Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Cases of Perjury

Add Topic
Does anyone know cases resulting in the Court charging someone with perjury or contempt of court? I am under the impression the Court expects parties to make heinous accusations against each other and as one party's accusations are dismissed, so are the others. People seem to use accusation as a tactic to exacerbate emotion and create the impression of an unstable or violent person. I further believe that people do it knowing the other party won't get equal attention to or hearing of accusations and in this case it's the tactic used to distract the Court from the other party's accusations before they're made. In this it seems the parent who doesn't want their child to know the exact nature of the parents relationship for the sake of not affecting a negative view of life, the parent therefore who is the true protector of the child and the better parent, is not given the chance to prove this to the Court to duly ensure the future protection of the child. Any help with names or case studies would be most appreciated.
Although the initial part of your post regarding being in contempt of court through may be simply answered the rest of your post is more complex.

I doubt the court prefers heinous accusations and think they would rather deal with facts, the trouble is with both parties raising issues that could be false and liable it is difficult to decide what is true and relevant unless viable evidence is provided that can be tested and affirmed in a court of law. The matriarch has the duty of wading through what each party perceives as the truth. To which I am sure each party has a substantial belief there variation of event is true and they are indeed the victim.

Because of this there is a need to diminish accusations that may not be relevant to the issues at hand. You suggest that because the court defuses some allegations it creates tension which is true but if the person accepts that the court will not address the issue as it does not deem it relevant in the overall concerns for the child, then the emotional frustration will be reduced. What is important to the individual parent may not be important in the eyes of the court.

In many adversarial cases there are false accusations and allegations made by one or both parents, they are used to fulcrum the other parent out of the childs life because the parent who uses them believes they are the only one who extrudes a good influence on the child with the childs best interests at heart. This in itself is an admission of their own need to manipulate and control whilst trying to inflict Parental Alienation on the child and other parent. This can be initiated by both parents in a different way but with the same intention at heart, to destroy the child relationship with the other parent.

Whether this is an attempt to hide their true nature   of relationships etc or if it is simply because in there reality they are the victim I just don't know as each situation is individually determine.

Reflective words like " true protector " and " better parent " seem to be power words used to promote ones own need to control and push the other parent from the childs life and they should not be used or encouraged, children have the right to both parents in their lives and yes a whole heap of political correct slammers will focus on the very minimal percentage of negative cases where children need to be removed from their mothers and   father because of abusive situation and I agree if this is criminally proven it should be done but in the majority of cases the child is safe and needs a relationship with both parents.

I doubt there would be any referrals to children going to one or other parent because they are the better parent but no doubt a few referring to the environmental conditions being better suited or less suited with regards to the child.

The courts have to wade through cases that both parties make false statements and tend to dismiss them as not relevant for good reason, if they had to prosecute because of these false statements when they are proven false there would be many parents in jail and many children only seeing one parent or in foster homes.

My own daughter would have been without a mother for an extended period because of the provable lies contained in the application to the courts, I would not want this to happen it is not my daughters fault her mother could not tell the truth why should she have suffered ??????


   
To answer your question on cases re perjury and contempt, there are a plethora of these and you will need to have a look at them. Get on to Google and ask the question, you will get a big response. Furthermore have a good look at the Act relating to these offences and maybe have a look at a Bourkes publication which expands on the law and gives relevant and leading case law examples. After all this you may well find that this is not the avenue you want to pursue. It is not an easy task to take on and a very complex law to navigate, particularly in family matters.

If your case is still ongoing then you should consider dealing with the allegations and lies in a more constructive manner. The other party will have to provide a basis for them and they can't it goes against them and affects their credibility and the court would be unlikely to accept anything else they say as they will also likely be either false or highly inaccurate. IE a proven propensity to lie to the court and in affidavits.

Nearly everyone of us has false accusations made against them ranging from minor perception issues to extreme and dangerous lies. It is always important to know how to best deal with them in each case.

"When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside can not hurt you"
D4E - the foundations of learning from a parent who lies aren't solid. There is no excuse other than fear of reprisal for omitting the truth, lying is a different matter and a major matter of a child's welfare. Until such a parent learns the validity of the truth they are nothing but a damaging influence upon the child leaving the child without the secure grasp on reality which only the truth can provide, and therefore exposing the child to being persuaded. We have contact centres, why shouldn't a parent who is proven to be lying have contact conducted under supervision?
No Perjury,

I think you have some valid points and maybe the point about deceitful parents having supervised contact is warranted, however the courts are there to gauge by both parties applications which or both of the parties is capable of meeting the childrens day to day needs and providing a stable environment for the child to be raised in. I dont think the courts would want to spend ex amount of time trying to prove beyond doubt whether someone is being truthful. Each party knows full well the consequences of lies and deceit. Their children may come to see in time that a parent has been lying to them and may not want much more to do with that person in the future. I have found that just being kind ,caring understanding and being there for youre children is enough to show them you care, despite what the other party may try, if you are consistently the same person around youre children youre able to build a bond with that child and anyone would find it hard to break.
focus on what you can do now and in the future  to meet youre childrens needs, its also a good idea to raise concerns if you have any doubt about the abilities of the other parent to care for youre children ( provided the children are at risk ), but always do so with the right intentions.
The court and other party will quite likely see through most underhanded attempts.There are also other govt depts that can manage concerns about child welfare etc.
Hope this helps !!
Spock
It's interesting to assimilate fear of reprisal which infers a person has already attacked the other person and now fears what action they may take because of this attack, perhaps this is not a good reason to lie.

People lie on a daily basis and few if any have never lied or omitted truth yet they are still good parents who do their best for all around them, as a society we lie constantly to our children sometimes in their best interests, good luck with taking the moral high ground because like it or not there are aspects of our society that we need to learn how to deal with and this is also part of a childs growing up. There is a balance between loving someone who you know that lies and living this persons lies, control issues which are segregated from what is considered acceptably normal.

Have you ever considered that there are versions of the truth that can and are influenced by one persons perception of their situation and this perspective of the truth if told to the child in this bias slanted way can do more damage to the child by forcing them to be alienated from the other parent, sure as far as the parent who is initiating this slanted truth is concerned it is of course the only truth that exists but reality suggests truth lies in the middle of evidence from all parties and not just one persons perception of their situation.

So inflicting a false reality on the child is healthy because what we believe is the truth comes with our own personal bias ????

Sure we have contact centers that are already over capacitated with children who have had parents falsely accused of this that or the other, these parents have to go through the process until they can prove they can be trusted and now you think it's a good idea to put children into foster care and have both parents visit them in contact centers because there legal submissions have to be tested before a decision can be made, but not only that now all submissions will have to be removed from the family court setting and legally tested in a court of law.

All this because you have a bee in your bonnet about a few white lies or a lot of big lies that can be dealt with through our existing system which already has provisions that can cope with the situation.

In reality a child should not be exposed to any thing that has been part of the court procedure and they should be protected from this exposure, if this occurs there is no need to then expose the child to a rebuke of truth to the lies on the application, why on earth would a parent inflict the truth on a child that does not know the lies have been told and even if the other parent is informing the child of what they are saying and manipulating them there are better way of dealing with it than putting the child in the middle        
When I went to court, the magistrate promptly put an end to the allegations from the other camp, simply by reminding the other parties solicitor about an AVO that the solicitor narrowly avoided when the two previously met in court.
D4E - I should've identified my subject related to severe accusations such as those of child abuse. However your points are valid up to that level. Accusations can be life destroying. Unfortunately I am one of those with severe accusations against me, one's I was beaten up very badly and nearly killed over but which I proven are false.

Re contact centres, I forgot about the flood there. I thought of it to teach the child wariness, and meant it only in the most severe of cases.
It's a hard call to implement a system that can negotiate things as false allegations and effectively punish those who use false allegations as a weapon.

There is an inbuilt fear that allegations may have merit and most here agree that if a parent is guilty of abuse they should have the full force of the law used to bring them to justice but in saying this the same should be true for those who use accusations and lies, perjury.

There is no doubt the system is weak here for many reasons and it does need to make examples of those who perjure themselves to force alienation of the other parent or at least attempt to do this, I agree with those views. In saying this it brings into line one of those other situational things I talked about before, at times some parents convince themselves that things they suspect actually occur, this them becomes their perceived reality. We all know that sometimes an accuser will defend themselves with " I believed it was happening " and this may form the base that sways a matriarch to take them at face value as being an over concerned parent, in this sense a life line is given and an out is achieved because they were confused, sometimes it can be more beneficial to allow this indiscretion go by the weigh side as it can encourage more equal negotiations and this could be seen better than trying to make a contempt charge stick, other times the accuser doesn't take the hint and this may effectively end up giving more time to the accused parent and again this extra time may be perceived as a better solution to contempt charges.

I think the best outcome that can be achieved in some cases means not seeking contempt of court but reduced time to the offending parent with the kids, if we take the attitude that the only option is jail time it will be the kids who suffer, more and more parents from both sides will be seeking out of revenge to have the other parent jailed, evidence in most situations is already murky and in many cases both parties in part may be lying to some small extend, perhaps to embellish their own cause and only ever so slightly but it could be a very soft contempt charge that could follow.

But in saying this I do agree in cases where it is proven that not only has the accuser lied but actively sought to further alienate the other parent as well as use similar liable tactics after being warned not to follow that path, well then there needs to be an example made of this behavior.

I'm not sure it will be beneficial to the kids to encourage them to be wary of one or other of the parent after all it could be as a parent they are OK but in the fight to get their own way they are evil and unscrupulous and to tell the truth I doubt jail time will not alter their behavior but act as a well served deterrent for others.

I also tend to think what we can use against the other parent could also be utilized as another tool that may be manipulated and used against us perhaps at earlier stages, we go in with intention of achieving punishment for the other parent then we miss the real reason we are there, for the kids.

Time better served promoting oneself's positive features than starting a witch hunt if you get what I mean.               

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 117AB

Costs where false allegation or statement made    

         (1)  This section applies if:

                     (a)  proceedings under this Act are brought before a court; and


                     (b)  the court is satisfied that a party to the proceedings knowingly made a false allegation or statement in the proceedings.



             (2)  The court must order that party to pay some or all of the costs of another party, or other parties, to the proceedings.


It is a bit of a blunt instrument - the courts do not like to use it.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
monteverdi said

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 117AB

Costs where false allegation or statement made  

 (1) This section applies if:

 (a) proceedings under this Act are brought before a court; and


 (b) the court is satisfied that a party to the proceedings knowingly made a false allegation or statement in the proceedings.



 (2) The court must order that party to pay some or all of the costs of another party, or other parties, to the proceedings.


It is a bit of a blunt instrument - the courts do not like to use it.
Yes, but SRL's incur very little or no costs, sic, what costs can be awarded to a Self Represented litigant?
If costs cannot be awarded then what punishment should take effect?


Monaro - none, you have to hope that the statements: 'he is a child abuser, he is a wife beater' etc are made out of the courtroom, it then becomes a matter for defamation. I will post more on this later.

The best way of dealing with false allegations in court is to remain calm and and deal with it in your affidavit.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
D4E - Your third paragraph is an excellent example of a true and horrible position to be in; to suspect but not know or be necessarily able to prove child abuse.

However there are ways to deal with such fears that do not involve making direct statements without proof, although not in all cases. To this extent a parent can make an application to the Court on an ex-parte basis to stave off damage should they be wrong.

The law is concerned with fitness, and defines a fit and proper person to be such a person that would first consider the affect of an accusation of such depth before making it. A fit parent would under all circumstances consider the affect upon the child. A fit and proper person seeks the truth not harm. An unfit person is likely to make inflamatory statements at any opportunity to any other person especially those closest to the other party, mutual friends etc in order to alienate the other parent socially and use the full affect of social condemnation to weaken the other parent to affect a mental condition and create the appearance of a un-fitness before the Court. This is psychological assault; that causing mental harm or impairment.

Any parent who is prepared to be evil in any circumstance has an evil component to their personality, a foundation, hence it cannot be established when such 'evil' will rise again. In syaing this, if a parent has no regard for the other parent, then it would be right to assume they have no regard for that half of the child. Should and when the child show the personality traits of the other parent that evil is more than likely to resurface.

Accusations of child abuse are far too common, are outrageously damaging to all mostly the child, and may in turn create confusion within the child perpetrated by the 'evil' parent and leave a child vulnerable to predators in the future.

Two great problems we have in society are, people who falsely claim abuse, and those who abuse, although it's hard to tell the latter from the former.

A confused child is lkely to develop into a confused adult and is throughout their life therefore vulnerable to predatorial people, con artists, rapists etc.

Furthermore.. the issue is of knowingly lying before a court of law and under oath to persuade a result and course of action the law would not otherwise undertake should the truth only be tabled.

Would psychometric testing and other forms of psycho analysis, possibly 3 or 4 different tests from 3 or 4 different fields of study cover some of the ground requried to identify the truth and the correct course of action, coupled with the right to appeal the process for the sake of reform?

One major point missed actually is the conduct of lawyers. Lawyers need to be held accountable for presenting false, misleading or unquantified/unquantifiable statements in evidence before the Court. Such evidence is likely to be discussed at home, and more than likely without regard for the presence of the child at the time of conjuring up the idea/plan.

Any lawyer who presents such statements to the Court, is contributing to the potential harm of a minor, aiding the demise of the situation and therefore a child's life.

The point made by D4E that time is granted or removed dependantly is an excellent way to deal with the problem. However such a person neglectful of the truth is also of their child's future, and is likely to invite future trouble such as an equally neglectful new partner who by law of nature will not have the same level of regard for the child as even a neglectful parent. What mental or psychological abuses is the child likely to be exposed to? Should the child be left alone in the company of such a parent who feeds the law lies, without regard for the law, society and all it stands for is potentially aiding that child to grow with a rebellious nature. Once the child is old enough to hear/understand what the law is supposed to stand for, due process, protectionism etc, further rebellion caused by the confusion of the said virtue of the law versus the reality of their life and upbringing is likely to result in severe rebellion.

Supervision would wear this down and expose the parent to the controls for fear of influence we use for drug affected/alcoholic parents now, behaviour can be and is judged on the basis it elimates risk.

The DoCS system falls way short of the mark as it's guidelines are not clear, and review is not medically conducted.

And yes examples need to be made of such people.
?NoPerjury said
However there are ways to deal with such fears that do not involve making direct statements without proof, although not in all cases. To this extent a parent can make an application to the Court on an ex-parte basis to stave off damage should they be wrong.
What are you talking about? what 'ex-parte' application to stave off damage?

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
This was done to me. Full custody to the other party by a local court on claims of family violence. I have to date not had a hearing in any court of my side of the story, although hearing is now pending at the Family Law Court.
?NoPerjury said
This was done to me. Full custody to the other party by a local court on claims of family violence. I have to date not had a hearing in any court of my side of the story, although hearing is now pending at the Family Law Court.

This is not an uncommon occurrence but are you saying it was ex-parte? and it was an interim decision?

You previous statement
?NoPerjury said
However there are ways to deal with such fears that do not involve making direct statements without proof, although not in all cases. To this extent a parent can make an application to the Court on an ex-parte basis to stave off damage should they be wrong.

Was disputed because it would misdirect other readers.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
It would be a mistake to think family law deals with " The Law " in the same way other organisations do. There is an enormous amount of flexibility applied and interpretation.

There are degree's of fitness that again are open to rationalization and excuses due to the amount of mental pressure that comes with separation, assimilation of fears into concerns for the children can be debated till the cows come home but in some cases it does get to the stage that some people can start to believe their children are in danger without any real rational proof. We often see reactions after a media event that have negative effect on good parent because one or other of the parents becomes concerned that the other parent may act in a similar way, an example is when a father kills his children and himself there is an enormous amount of media coverage and then the debate about the safety of children with fathers starts all over again yet a mother kills her children and there is limited media release which usually covers quantifying an excuse for her. Social conscious. This however does not take into account public defamation and that I would suggest  needs to be dealt with outside the family court.

In saying that there is an understanding of this it does not mean evidence to the contrary is ignored, as Monti suggests the way in which things are dealt with will show the matriarch if both parties are adversarial or just one.

Evil is such a strong word and perhaps one that does describe the actions of the person but not the person themselves but rather their actions and reactions to their situation. It makes no sense to relate this to the child and the love both the parents have for the child but I will admit I can understand and have seen this happen in a limited amount of situations, I know my daughter at times has been alienated by her half siblings due to her resemblance to my family but it was short lived and out of jealousy. In many cases as time passes the situation changes and the more fathers stay involved with their kids, the more they push for more contact time and the more they become involved in their kids life the more society will react badly to parents who actively try to alienate. A lot is dependent on how we react or more to the point how we don't react negatively and adversarialy but what we do to counteract the problems positively.

Yes I agree false accusations are far too frequent and there is a lack of incentive not to abuse the system in this manner, many false allegations are dropped soon after family court starts but this does not mean damage has not already been done.  

Yes it's a double edged sword if we do not take seriously claims of abuse could we be leaving a child in an abusive situation, is it better to remove the child from the company of the accused abuser meaning a false allegation tactic works or do we leave the child in the care of a true abuser in a minimal amount of cases, do we take into consideration most abusers are close family members and friends and not the fathers ??

I know of adults who have had their childhood memories manipulated until they have been brainwashed and they remain confused but loyal to their abusers, funny thing is this form of mental abuse has come from their mothers created to alienate them from their fathers, this is a much more common type of abuse.

Family Court is not a full court and evidence can include hearsay but evidence that has clarity and confirmation presented correctly will produce results, their needs to be a certain amount of acceptance of what a person is saying in the family court and unless an argument is made to counter lies consideration will be given. The problem is domestic violence does exist and many true victims of domestic violence tend not to want to speak out  so when it is mentioned it does need to be listened to, unfortunately there are those out there who abuse this fact and exploit it.

Analysis is always an option but as you will read there are bias professionals out there with their own agendas, perhaps if they were made accountable for their analysis it could make a difference but at this point the reliability is questionable.

An affidavit only contains lies when it is tested in court so its hard to predetermine who is lying without tabling it, and again the family court is more forgiving I suspect the reason for this is to try and reduce conflict, I believe the other parent may well go on the attack if to much emphases is given to a lie rather than just dismissing it's relevance and then we see a battle of the roses situation flare up with the children then becoming material possessions.
  
A layer presents information from their client as if it is the truth because they can not present known lies. They believe their clients are telling the truth and they present it thus, yes we all know they employ tactics that do not meet this criteria but if you ask them they will state their client presented the information as the truth. How are you going to prove they are lying when they state this as the truth unless their client gives them up.

I'm a few years down the track from the initial conflict that saw my daughter refused contact with me by her mother the lies and abuse that occurred from her mother and damage that has been done will not be forgiven it is the past and you move forward. There are still games being played and manipulation of my daughter in her other home, lies are still being told damage is still occurring, her other home is not the best of environments and to tell the truth it does not need to be.

My daughter deserves to know both her parents equally and she has equal time with both of us, it's not always easy and sometimes it does my head in but it's my daughter not her parents who deserves this and the effort it takes to keep it going. It's my job to guide her through the mess her mother and I created, to love and accept her mother and respect her but still be of a mind to have and formulate her own opinion. N.P. you mention the negative influences of the other parent and how they can shape a childs life in a bad way and this is so true but it is also why we need to fight to spend time with our kids, I don't believe part of this is to remove them from the other parent I do believe part of this is to show by example other ways of dealing with things, give them the tools to make their own choices whilst accepting others it gives them so much more and will help them see people for what they are, kids rebel even the best of them so we can't prevent this there is so much information available to kids today and I have no doubt they are confused about so many issues the best we can hope for is to stay connected to them and this means parents have to start taking the time for their kids in all environments, seeing dad every second weekend and half the holidays is not enough in my opinion but in some cases it's a damn sight more time they would have spent together before separation and this time needs to be treasured and nurtured.

The system is not personal and it's important we react to it in a non personal way to be most efficient.

What can I do legally, how do I approach this in a legal manner, these are what should be looked at and there main basis " In The Best Interests of my Child ", what the other parent says and does hurts in many ways but forget about attacking them and fight for your childs rights to both parents. Good or bad both of you are their parents.

   

      
Agog said
?NoPerjury said
This was done to me. Full custody to the other party by a local court on claims of family violence. I have to date not had a hearing in any court of my side of the story, although hearing is now pending at the Family Law Court.
  This is not an uncommon occurrence but are you saying it was ex-parte? and it was an interim decision?

You previous statement
?NoPerjury said
However there are ways to deal with such fears that do not involve making direct statements without proof, although not in all cases. To this extent a parent can make an application to the Court on an ex-parte basis to stave off damage should they be wrong.
Was disputed because it would misdirect other readers.
 

Both yes mainly I believe to enable government financial assistance to the other party, still in receipt of both benefits and legal aid whilst medical evidence proves whose lawyers make medical assumptions and write letters containing foul language.

Re-reading what I wrote, my approach is wrong. If someone suspects abuse, it would be wrong to make the accusation without supporting evidence such as a counsellors report. Anyone who genuinely thought there was abuse involved, should identify the possibility with people experienced in identifying the symptoms and not be able to make unsubstantiated assucations of such depth. This is where lawyers come in. Does anyone know whether there is law governing a lawyers administration of a case in this regard?
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets