Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Helpful? Or Not?

It is important that comments made in any forums regardless of where they are reflect accurate commentary, caring and reasoanble advice. Careful review of articles before engaing mouth can often avoid serious slip ups

Posted in another forum.
I just found out my wife wants a divorce. Where to from here?

I couldn't care less if she was the only one involved, however my beautiful 10 month baby boy will be traumatised by her and her spiteful family.

What avenues do I have to protect this warm and loving child?

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Sad and confused Dad
An hour later he gets this response:
She has total power and will be incited to hurt you and your kids by everybody she see about the issue. Stay away from the courts … agree with everything she does and says.
Not exactly a helpful or caring response. Is this person a loose cannon, maverick or just plain stupid?

And today he posts this:
To All, A shocking article. Phycologist (Expert?) Jill Burnett says shared parenting is bad for young kids !!! and that it won't work if there's conflict (eg: when one parent is denying "Contact"). And I thought Michael Green was a good guy! Whats he doing collaborating with this Burnett idiot? I've got an idea. Why don't we leave the laws the same and have Family Relationship Centres. That way fathers mediate about the mother's power to unilaterally remove the children and have their decision protected by court unless there is a Final Hearing.
He has, of course, totally misread the article and then proceeds to attack Jill Burrett and Michael Green.

The quote was actually from Professor McIntosh.

He is referring to Jill Burrett (he cannot even spell her name and he had the article in front of him!), co-author with Michael Green on Shared Parenting. Work from MG is on this site under Shared Parenting. Both are shared parenting advocates and 'Good Guys'.

Now again is this person a loose cannon, maverick or just plain stupid?

That Person

Conan said
Is this person a loose cannon, maverick or just plain stupid?
That Person has been, is and will continue to be a loose cannon, maverick AND just plain stupid.

Sadly, in his case the FCA judge got it right:
On Sunday 6th November 2005 3:48 pm That Person said
Justice Carter (the Judge) determined that I was argumentative and uncooperative and that this was supported by the fact that I had arguments with the psychiatrist and psychologist (no attention was given to the arguments - just that I was argumentative), both of whom maintained that the problem was that I wouldn't listen. Both concluded that I therefore must behave in the same manner with my daughter (despite reams of evidence to the contrary).

Justice Carter also pointed to the fact that I had made numerous complaints about lack of co-operation, bias and misrepresentations, of the Child Representative and the excessive use of psychiatry and psychology to obtain legal objectives (which finally ended in my daughter breaking down in the psychologist's office).

All my complaints to all relevant official government and legal bodies have been officially dismissed despite the Child Representative's misrepresentation being evidenced by court transcript.
I wonder why?  Why have so many people in the courts, government, 'professionals' and other separated Dads, dismissed what this man has said?  Could it be because he is argumentative, uncooperative, opinionated, doesn't listen, gives bad advice, lacks respect for others and doesn't treat them with dignity and respect. And did I mention his callous, vicious and unsympathetic campaigns of attack on those who dare not rollover and agree with him.

More about That Person from his own mouth.
A shocking article Phycologist (Expert?) Jill Burnett says shared parenting is bad for young kids !!! and that it won't work if there's conflict (eg: when one parent is denying "Contact").
And I thought Michael Green was a good guy! Whats he doing collaborating with this Burnett idiot?
I've got an idea. Why don't we leave the laws the same and have Family Relationship Centres. That way fathers mediate about the mother's power to unilaterally remove the children and have their decision protected by court unless there is a Final Hearing. …on the  basis of Burnett's  assertions, and "erring on the side of caution"

Regards,

Simon

Who Said What ... Judge for Yourself

Simon Hunt said
A shocking article Phycologist (Expert?) Jill Burnett says shared parenting is bad for young kids !!! and that it won't work if there's conflict (eg: when one parent is denying "Contact").

And I thought Michael Green was a good guy! What's he doing collaborating with this Burnett idiot?

I've got an idea. Why don't we leave the laws the same and have Family Relationship Centres. That way fathers mediate about the mother's power to unilaterally remove the children and have their decision protected by court unless there is a Final Hearing … on the  basis of Burnett's  assertions, and "erring on the side of caution"

Regards,

Simon
Judge for yourself who said what.  It was NOT Jill Burrett who said what Simon claims but Jenn(ifer) McIntosh (a well-known anti-father psychologist):
Claire Scobie in the Sunday Life Magazine said
Since July 2006, a quiet revolution has been going on in family law, following the amendment to the Family Law (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act. The changes recognise a child's right to a meaningful relationship with both parents (except where violence or child abuse are involved) and encourages mediation with the assistance of nationwide Family Relationship Centres.

"Instead of saying we'll ration out appointed time to Dad with access or visitation, we say we'll now start halfway," says psychologist Jill Burrett, co-author with Michael Green of the book Shared Parenting: Raising Your Children Cooperatively After Separation. But there's a long way to go: 80 per cent of children from separated families still live in sole-mother custody arrangements and as many as one third have little or no contact with their father. "Still, if children sense their parents want a 50/50 timeshare because each parent can't bear the other having more time," says Burrett, "the children feel more like possessions to be fought over than people to be loved."

This sense of being an emotional football is deeply corrosive. Ben says that he "never had divided loyalties" and loves both his parents equally. He believes that's because, generally, they got on. That is until last year, when they fell out over financial issues. "Then I was in the middle," he says, grinning sheepishly. "So I could get away with a lot - I'd say I was at one place when I wasn't and they wouldn't check because Mum wouldn't talk to Dad."

After 15 years of controlling her emotions, Nicola Tomlin, Ben's 48-year-old mother, let go. "It was horrible. Poisonous," she says. "It was very hard on Ben, who was shocked to see how angry (with Philip) I was." Tomlin took two part-time jobs on top of her day job as an editor and Ben had to take on more responsibility, babysitting his younger sister. His schoolwork suffered. "Year 9 he was all over the place," says Tomlin. "One time he was out till 2am. Then I had to have words with his father."

Subsequently, his parents are talking again and Philip pays for his son's private education. There's a downside, though, for Ben, who "has to deal with us being a team again," laughs Tomlin.

Although the law promotes shared parenting, it's a model that doesn't always work with infants, "who can inadvertently lose attachment with both parents," says Dr Jenn McIntosh, adjunct associate professor at La Trobe University's school of public health and the clinical director of Family Transitions, a family psychology consultancy. "It's a huge developmental dilemma for infants and toddlers when given shared time between parents. A two-year-old can't cope with four overnights away from their primary carer. It's terribly important for adults to get the pace right. Teens often cope better - or with their feet."



John indulges his daughter, complains his ex; Juliette says her mum is strict. Two homes means two sets of rules. "In traditional families, mothers are good at the warm, fuzzy things; fathers at fun and discipline," says Jill Burrett. "Both need to become all-rounders when they separate. The mother's got to be tougher than before."

Two homes mean parallel, shiftwork parenting. You're either on or off duty. It's also two of everything. "I like that. I get two sets of clothes," says Juliette. "If they were together, I wouldn't spend as much time - quality time - with them as I do." But being a yo-yo is tiring - especially for early teens whose hormones are haywire. For Ben, having two houses is ideal. "My friends are jealous. You can be irritated by parents, so 50/50 is just right. Just before the part where it gets irritating, you swap."

Shared parental care also doesn't work where there's ongoing conflict, says McIntosh. "These children live between two deeply divided worlds and they become a divided - rather than a shared - child. They have to cross a no-man's land and put up with hostile fire from one parent about the other."

Indeed, exposure to conflict is the clincher, says Dr Susie Sweeper, a psychology lecturer at Deakin University's school of psychology, who also runs post-separation parenting groups at the Family Mediation Centres in Victoria. "Arguing when the child has gone to bed doesn't mean they're not listening," she warns. "A telephone conversation with a best friend bagging the partner is still exposure."
vascopajama said
A shocking article Phycologist (Expert?) Jill Burnett says shared parenting is bad for young kids !!! and that it won't work if there's conflict (eg: when one parent is denying "Contact").
I assume you mean Psychologist Jill Burrett, (not Burnett) co-author with Michael Green of the book "Raising Your Children Cooperatively After Separation".

Where did Jill make the statement you refer to Vascopajama? I could not see this anywhere in the article. Could you please paste the relevant section as I must be missing something. I did see something from Dr Jenn McIntosh, adjunct associate professor at La Trobe University's school of public health about shared parenting not working with long periods of contact away for young children and when parents are hostile. There is also some comment from Dr Susie Sweeper, a psychology lecturer at Deakin University's school of psychology who states "Indeed, exposure to conflict is the clincher,…."
vascopajama said
And I thought Michael Green was a good guy! Whats he doing collaborating with this Burnett idiot?
Michael Green QC (and Jill Burrett) has been one of the most staunch supporters of shared parenting so I am not sure why you would suggest otherwise. I have had many meetings with Michael in and out of Parliament house or on legislative review committee's and this statement you make is just simply not correct.
vascopajama said
I've got an idea. Why don't we leave the laws the same and have Family Relationship Centres. That way fathers mediate about the mother's power to unilaterally remove the children and have their decision protected by court unless there is a Final Hearing. …on the basis of Burnett's assertions, and "erring on the side of caution"
Not sure what you are really saying here. As you know the laws were significantly amended in July 2006. The FRC's were introduced and Mediations are taking place. Many successful mediations are occurring if you speak to the respective heads of the Family Relationship Centres.

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
 
There is an old saying "Better to be thought an idiot, than open ones mouth and remove all doubt".

I suppose the same applies to writing? Especially since there was already a topic in another forum about the idiotic post.

Perhaps vascopajama should read carefully before writing anything.

Leibe Gott!

This person has all the street credibility of an East German Trabant with go faster stripes!

It would be best for all concerned if this person stopped posting on this site and posted else where.

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. 
Yes it looks like I've attributed these comments to Jill Burrett when it should have been McIntosh.

When I saw those remarks I saw red!

I'll re read it.

I may have to apologise to Jill Burrett !

As for Conan's remarks I guess they're in keeping with his ficticious character.


An apology that isn't an apology but another stupid attack

Another STUPID attack on a good person by Simon HUNT.
vascopajama said
When I saw those remarks I saw red!
Many a mistake is made when people act REACTIVELY Simon.  It is better to note your feelings and both check what you've read or seen and to think about your considered RESPONSE (not reaction).  And it is wise to not react immediately, but to leave things for a few hours to give you time to work through the consequences and ramifications of your intended actions.
vascopajama said
I may have to apologise to Jill Burrett !
And also to Michael Green. You sledged him too Simon.
vascopajama said
As for Conan's remarks I guess they're in keeping with his fictitious character.
Wise people note and consider criticism. They may eventually see no merit in it, but they don't just dismiss it out of hand. Especially when it is obvious that they've made yet another foot-in-mouth gaffe.

Little wonder Simon has been labelled as 'argumentative and uncooperative' and it's been said that he 'wouldn't listen'.

Then today (31 January 2008) Simon posted the following:
Elsewhere Simon said
To Jill Burnett,

Please accept my apologies for my unkind remarks about you (below). They are hereby withdrawn.

I was so rattled by what I was reading I didn't realise that it was Dr. Jen Mcintosh who stupidly criticised shared parenting in the article, not you.

I note however that you were quoted as suggesting shared parenting could be bad if "each parent can't bare the other having more time".

Perhaps Claire Scobie got it wrong here. This sounds like something Dr. Jen Mcintosh would say. Fancy suggesting that denying contact with one parent would causes problems only if the denied parent didn't like it !!!

Regards,
Simon Hunt
Family Law Action Group
Mornington
Despite what's been pointed out here Simon still misspells Burrett's surname as "Burnett".

He then offers his apologies.

Finally he provides a PARTIAL quote from Burrett, combines it with what two other women may or may not have said and undoes his apology with another misconstrued attack on Burrett.

By not quoting fully what Burrett is quoted as having said, Simon is able to redefine and change what Burrett said and thus manufacture for himself the basis for his second slur.
Here's the Sunday Life Magazine quote of what Jill Burrett said
"Instead of saying we'll ration out appointed time to Dad with access or visitation, we say we'll now start halfway," says psychologist Jill Burrett, co-author with Michael Green of the book Shared Parenting: Raising Your Children Cooperatively After Separation. But there's a long way to go: 80 per cent of children from separated families still live in sole-mother custody arrangements and as many as one third have little or no contact with their father. "Still, if children sense their parents want a 50/50 timeshare because each parent can't bear the other having more time," says Burrett, "the children feel more like possessions to be fought over than people to be loved."
Burrett did NOT say, as Simon suggests, that "shared parenting could be bad" or that "denying contact with one parent would causes problems only if the denied parent didn't like". She wasn't focussing on the parents but on the children - which is the theme of the article: "the children feel more like possessions to be fought over than people to be loved".

Burrett was talking about the thoughts and feelings of children, whose parents may be fighting over custody and residence time, NOT about the virtues or otherwise of shared parenting.
monteverdi said
This person has all the street credibility of an East German Trabant with go faster stripes!

It would be best for all concerned if this person stopped posting on this site and posted else where.
Elsewhere uncorrected or here where he can be jumped on and refuted?

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.

WWW = Who? What? Where?

Jadzia said
Elsewhere uncorrected or here where he can be jumped on and refuted?
Both Jadzia.  Elsewhere, copied here and here as vascopajama / Simon Hunt.
You three guys are an interesting bunch of anonymous creeps. Either you're all doing it because you get off on it or there's some other reason.

I have been passionate and completely open in all my postings.

If I was having a go at some one I'd never stoop to doing it anonymously. And I certainly wouldn't have the desire to attack someone personally, to the extent you've attacked me.

Your criticisms of my apology to Jill Burrett are absurd. My comments about why one parent wants more contact - completely valid. As for your cut and paste hatchet job - I'm impressed. Its verging on shrill. This and previous postings from you leave me wondering … .You have to admit attacking me rather than what I've proposed looks lame.

You know who I am and my number so please give me a call. State your case. I could be completely wrong, in which case I wouldn't hesitate to apologise to you too. I'll have learned something more than what I've learned about your dark little world today. What a way to shut down discussion. I'd be very surprised if anybody questioned the status quo mentality here for a while.

An honourable public apology

Unfortunately I have entered into this rather late today and lost my response post when a PC hung up tonight. There are some important points here.

Firstly Vascopajama has come out and admitted he was incorrect and publicly apologised to Jill (A copy of that email reached me today). That in itself and alone is certainly meritorious and few if any on the other side would be as forthcoming. The one thing I have to say about vascopajama is that he is a stayer, an intensely passionate man and believes most sincerely in the aims and aspirations of shared parenting. These people are few and far between and passion is something we need in this dismal business of trying to change decades old acrhaic laws and policies.

These posts are in the public domain. If there are further commentaries then feel free to phone and sort out what needs to be said because the comments need to be made in private forums. Vascopajama was at the LFAA conference last year and was also at numerous other events. There is dedication and support that surely deserves some support… We are lucky we can all come together and talk about the real issues and look back on some of our indescretions as minor in the scheme of things… Your comments are noted, accepted as sincere and you can be sure Michael Green QC, a more honourable and generous person you could not meet, will not be dissapointed…  :thumbs:




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