Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011

This petition, in support of The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, has been signed by concerned citizens, and draws to the attention of the Senate the desperate need to put the protection of children from abu

This petition, in support of The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, has been signed by concerned citizens, and draws to the attention of the Senate the desperate need to put the protection of children from abuse, above a parents' rights to contact with their children, in Family Law processes and judicial decision-making.

http://flwg.com.au/forum/pg/topics/new_topic/%3Cspan%20style=

there are two sides to every arguemnent.

This is a very bias one sided  factual incomplete petition written by an "anonymous writer".

Worse petition argument I have ever read.
This "anonymous" petition has already been discussed and discredited in the topic
View topic: Contravened for following Final Orders - OUCH! - flwg.com.au .

Why is it being allowed to be represented again as standalone topic?

"Many children are being handed over by the Family Court to alleged abusers, some known to be extremely violent, some pedophiles."

So merely ALLEGING a parent to be "abusive, violent or a paedophile" should be sufficient to remove that parent from the child's life? IF you have any evidence that women are forced to share parenting with …., then publish the Austlii judgement otherwise STFU and never come back.

"Concerned parents have been labeled as 'enmeshed with the child', 'alienating', unfriendly or mentally ill and are in turn ignored and disbelieved".

And what if they are? The forensic psychiatrist doesn't label people "Paranoid, mentally ill…" for nothing - end of "delusional" story.

"They have become fearful of speaking up about abuse because they can be seen to be not fostering an ongoing relationship between the child and the abusive parent".

Where is the evidence of this fear of alleging abuse beyond self-interest anecdote. It is false to claim that because domestic violence often occurs behind closed doors, it is somehow difficult to prove. In fact, real domestic violence is easier to prove than most crimes. Medical record and forensic evidence is clear and convincing for real domestic violence, and the time and place of the crime are easy to determine.

 What is difficult is to disprove false allegations of non-serious domestic violence, so a higher standard of proof is essential to sift fact from fiction.

The Bill should be focusing on real violence,  people getting hurt or having to flee in the middle of the night for their safety and  not name calling, not suggestive behaviour or hurt feelings or swearing last year but violence. This Bill should cause every child in Australia to be parentless.

The British Columbia Family Law amendments propose only protection orders from a criminal court and not civil AVO's be considered in determining the best interests of the child. And so it should be here.
 

"Major concerns surround the unintended consequences of a growing number of children who have been killed by a parent after an order from the court has sent those children into the company of that parent. That children are killed by parents is horrendous  that it happens under the force of a court order is entirely unacceptable."

The vast preponderance of child abuse (80%) and child deaths occurs in sole maternal custody homes.  Londons Family Education Trust long ago demonstrated that 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. There is not one case of child abuse in a court mandated shared parenting arrangement yet this petition argues that any possibility of shared parenting be outlawed.
Your argument is axiomatically preposterous.

"This has been documented by the Australian Institute of Family Studies and academics such as Professor Freda Briggs, Dr Thea Brown and Dr Elspeth McInnes"

Where in the AIFS study?
As for Briggs, Brown and McInnes, the feminist Rainman and her patulous sphincters never tire of talkin thru their rear end

"Richard Chisholm states in 'The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) report into the 2006 reforms' that parents are consistently discouraged from raising family violence concerns due to the emphasis on facilitating the childs relationship with the other parent"

So what if Mr Pravda states anything, where is the evidence?

"Family Court Judges, while trained exemplary in the law, often lack foundations in dealing with children, especially those victims of family violence. There is also no legislated standard of investigations into allegations of child abuse within the Family Court nor does there exist any mechanism of accountability for decisions made within the Family Court.

 Further, section 121 of the Family Law Act prevents anyone, including the media, from exposing specific details in cases that may reveal the identities of the parties involved in matters where outrageous rulings clearly show parent's rights have outweighed the safety of children
."

What a load of delusional horseshit. There is so much stupid in those short paras that I wouldn't succeed at untangling it in 3 days.
Goes back to feminist ideology that women's allegations must be believed and judges, assisted by family reporters with PhD's in child development, must be trained to believe.
Section 121 does not prevent specific details being exposed, just the names of the parties involved which are pseudonymous.

It sure does help one's unsupported argument to have unknown victims whose imaginary details can't be revealed. Are you just smoking or graduated to injecting the substance?




repartnered_mum said
…. draws to the attention of the Senate the desperate need to put the protection of children from abuse, above a parents' rights to contact with their children, in Family Law processes and judicial decision-making.
Are you suggesting that is not the case currently in operation in the court and mediation system?
repartnered_mum said
.. there are two sides to every arguemnent.
I don't agree there are two sides to the argument (correct spelling) that children should be safe. It is a fairly hardy citizen who would argue against that principle and we as an organisation and all affiliated organisations support that view that children should be safe.

What a lot of people do not understand is that there are significant sections of various Acts that safeguard children from family violence already and any other sort of violence (school yard bullying etc.) In the case of the Family Law Act there are many sections which make the safety of children paramount.

Existing legislation
There are also a large number of case law precedents for the making of orders in such cases.
  •  A regime exists, that already allows family courts to take into account relevant considerations in matters relating to violence in s60CG,60E,  

  •  s68R and s61DA 2(a). Division 12, 60B(1)(a) and (b)60CC 2(b), 2(a) s61DA 69ZP,60CC(3)(k), 60CC(3)(k), under s60CC(j), a court can also take into account any family violence that applies to the child or a member of the childs family ,60K Court to take prompt action, 60CA,  

  •  Subsection 60K(3) provides that when considering what order (if any) should be made under paragraph 60K(2) (b) to enable appropriate evidence about the allegation to be obtained as expeditiously as possible.  

  •  One of the matters the court must consider is whether it should make orders under new section 69ZW to obtain reports from State and Territory agencies in relation to the allegations. 69ZW and 60K(3) does not limit subparagraph 60K(2)(a)(i) and the court may make other orders under that subparagraph as it considers appropriate.  

  •  Subsection 60K(4) provides that when considering what order (if any) should be made under subparagraph 60K(2)(a)(ii) to protect the child or any of the parties to the proceedings, the court must consider whether orders should be made or an injunction granted under section 68B.  

  •  Section 68B sets out the types of orders and injunctions the court may make for the welfare of a child. Subsection 60K(4) does not limit subparagraph 60K(2)(a)(ii) and the court may make other orders under that subparagraph as it considers appropriate.  

  •  Rule 10.15A of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) casts upon the Court a mandatory obligation to be satisfied that orders reached by consent deal with allegations of abuse and family violence in an appropriate way.
Some of the material that was used on the petition to support the case is nothing more than absolute dribble. Much material is so old its hardly reliable because not only have social attitudes significantly changed, many women in households are out working and there have been subsequent detailed and authoritative reports that do not suggest there are the problems that some would have us believe.

The current amendments have come after only a relatively short time in operation (only four and a half years) since legislation was passed, following the very extensive parliamentary inquiry across Australia and recommendations made in the Bi-Partisan report Every Picture Tells a Story. This
very significant report, having received the most number of submissions ever in any parliamentary inquiry, has almost been dispensed with in the lead up to the proposed and flawed amendments currently before the Parliament.

The large study undertaken through a survey of over 28,000 respondents by the Institute of Family Studies report discussion in 2010 has barely been considered, and this is very regrettable and denies due process when considering change to arguably one of the most contentious legal matters that Parliamentarians ever deal with, being Family Law.

That the Government proposes to make un-reasoned and ill thought out changes that will undoubtedly alter the landscape and course of family dealings in society for parents and children facing separation, with little or no credible evidence to support such change is quite frankly undesirable at best..

It is our firm belief that the proposed amendments, in their current form, will most certainly involve children of separating parents in vastly more complicated, litigious, lengthy, conflictual and hostile separations than Australians have ever witnessed before.

I will share with you what I think is a fairly reasoned position paper from the Council. Please feel free to make your views known after reading that and considering what we have to say.

We did ask that we were given an opportunity to give further evidence at any upcoming hearing into matters but unfortunately it seems we were not required.

TWO last things, because there has been a plethora of material discussed about the enquiry and Bill I will just mention only two more things.

FIRSTLY - Is there one single provision in the Bill that is going to lessen abusive behaviour in the community? I don't believe a single citizen is going to sit down and read the 557 pages of the Act before having an argument with a separating partner or family before raising voices or some other response to an issue. If you want to reduce family violence there is not a measure in that Bill that seems to address the community issues at the heart of matters.

SECONDLY - Would you accept that a parent, who for no good reason other than "they can" withholds child contact from the other parent after separation and for, sometimes periods of years, gets away with this practice where the other parent does not have either the financial or mental strength and fortitude to deal with a protracted and hateful case through the court system. What should we say about those sort of parents that commit to this practice? I am reasonably confident that some of the new changes will give us an opportunity to turn the tables on these cretins at last.

Attachment
SPCA submission and thoughts on the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011

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
 
srldad101 said
…..
"Richard Chisholm states in 'The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) report into the 2006 reforms' that parents are consistently discouraged from raising family violence concerns due to the emphasis on facilitating the childs relationship with the other parent"

So what if Mr Pravda states anything, where is the evidence?
In fact I quote from one of the most eminent speakers on Family Law, Prof Parkinson's own submission paper and words if I may
Professor Parkinson, Sydney University said
I support the removal of the friendly parent provision in s.60CC(3) and the costs provision in s.117AB, not because I think the courts have improperly applied these provisions over the past four years but because advocacy groups have been worried by them and these groups have offered anecdotal evidence to the effect that lawyers have advised clients not to raise domestic violence issues because of these provisions. The removal of such provisions will not in any way impair the capacity of the courts to resolve cases justly, but will have benefits in terms of community understanding of the legislation.
What more do you need to say about the standard of evidence before the Senate on this Bill?

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 didnt mean to start a topic to allow everyone to attack the petition. i am merely stating that there are two sides to this bill…people for it and those against it. and im sure people are for or against it  based on their dealings with the courts and/ or family violence, everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

 i dont know everything about the law and i wont pretend to… but from my piont of view these amendments would be benificial to many parents. it dosnt mean that more kids will be left fatherless. it dosnt leave the laws open for kids to be abused by mothers or her partner…. it means that children will be put first for once.

from what ive read, there are alot of people that are for this bill to be ammended. please dont quote me on that, but it seams from what ive been reading there is alot of support.

I do believe a child should know who both their parents are… But they must be safe in doing so.

 i also believe it is wrong that a loving, non violent parent (mother or father) should be stopped from seeing their children. i have seen this and it makes me sick that (in the 2 cases i know) a woman can just say 'no' because she knows she can turn on the tears in court and lie. liars should be held accountable for their actions.

(sorry) just to change the subject for a second…  what group (a men's group im guessing) is this site run by?
this bill has hidden agendas and shouldnt be hidden behind "childs best interest" repartnered mum dont be fooled….

like our carbon tax is gonna make the world of difference in climate change aswell….
Need to say that I agree with repartnered_mum. There are always 2 sides to a story and there are lots of points of views on this topic inpaticular.

If you are a male and have nothing to hide and have a mature relationship with your ex-partner why would you be too worried ?? If you are a male who is agressive either physically or emotionally towards your ex, well then you you would be making a great deal of noise about the changes !!

I also challenge the 'fact' that srldad stated about real domestic violence is easier to prove than most crimes. I was in a domestic violence situation for many many years but was never physically hit. I took emotional beatings and was too scared to talk to anyone about it. I was threatened, blackmailed and bullied to a point that I truely believed that I was worthless.

The magistrate who was before my hearing did not believe that I was a victim of domestic violence because I could not prove it. As, until the almost the end, I did not speak to anyone about what went on. It was my phsychologist who actually gave me enough strength to make a stand and get out of the relationship. But still, until that point I could not prove anything because I had not told anyone about it. So the magistrate believe an out and out lie of my ex-husband that I cheated on him and that was the reason he left me.

I was seen as the cheating wife, not the wife who had suffered years of torment. I now have to come face-to-face with my tormentor each and every fortnight for changeovers and he still tries to intimidate and bully me. Luckily for me I have met a wonderful man, who is helping rebuild my self-esteem and confidence, who won't let me come face-to-face with my ex without him.

I actually want my ex-hisband to have a relationship with our children. I just want to feel safe. I want our children to feel safe. I want to have a REAL address for my ex and where my children will be staying whilst with him and I want a connected phone number that I can occasionally speak with our children whilst they are with him. I want to know that if they want to ring me they can. All of which at the moment is not happening.

My new partner and I actually have a mature healthy relationship with his ex and her new husband. We are all able to discuss their children, their needs and how to best cater for them as a whole family unit. This is how it should be !! All working together for best interests of the children.

And repartnered_mum, for what it is worth, it does seem that this site is run by or at least driven by some sort of men's group. I rarely post because I only have my experience to call on and am by no means any sort of expert in family law, but I have seen many women looking for help get shot down by members and moderators alike. It is sad because all we are doing is looking for a little support and un-biased thoughts (which is one reason I came here rather than a "womens" group).
Staying safe makes good points.  There is a misconception that if a partner does not lay a hand on their spouse then they have not committed violence against them.  These amendments are there to suggest otherwise.  Threats, put downs and damage to property or cruelty to animals are acts of violence and the purpose behind them is the same - to intimidate.  Unfortunately leaving someone who behaves that way doesn't end the violence, it just gets delivered in a different way.

My ex husband made threats toward me if I didn't feel like sex, kicked the dog hard when he was angry, threw objects around the house, broke the kids' toys in front of them if they misbehaved, called me vile names, told me off in front of the kids, told me I was stupid, get up close and stare at me with an angry expression, shouted abuse at me, laughed at me when I was upset etc etc.  However he would proudly say that he never laid a finger on me!  It is not acceptable for people to behave this way and for kids to witness it is psychologically damaging.
Most reasonable people would not have an issue with two sides to every story BUT surely you firstly have to have proper evidence and you can hardly call the sort of comments made by Prof Parkinson "evidence" and secondly there is not a single shred of evidence that any of the proposed amendments will stop any violence.

If the Bill is about stopping family violence it seems to be a complete failure.

Voting in a  poll to to pass a Bill that is completely dysfunctional in the interests of making the place safer for children is simply nonsense. I wonder how many who voted on that forum did any research into what the amendments are about, or read the explanatory memorandum or in fact read the proposed Bill. If they had done any of that they would have to ask the first fundamental question and that is "How do any of the proposed sections actually reduce Family Violence?".

April makes a good point but that is not what the Bill is about. The Bill is about "after the fact" so it doesn't achieve the things April suggests are critical in the relationship. For example how does removing penalty for false allegations STOP family violence? It seems to simply say its okay to tell lies as there is no penalty. What about the fact you will no longer be able to hold public services accountable. How many horror stories have we heard from departments like DCD or DOCs when they got it wrong (Wood Case). Yes its okay to make a framework that has adequate penalties and defines what violence is, but lets deal with the fundamental issues around stopping family violence in the first place.

The site is developed by a private consortium not any of the "groups". If Staying_Safe wants a moderator role feel free to contact the site admins. Certainly the site would take on board suggestions. Basically the site is about Family Law and Child Support issues.


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
 
All good points.  But isn't the first step to stopping violence to define what it is?  Expanding the definition of what violence is to include "non contact" violence is a first step to reducing family violence.  When my ex husband stopped short of hitting me directly he did so because he knew it was illegal and socially unacceptable.  If the law extends the definition to include other acts of violence might it make people think twice before they are cruel to the family pet or throw objects against the wall to terrorise their family?  Perhaps the amendments will not change current patterns of violence, but they may be a step in the right direction to changing the paradigm of what violence is so that in the future it may be reduced.  

Removing penalties for making false allegations of abuse has good and bad points.  The good point is that removing penalties allows people to speak up about real violence that has occurred instead of feeling they must be silent.  The insidious thing about violence in the home is how it is kept secret.
  If no penalty can be imposed on people who falsify statements, how is that going to result in less violence?  To me that is making it easier for people to inflict violence on others by making false allegations.  It also opens the door for vindictive women to tell more lies than they already do so that they can get greater custody of children and reap the benefits of Child Support.
I am coming here but i do not about this law please info me about new law please tel me any one this info.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets