area and to an area doubtless more suitable to her gaining support from family networks, housing and employment,etc.,the problem may have been also that the relocation was untested as to its short and long term suitability.

The rural home with the father was more comfortable due to his having more income than the mother, it was an established guaranteed home for the child, and the mother had consented to the child being in the crcumstances including the locaton of the income that provides for the child and for the home of the child. Some things, once agreed to, are difficult to change.
The way she worded the article made it appear as though the father was almost disinterested in the child, and she certainly didn't mention that he had shared care. Effectively her plan to move away was a plan to take away his half share of care of his child, and take on sole care, against the father's wishes. Of course if Caroline had worded it that way, the case would be less helpful to what seems to be a personal campaign on her part. Also she notably referred to the mother and "her" child not "theirs".

Got any friends in the media who can run interference? I don't trust Rudd not to fall for this stuff and wind back the changes.
If the Rudd govt makes unnecessary and potentially damaging legislation, only caring that their name is on the latest piece of legislation, then that act is one of Vainity.

Shared parenting appears as in need of rallying around in order that it not be reversed. The latest destruction of the Federal magistrates court with trespass on the Federal Court and empire building to the Family Court and financial gain to certain commercial enterprises, needs to be stopped. Now that the Family Court has finallly been pulled down off their high horse, and the people recognised as not preferring the Family Court, they (fam ct)have skillfully been assisted, or manipulated with intent to control them later, by persons who are obviously seeking to turn back the clock, alike this anti=shared parenting sentiment being expressed recently by the media.
The only media involved in this witch hunt seems to be the Australian and assisted by a single reporter. There is nothing appearing in any draft legislation or even any discussions about winding anything back, that we have seen.. The existing legislation was set up through a Bi Partisan committee on both sides of Parliament and substantial community consultation and thousands of submissions. There was extensive word re writing in the specific legislation and a full explanatory memorandum. There is a review of the operations of the Act on going. The act has its detractors but is substantially better than what we saw before. So far no one has actually identified which sections of the Act have a problem and what the specific proposed amendments should be.

The media should start to focus on reporting the real issues which are the significant number of cases where good fathers and some good mothers, cannot see their children after separation, simply because the other parent says so. What sort of legislation do we have to put in place to fix this abhorrent behaviour of a wayward parent. It seems that the focus might need to be on keeping the Federal Magistrates in action and giving some teeth to the Mediation Centres that are struggling to get parties through in a timely manner and certainly struggling to keep agreements out of those mediations on track.

We are currently working through a number of these types of cases, unfortunately many are with younger children involved. Mediation centres need to step up to the mark in these early intervention cases or face additional legislative measures being proposed.

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
 
I think that the sooner they recognise PAS and find ways of remedying the problem accordingly, then the quicker we can all move forward with the true and real interest of the child being the focus of every family court decision.
Family law is one of the most complex laws to handle!
The word  "alignment" is what is used in courts today.
The term PAS(Parental Alienation Syndrome) is not recognised in the family court.
The concept of alienation has been flowing through the courts veins for years!  

Moot…Have you any suggestion as to how we might achieve this?

We had a suggestion to try and get a shared care outcome for those who could not agree on time (for purposes of calculating the CSA formula) so as to at least effect the operation of centerlink and CSA payments but we have not been able to get traction there. See this forum post / topic under CSA. SPCA 2009-0216 Emerging Issue 58 - A default care level. There is a topic also running Child Support Payments linked to Contact Orders both of these are related to contact by different aspects of contact and CSA.

What is needed is some way to ensure contact is managed immediately after separation. To create a default presumption of equal time parenting with ability to set down time that can be accommodated is one way. How we effect that in legislation has been problematic.

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
 
I disagree that there is no chance of shared parenting being wound.back. Anything can be wound back. No proof of any action legislatively is good, but no guarantee that a fashion will not arise between the judges. The Family Court has a history of not abiding by legislation whenever they feel like it.

I should have seperated out further the two mattters. one shared parenting, the second a return to more power in the Family Court.

I have proof that the Attorney-Generals dept is acted in an unhanded fashion, misleading the public in relation to their push to pretend to be saving costs, and actually returning the Family Court back to its former self of fifteen years ago. Perhaps they will keep shared parenting, but what else are they up to?  If the Attorney-General himself is innocent, as he could well be because he has been very busy lately with the financial crisis and new events, then there is a traitor in the ranks at the Federal Law Branch of his dept. I don't care whether this website believes me or not, and I am perfectly happy for my name to be making that claim, of things not being above board. I have done about ten thousand matters, and I have made some incredible claims and taken many personal risks with nothing more than knowing I am lawfully and morally correct as my saviour. Years ago those Family Court Judges threatened me, lied about me, threatened to jail me, the works,all whilst hiding from the eyes of parliament and the public. I have spent vast sums of money hundred of thousands of dollars to support shared parenting (among other child related issues), and I am never going to stop.

What really concerns me to this day, is the evidence standards of the Family Court.

Children without the two biological parents as their carers, fall victim to social workers who exploit them, and are more likely to end up with drug addiction, be jailed, suicide, fall victim to crime etc,.
isy said
I have proof that the Attorney-Generals dept is acted in an unhanded fashion, misleading the public in relation to their push to pretend to be saving costs, and actually returning the Family Court back to its former self of fifteen years ago.
Then stop talking about it and provide it to the SPCA.
isy said
I have done about ten thousand matters,
Then that would make you the most experienced practitioner in Australia?
I find Conans comment difficult to understand. Do you mean you would like to know more about the attorney-general dept is not above board recently claim by myself, or are you enquiring as to whether or not I have communicated with the SPCA on the issue?

And, I woud not know how many matters the most experienced practioner around has up his sleeve.
isy said
I find Conans comment difficult to understand. Do you mean you would like to know more about the attorney-general dept is not above board recently claim by myself, or are you enquiring as to whether or not I have communicated with the SPCA on the issue?
You claim to have information, I am not suggesting you post it here but rather communicate it to an organization that can actually do something with it.
isy said
And, I woud not know how many matters the most experienced practioner around has up his sleeve.
You are implying an incredible level of experience (10,000 matters) however it is not in current Family Law judging from anther post you made. It may also be how you determine what a matter is.

At the moment all I can conclude from your posts is that you have arrived here with secret information and have run more matters than the total of everybody here on this portal.


isy said
I disagree that there is no chance of shared parenting being wound.back. Anything can be wound back. No proof of any action legislatively is good, but no guarantee that a fashion will not arise between the judges. The Family Court has a history of not abiding by legislation whenever they feel like it.
I never said there is no chance the legislation cannot or could not be changed just that we have nothing on our radar at the moment. We are waiting for inputs into the legislation review.


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
 
Thanks Conan, I can see that the couple of times I have used the word "matters" in this thread is confusing. I should have used different wording.

Each of the voluminous stuff I worked on, was in relation to a Court case, or an incident that threatened to turn into a Court case, or a particular issue that was being lobbied to govt etc.. I can barely remember really.  I would like to tell you about some recent fun stuff that was surprisingly easy to win, but I am reluctant to disclose, even though I have the legal right to do so. They were not family Court cases. One was a supreme court criminal case involving a child, and one was a new govt policy in immigration that affects jobs, and hence families. One was an incident of criminal negligence against children by a govt dept. One issue was about a corporation that had engaged in acts that particpated in crimes against children that looks like it may go to Court, and had connections to a different Court case involving a different corporation. In one instance I took a stance against the non-compliance of an entity involving classifications, children and the internet that is no where near resolved.. At the moment I am set to read previous material from a bloke who does seem to have been involved in a very unusual Family Court case, according to him and the media. He sent it to me. It reminds me of some old stuff where a witness would be called to Court from a govt dept to give evidence of bad character and went beyond the facts. I am not sure yet what can be done. I did affect his access but I am not surely that it currently still has that affect. I have what seems a million other Court cases, govt dept problems that need someone to work on them (debateable according to who one talks to etc..), and so on but I have no timetable nor do I have to work on anything at all if I do not want to. Just an interesting hobby with lots of personal satisfaction and sometimes some fun through revenge-getting back at the Family Court a thousand years ago for sending me broke by making me sit up and take notice of how when where and why injustice can occur, and being co-erced into feeling like I should join in and do something about that, and as the Family Law in the original days had the habit of giving one parent the kids and no access to the other parent causing me to never see again my father who had been my primary care giver. It is nothing special. Just an ordinary life.
isy said
Thanks Conan, I can see that the couple of times I have used the word "matters" in this thread is confusing. I should have used different wording.

Each of the voluminous stuff I worked on, was in relation to a Court case, or an incident that threatened to turn into a Court case, or a particular issue that was being lobbied to govt etc.. I can barely remember really.

I would like to tell you about some recent fun stuff that was surprisingly easy to win, but I am reluctant to disclose, even though I have the legal right to do so. They were not family Court cases. One was a supreme court criminal case involving a child, and one was a new govt policy in immigration that affects jobs, and hence families. One was an incident of criminal negligence against children by a govt dept. Oneissue was about a corporation that had engaged in acts that particpated in crimes against children that looks like it may go to Court, and had connections to a different Court case involving a different corporation. In one instance I took a stance against the non-compliance of an entity involving classifications, children and the internet that is no where near resolved.. At the moment I am set to read previous material from a bloke who does seem to have been involved in a very unusual Family Court case, according to him and the media. He sent it to me.It reminds me of some old stuff where a witness would be called to Court from a govt dept to give evidence of bad character and went beyond the facts. I am not sure yet what can be done. I did affect his access but I am not surely that it currently still has that affect. I have what seems a million other Court cases, govt dept problems that need someone to work on them (debateable according to who one talks to etc..), and so on but I have no timetable nor do I have to work on anything at all if I do not want to. Just an interesting hobby with lots of personal satisfaction and sometimes some fun through revenge-getting back at the Family Court a thousand years ago for sending me broke by making me sit up and take notice of how when where and why injustice can occur, and being co-erced into feeling like I should join in and do something about that, and as the FamilyLaw in the original days had the habit of giving one parent the kids and no access to the other parent causing me to never see again my father who had been my primary care giver. It is nothing special. Just an ordinary life.

It seems as if your descriptions of 'quantity' and your accuracy should be taken with a pinch of salt.

With your vast store of experience I am surprised you do not have your own blog or are you posting on this site as self promotion?
isy said
…I have proof that the Attorney-Generals dept is acted in an unhanded fashion, misleading the public in relation to their push to pretend to be saving costs, and actually returning the Family Court back to its former self of fifteen years ago. Perhaps they will keep shared parenting, but what else are they up to? If the Attorney-General himself is innocent, as he could well be because he has been very busy lately with the financial crisis and new events, then there is a traitor in the ranks at the Federal Law Branch of his dept.
We are currently working on a range of initiatives in this area. If you have some information we would be pleased to discuss it with you privately. The SPCA is absolutely interested in anything relating to forward legislative change. Please whisper me (So it is private) your contact number and I will give you a call. Otherwise start a personal topic with me please Isy


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