Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Last chance to oppose Gillard's "Hate Men" law

Megaphone to the Senate

Because of the emphasis that the Gillard government had placed on passing the Carbon Tax legislation in the lower house, the final vote of the Family Violence bill has been delayed.

We believe now that it will be voted on in the Senate on the 31st October, and expect it to be passed given the support of the Greens.

However will still need to show our opposition to this malicious bill, so Fathers4Equality have rolled out a tool (the Email Megaphone) we used on previous occasions, which resulted in almost 1 million emails being sent to local members in Parliament in 2005.

The Megaphone provides one email to be written, and then sent as an personalised email to numerous politicians.

It is a super-easy tool to use, and we would encourage you to visit and use it daily, until the final vote on this is finalised.

Fathers4Equality


Gillard's Family Violence Bill - the WMD of family - guarantees more divorce litigation, makes it impossible to share in the parenting of one's own children, allows lawyers to plunder family wealth with false allegations, criminalises, impoverishes and removes fit and loving fathers, enslaves single mothers to generational welfare dependency, and opens Pandora's box to all the personal and social pathologies directly associated with mass fatherlessness - violent crime, substance abuse, unwed pregnancy, truancy, suicide, depression, gangs and more - which ironically creates a self-perpetuating cycle of generational family dissolution and abuse. It will costs taxpayers $tens of billions for massive increases in welfare, judicial, health, law enforcement, education and housing.

But they go further with sinister "OTHER MEASURES"

Do we want the results of 20 years of feminist extremism, namely VAWA and the Bradley amendment, dumped here in one Act?

Do we want to be criminalised for calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing "annoyance" or "emotional distress," claiming to be "fearful," or just not doing what your partner wants?

Do we want the state definitions of family violence which use terms of overt actions that can be objectively proven or refuted in a court of law broadened by Federal ALP definition of violence to the point of indefensible meaninglessness.

Do we want a national "family violence" register whereby we are denied job opportunities, the right to study law or be elected to Parliament, denied overseas travel, have our children taken away by false allegations without penalties, to be thrown out of our homes so the wife's boyfriend can move in while we have to pay for the mortgage and "child support" maintenance?

Do we want laws that force us to pay this child support whether we become unemployed, hospitalized, in prison, sent to war, dead, proved to not be the father, never allowed to see our children, suffer a pay cut?

Do we want the law changed so that only a Federal judge can change the amount of child support (a hearing takes months & we can't afford it anway) and arrears cannot be discharged by bankruptcy or set aside ever. Whereas corporations are allowed to pay pennys in the dollar.

Do we want our driver's licenses confiscated or wages garnished for late payment?

Do we want it to be a contempt of court to be too poor to pay warranting us being sent to "debtors" prison?

Do we want the UN Convention for the Rights enacted as Australian family law, that is, the doctrine that "it takes a village" (which means the government, the schools, the courts) to raise our children for us  namely, fathers are superfluous transient worker drones.

These hidden agendas were not even discussed in the Senate committee reviewing these amendments. The Report of this committee chaired by a feminist ideologue and supported by an openly lesbian Senator married to a trans man must be thrown out. It is based on a hearing stacked 13:3 in favour of the Bill and justifies its recommendations on propaganda googled off the personal blog of Australias #1 pro-feminist man-hater after adjournment and uses this as determinative research that women do not make false allegations.

The public is being hoodwinked. The vast preponderance of child abuse and child deaths occurs in single-parent homes. There is not one case of child abuse in a court mandated shared parenting arrangement. Children are up to 33 times more likely to suffer serious abuse and 73 times more likely to suffer fatal abuse in the home of a mother with a live-in boyfriend or stepfather than in an intact family

The Family Violence Bill must be rejected as the most family destructive pieces of legislation ever devised because it ABUSES CHILDREN, it manufactures the child harming conflict it purports to redress, it is gender bigoted discrimination that encourages false allegations, it removes the best protection children have, namely, fit and loving parents, and costs taxpayers way to much for evil things and agendas they don't even understand.

Call your Senator to say NO to Gillard's "Hate Men" law
Excellent piece, SRLdad, I've sent my megaphone off today.

Here's some of the impacts of the feminisation of society:

http://www.news.com.au/national/men-are-lost-confused-insecure-and-thats-good-to-know/story-e6frfkw0-1226177133432
"Research from the OECD supports that, suggesting men are less satisfied with their lives than women in Australia. And a closer look at Australian Bureau of Statistics numbers shows the dramatic change our generation of men is dealing with.

According to the ABS, men are more likely to:

  • Live with their parents;
  • Report feeling work and family responsibilities are rarely/never in balance;
  • have a substance abuse disorder.
Women are also completing Bachelor degrees at a faster rate than men, while traditional male jobs disappear"


Of course, there's no mention of the way Australian men are having their families stripped from them, but the picture is nonetheless bleak.

Maybe it should become compulsory, before you partner up or get married, to go through a 3 year "Men's Fraternity" program. A similar program exists for women. Maybe all will then learn to value each other as partners and as human beings. Everybody has a basic right to live, to be happy and to be respected. It will then not be necessary to form all these ridiculous action groups. Be it male or female. We should not be at "war" with one another. All it does is to hasten the demise of our society.  
yeah right - and it would be nice if I could fellate myself while farting the white album but it ain't gonna happen
The only ones I can see doing the hating is you! You people are the ones doing all the hating and perpetuating divisiveness between men and women. Get that big fat chip off your shoulder and grow up.

The new laws will only end up being applied to a small amount of people. The new laws apply to both genders and if you do not engage in abusive behaviour then you have nothing to fear.

The new laws are being put in place to better protect children, doesnt that mean anything to you? Cant you take off your blinkers just for a second and look at this as a positive thing and not some kind of ridiculous evil plot against men?
Samba said
The only ones I can see doing the hating is you! You people are the ones doing all the hating and perpetuating divisiveness between men and women. Get that big fat chip off your shoulder and grow up.

The new laws will only end up being applied to a small amount of people. The new laws apply to both genders and if you do not engage in abusive behaviour then you have nothing to fear.

The new laws are being put in place to better protect children, doesnt that mean anything to you? Cant you take off your blinkers just for a second and look at this as a positive thing and not some kind of ridiculous evil plot against men?
 
The present laws protect children very well. What the new laws are designed to do is to remove any onus of either proof of claim, or of responsibility for making false claims.

As someone who has experienced false allegations of violence first-hand, I find your post offensive in the extreme.
And I find your women hating rhetoric  and twisting of the truth utterly offensive. Some of you blokes need to stop blaming other people and take some responsibility for your own behaviour.


The current laws make general presumptions  about individual people that have put childrens lives in danger.


The system currently discourages people from raising concerns they might have lest they look unfriendly.



The children are not the property of either parent and should not be treated as such. Every case is different and once it gets all the way to court then one must look at every case individually and get to the bottom how 2 ppl have become so at odds with each other that it came to this.


Exposure to high conflict is damaging to children.


There is plenty of research that proves that women do not routinely make up false allegations.


In all of my research I have never seen any womens group bad mouth men in the way you lot carry on.  A few counselling sessions might be in order to address your obvious issues and problems with women.


Take responsibility for your role in this and stop the hate!
Samba said
And I find your women hating rhetoric  and twisting of the truth utterly offensive. Some of you blokes need to stop blaming other people and take some responsibility for your own behaviour.


The current laws make general presumptions  about individual people that have put childrens lives in danger.


The system currently discourages people from raising concerns they might have lest they look unfriendly.



The children are not the property of either parent and should not be treated as such. Every case is different and once it gets all the way to court then one must look at every case individually and get to the bottom how 2 ppl have become so at odds with each other that it came to this.


Exposure to high conflict is damaging to children.


There is plenty of research that proves that women do not routinely make up false allegations.


In all of my research I have never seen any womens group bad mouth men in the way you lot carry on.  A few counselling sessions might be in order to address your obvious issues and problems with women.


Take responsibility for your role in this and stop the hate!
 
Samba, it seems apparent that you have some vested interest in having a capacity to make unsubstantiated allegations that will be acted on as though they were in fact real.

I have no idea why you feel the need to be able to tell lies with impunity.

Most men do not bash most women. However, in Family Law matters, the allegation is raised at many times the population average. Therefore, it is reasonable to examine such claims.

There is no evidence other than unsubstantiated claims from some of the less-reputable maternal bias groups that anybody has been dissuaded from making serious allegations. That is a Furphy, or as i prefer to call it, a lie.

As for your "research", if it's to the same standard as your rhetoric, I'm sure you've never seen anything you hadn't already decided to see. Sadly, that's all too common in the women's studies area.
I for one believe the new bill sounds quite fair. there are some good points to it. i dont get how it is a "hate men" law, because if someone isnt abusive/violent they should have nothing to worry about. Children should have a safe upbringing and i think these laws will help achieve that. But thats just my point of view.
repartnered_mum said
I for one believe the new bill sounds quite fair. there are some good points to it. i dont get how it is a "hate men" law, because if someone isnt abusive/violent they should have nothing to worry about. Children should have a safe upbringing and i think these laws will help achieve that. But thats just my point of view.
 
The question is whether children will have a safer upbringing than present. Is the intrusion into the burden of proof and the consequence damage to the accused justified?

I say a resounding NO!!
does anyone know if it has been voted on yet? or has it not been through yet?
divorce and separation bring out the worst in both women and men.

i am in the categary of a non violent man that has been accused of violence and abuse and i had to spend ALOT of money arguing my case in court to prove otherwise. for some women its a way for them to put a wall up to gather some distance from their ex in court. it made me sick watching my ex cry in the witness box telling the judge how i was abusive and she was scared in our home anyone knew our situation knew i looked after her and i was the one uncomfortable in my own home, it was nearly like she read my affidavit and read it out as hers. im lucky in hindsight she never accused me of sexual abuse to her or the child as once your accused of that its always there on your record and never goes away WITHOUT any recourse of the person defaming you.

ladies when you see men jumping up and down about these laws think about how vulnerable we already are in court we are already climbing a big hill in regard for equality in court (everyone knows the courts lean toward the mother) to have laws that open up the flood gates for the "worst" out of people to act like its open season on defaming the other party to win their case… without recourse. i do believe that the child best interest should always be paramount but i also believe that people should also take responsibility for their actions and be accountable for their behavior in court or anywhere for that matter.

Samba equality has been something that many people would like from different backgrounds and genres if u like be it refugees, women in the workplace, gay people wanting to marry each other and fathers wanting to be parents. for so long the system has been stacked up against fathers  and sadly alot of them step back and get on with their life at the cost of the child not having one their most important role models in their life, some people argue that "oh my child has positive male role models around like uncles etc" and the father especially after divorce isnt the first choice of the mother for their child to have as the role model and thats naturally bias from personal grudges or the like that led to the divorce in the first place but for the child thats the natural first choice and it should be embraced and encouraged not wedged apart like the system supports. so for alot of separated fathers these laws look like another nail in the coffin not a loophole closed up for sex offenders. the percentage of sex offenders compared to good parents is very low but this law applies to all parents and is open for abuse. i believe that once abuse has been proven then yes the full weight of the law should be applied. the penalties are not heavy enough for proven cases in my opinion.
Just a short note to advise that Gillard's "Hate Men" family law bill was scheduled for debate tomorrow, however at this stage we do not know whether it will heard this week given the CO2 guillotine through the Senate and the backlog of other legislation in parliament.

 However, we still need to lobby the government to vote against this bill that will make it impossible to share in the parenting of our children, force innocent children to lose one fit and loving parent, cause mass epidemics of false allegations without penalty and result in child abuse becoming a hidden crime.

In just 5 days last week 10,000 emails were sent to our politicians.

 As a result, a staffer of Senator Rachel Siewart (Greens) complained to stop this barrage of emails on family law, as the Greens were not about to change their (sexist) views of family law reform.


Interesting Note: Senator Rachel Siewart is separated but has a Shared Parenting arrangement with her child's father. Given her role as a Senator, we are of the view that had she been male and went to Court, that she would never have been awarded a Shared Parenting arrangement.

 This woman it should be noted is a HYPOCRITE of the highest order, as she has been one of the most vocal opponents of Australia's Shared Parenting laws, wishing to not only dismantle them, but to effectively guarantee that children of separated families would be unable to see their father in a meaningful manner unless agreed to by the mother. This proprietary notion that Mothers Own Children is the foundation of the Greens family law policy.
 —————————–

 Back to the point at hand, I was really impressed by the writing abilities of all submitters on the Megaphone, and ask to please CONTINUE this week in the same fashion as last week.

If you were thinking of sending an email but didn't get the opportunity, DO IT NOW!

If you have already sent an email, SEND ANOTHER!

If you know of someone who may also have a strong opinion on this discrimination against children and fathers in family law, FORWARD THIS link TO THEM!
Fathers4Equality

 Please maintain the rage. We are the only voice of common sense in this debate, and must be heard for our child's sake.
i dont like that people use the laws for bad. and its not fair on those who are done wrong by them, but at the end of the day when childrens safety is number 1 priority and they then are able to grow up happy and safe i think that is the reason to vote yes towards the amendments.  there should be penalties when false acusations are made.
Yep, please keep it up, because every email sent by one of you haters just confirms the need for the laws to be amended. You guys dont really do yourselves any favors being so filled with hate and sexism.

Thankfully we are rid of Howard and his neanderthal cronies, so this time your email bombardment wont work. People have wised up to it. research proves it and the statistics show it.

The sooner you stop the hating and start taking responsibility the sooner we can all move forward and parent our children amicably.

The language and hate that I see her just proves my point really.

cheers!
Have a nice day!:lol:
samba it seems you havent listened to their plight at all. you think that everyone gets shared care  its actually only 15% of all parent cases that actually get shared care. It seems your obviously on the other side of the fence here and your opinion has shown natural bias. Your not for equality at all. And john howard being neanderthal? his government made ammendments to neanderthal law! I believe you should get your facts right about statistics aswell.

repartnered mum if the laws are set up for the childs best interest at heart why is always aimed at supporting the mother in being the main parent and the father being the cash cow? these new laws only open the gates for abuse and its very obvious.

as for research there are statistics that show that fathers who actively play a positive role in parenting bring up better children than those with absent fathers.
statistics also prove that after court where parents are given a shared parental role they tend to get along for the period of bringing the child up where as when one party gets most if not all care the parents NEVER mend their bridges thus bringing up children who have hostile parents
AdelaideD said
as for research there are statistics that show that fathers who actively play a positive role in parenting bring up better children than those with absent fathers.
statistics also prove that after court where parents are given a shared parental role they tend to get along for the period of bringing the child up where as when one party gets most if not all care the parents NEVER mend their bridges thus bringing up children who have hostile parents
 
Adelaide, the word POSITIVE in your post is key here.  Of course children do better when they have a father playing a positive - healthy, normal, supportive, non conflictual etc - role.  The problem is there are many parents (male and female) who do not play a positive role.  That is where the problem lies.  Most people who can get on and have a positive interactios with their childre do not end up in court as they have worked it out themselves.

For those of us who do end up in court one or both parents are not being reasonable, or compromising or putting the best interests of the children first in many cases. 

I would like to see the statistics that show that after court when parents are given shared parental role (do you mean shared parental responsibility or shared care as they are quite clearly different things!) tend to get along.  I would have thought it is the parents that opt for shared care outside the court system and without having it imposed on them are the ones that get along!

And where do you get the statistics that when one party gets most if not all care the parents never mend their bridges?  And could you be putting the cart before the horse?  If the parents have gone to court and one parent is given most if not all care of the child there obviously must be a reason, maybe the conflict between the parents or some other reason that the parent is hostile.  It most certainly cannot be attributed to the fact that one parent has more care than the other, but to many factors.  I am equally sure that there are parents where one has most care that are not hostile. 

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

Shared Parental Responsibility Outcomes

2007-2008 Shared Parental Responsibility Statistics


The reforms to Part VII of the
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), introduced by the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 were wide-ranging. Among the most significant of those reforms was the introduction of a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and particular obligations placed on family courts to consider equal time and substantial and significant time arrangements where the presumption applies. Another important change was made to the best interest factors factors that a court has regard to in deciding what order would be in the best interests of the child who is the subject of a parenting dispute which as a result of the reforms are now divided into primary and additional considerations.  

At the same time that the Government implemented the legislative amendments referred to, it also established Family Relationship Centres around Australia and funded many other non-Government organisations to provide advice, counselling and mediation designed to assist separating parents reach their own agreements.

child custody, fathers rights, family law, shared parenting
The aim was to encourage parents to consider, where appropriate, reaching an agreement regarding parenting arrangements in the first instance themselves rather than having the court as a first option.  The agreements were intended to be reached having regard to the change of legislation.

It was axiomatic that if the cases capable of resolution were diverted from the courts then both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court would be dealing with a more difficult class of case. 

The Family Court in particular, deals with the most complex family law matters. These include parenting cases that may involve multiple parties, including those that involve a child welfare agency and/or allegations of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse of a child (Magellan cases), family violence, mental health and substance abuse issues and cases where a parent wishes to move interstate or overseas with a child.

In her State of the Nation address in 2006, Chief Justice Diana Bryant acknowledged the increasing complexity of the cases coming to the Family Court:

It is those very cases that will be dealt with in the Family Court cases of violence, abuse and entrenched conflict, which will, by their nature, be less likely to lead to the cooperative parenting that the government wants parties to have and the kind of orders that would support them.

From the commencement of the legislation the Chief Justice decided that the court would, for the first time, endeavour to keep statistics on the kind of orders that were being made with a view to understand the results that were being obtained by the parties coming to court.  In addition to the cases where Judges were making a decision statistics have also been recorded of matters coming to court but in which the parties reached their own agreement without the necessity of a decision from a Judge.

The collection of and analysis of that data has been a complex one.  Parenting orders are not particularly straight forward by their nature and can often involve some complexities which complicate the recording process.  Thus it has taken some time for the court to be in a position to be satisfied that the reports are accurate and meaningful. That point has now been reached and an analysis of the 2007-2008 shared parental responsibility statistics are now available. 



Please Note:

    • The analysis was based on 1448 finalised litigated cases and 2719 early agreement (consent) cases.
    • The data has only been collected in Family Court matters. These figures do not relate to orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court.
2007-2008 Shared Parental Responsibility Statistics in cases conducted in the Family Court of Australia. Shared Parental Responsibility - Time Spent with parents





Cases where fathers received a majority of time

    • In 17% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend more than 50% of time with their father.
    • Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 8% of cases that children spend more than 50% of time with their father.
Cases where mothers received a majority of time
    • In 60% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend more than 50% of time with their mother.
    • Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 68% of cases that the child spend more than 50% of time with their mother. 
Cases where 50/50 time was awarded[1]
    •    In 15% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders for 50/50 care between parents.
    • Where parents came to an early agreement, the parents agreed on a 50/50 care arrangement in 19% of cases.
Cases where the father received between 30% and 45% of time
    • In 14% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with their father.
    • Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 11% of cases that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with their father.
    • In 3% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with the mother.
    • Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 1% of cases that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with their mother.


Cases where the father received less than 30%of time         

In a third of litigated cases, the Family Court ordered that children spend 30% or less time with their father.  Of the 100% of this category, the main reasons for the order included:

Reason
Percentage of cases
Abuse and family violence29%
Entrenched conflict15%
Distance/transport/financial barriers6%
Relocation5%
Substance Abuse4%





Cases where the mother receives less than 30% of time



In 9% of litigated cases, the Family Court ordered that children spend 30% or less time with their mother.  The main reasons for the order include:

Reason
Percentage of cases
Mental health issues31%
Distance/ transport/financial barriers16%
Abuse and/or family violence16%
Substance abuse7%
Relocation7%


   

Cases where the father spent no time with the children

    • In 6% of litigated cases, the father was ordered to spend no time with the children.
    • Where the parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in less than 1% of cases that the father have no contact with the children.
The main reasons for the order include:
Reason
Percentage of cases
Abuse and family violence38%
Entrenched conflict10%
Distance/transport/financial barriers0%
Relocation2%
Mental health issues2%
Other42%


  

Cases where the Mother Spent No Time with the Children

    • In 1% of litigated cases, the mother was ordered to have no contact with the children. 
The main reasons for the order include:
Reason
Percentage of cases
Abuse and family violence15%
Entrenched conflict0%
Distance/transport/financial barriers8%
Relocation8%
Mental health issues31%
Other31%




Grandparents

    • In 8% of litigated cases the Family Court ordered that the child spend time with grandparents. 
    • In 2% of cases where there was an early agreement it was agreed that the child spend time with the grandparent.
    • In 2% of litigated cases the Family Court ordered that the child spend time with an other person.
    • In 1% of cases where there was an early agreement it was agreed that the child spend time with an other person.
Additional Information
    • In those cases where parents have agreed about arrangements for children to spend time with their father, 15% did not set a rigid arrangement for the father to spend time with the children.
    • In those cases that are litigated, 11% did not set a rigid arrangement for the children to spend time with their father.



[1] For data collection purposes 50/50 time was defined as between 45 % and 55% of the time spent with a child or children.

Thanks for that great information Adelaide, it is very interesting. 

I could not find anywhere in those statistics the facts that
fathers who actively play a positive role in parenting bring up better children than those with absent fathers
and
statistics also prove that after court where parents are given a shared parental role they tend to get along for the period of bringing the child up where as when one party gets most if not all care the parents NEVER mend their bridges thus bringing up children who have hostile parents
Would you be able to point that out to me please.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
larisap i tried to add more but the forum never let me, but look at the topic above this one labelled "more on this topic" but i do like how your pulling my quotes ;)  this topic effects me and the proposed laws will most definately have an impact on my trial next year. (re: the PMs we have sent)  Im dealing with someone who likes to pull every string she possibly can.
there are many topics on this very forum just look in the CSA section where families are driven apart rather than working together with separated households
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets