Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

McIntosh Rebuttal help

I'm in a bit of a McIntosh situation. Friday 13, day 3 of my family court trial the ICL, Identification deleted submits a fist thick document from McIntosh & Long to the judge and another shorter document which is supposed to nicely summarize it.


The ICL is attempting to overturn 3 equal shared care family reports conducted over 2 years with this new research. She claims contrived conflict is blameless. The ICl has never even spoken to any of the parties. I read somewhere that Dr Altobelli has McIntosh's measure. Can anyone refer me to his or other's articles?


Identification Deleted has been given this homework for cross-examination on Monday. Why me? Should I try and discredit the ICL?

Section 121 Edit

Last edit: by Agog

Yes - Albertoli wrote a seminar paper on the subject for the Young Lawyers NSW in March 2008. I have a copy of it. You can buy it online via the NSW Law Society - I think there is a DVD is well. Not sure where else this work has been published.

what does "Contrived conflict is blameless"…mean? Can you explain? Who said that? McIntosh or the ICL.

4MYDAUGHTER
Posts from this topic have been moved by members. 1 posts have been transferred to topicview. SECURE NON PUBLIC AREA

Your first post identified a 'witness'.
Technically a summary of argument is what evidence will be relied on. You CANNOT comment on the evidence in a running case.

Last edit: by Agog


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Please review the attached rebuttal document prepared by Michael Green and Jill Burrett. It is an updated version of the one in the main articles area. The McIntosh document is/has suddenly become a replacement for the Family Law Act amendments made in 2006 which took out "Entrenched Conflict" as a precluder to substantial or substantially equal parenting time.

This was one of the main gains in the amendments, yet some academic comes along with a view that conflict should preclude shared parenting time so what do we have now. We have every man and his dog and soothsayers of shared parenting doom and equal parenting time out there waving the report from the roof tops as an authoritative work.

The document is full of holes, lacking in technical detail on the sampling size and disposition or how the sample was selected,  It does not consider that all children in separated families are under stress and in fact probably in intact families. ..This document is getting much traction as an authoritative document supported by the Attorney Generals department which is absolute NONSENSE. I mentioned this to the AG's department last week and will be drafting an appropriate letter.

Please bring cases of the use of this report to our attention.

Attachment
Updated version - The Problem with caution

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
 
The rebuttal is very good; reasonable and sensible. I like the exploration of the term "caution".

I would consider doffing a hat to the less adversarial trial. Not only should studies be done on the average "shared parenting" parents, but specifically on those who have gone through the LAT.

The issue I see with manufactured or one sided conflict is that you have an immature individual being placed into a system that is adversarial. The people around them, family and friends, naturally "buy" in to that dynamic - feeding it. The only professionals around them are monetarily geared toward a trial date as receiving the largest amount of money over the course of a case.

While LATs might not gain political traction, the recognition of this will gain traction in the courts.

Politician's are $$ based. You need to show that earlier intervention will result in less money spent on going to trial because you will get healthy consent orders without trials. Consent orders that aren't contravened, because the individual/s is/are educated to accept them and abide by them.

My only other critique is in the first paragraph of the conclusion. It is not clear that "The authors" who admit to relying on small sample size are the Notes Authors. A slight amendment would clarify this.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

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

precaution for cautionary notes

With regard to “Cautionary Notes” this is not legitimate research. The sample size for high conflict is 77 parents (38 couples?) involved in family court over 3 or 4 months. The study includes in progress interim decisions and defines shared parenting as 9/5 or more. (I know I’m very unhappy with 9/5 = negative shared parenting result). The authors basically admit their limited questionnaire-based data is suspect but try to justify it with statistical methods. Nonsense you can’t correct lack of data by removing deviations – Only an agenda could give creditabilty to the generalised conclusions.


McIntosh research is cited in my judgment, listed on secure site, as the reason the family reporter back-flipped on three equal shared care recommendations during examination – a dangerous precedent. I disagree that he back-flipped. He was badgered for 1˝ days until his answers became simple yes and no responses to general questions about conflict and shared parenting. His reports had already specifically stated “I am aware of the contraindications against shared care involving a young child but in this particular case the child development is maximised by equal time with both parents”.

I would like to see the response posted from
T. Altobelli FM, “A response to `A Cautionary Tale’: Learning to paint with a fine brush,” presentation to the 8th Annual Family Law Intensive, 2008.

Last edit: by srldad101

In reply to Monster

monster said
Would you put in a order that a lawyer is to explain the provisions of the orders properly
No. This is the whole point of having a lawyer, why "poor" people are granted legal aid to allow for natural justice and it is a given.
monster said
Is a person to go through a court orders understanding course.
No. The way that Michael and Jill's document explain how someone is "educated" is that they recieve intense counselling, if they are identified as high conflict. They recieve more concilliatory mediation (telling/directing, rather than recommending) and less time in front of judges/FMs. Read the document for a more eloquent explanation of the proposal. :cool:

monster said
It has been in our case that the person made the orders by consent and always acted like they dont understand them or the obligations of them
If a person ignores or plays dumb to consent orders, they will find the subsequent orders made by the FM or Judge becoming tighter and more detailed. They will probably like them a lot less than the consent orders.

monster said
Should a conversation with a lawyer always be "Im going to win for you" or should it be, "this is the shared parenting act, this is your obligation, this is what you should expect".
 This is generally (in child matters, maybe not property) what most solicitors do. This does not prevent the client from presuming that they know better and their way is the better way.

monster said
What Artemis said in their 3rd paragraph is spooky
nothing spooky about it. We've lived it, my partner and I. I do like the sandpit analogy as immaturity is the main problem in most of these cases and why the other party cannot "behave".

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
monster said
When I started a thread about people being ordered into counselling in order reduce conflict
Where did you start that as this topic is "McIntosh Rebuttal help" started by srldad101 and we are discussing the Michael Green rebuttal of the Mcintosh report.
monster said
I was thinking along the same lines as the solution suggested of "intensive psycho-educational programs" in the research paper. I know that doesn't exist right now but building a program is something really worthwhile.
Michael Green is going to provide details from the conference he has recently returned from in the USA where this sort of intensive counselling is mandatory and ordered if a court intervention is proceeding.
monster said
…On the other thread is the court ordered parenting courses. and  In the other thread people have advised that you cant motivate people to attend at counselling and that parenting courses are more probable.
You need to copy the URL to these threads if they are in a different TOPIC or add a bit of detail such as the sentence that you refer to as I for one have limited idea what you are talking about. I am sure it is all good and valid but it is really hard to follow quickly.
srldad101 said
I would like to see the response posted from T. Altobelli FM, "A response to `A Cautionary Tale': Learning to paint with a fine brush," presentation to the 8th Annual Family Law Intensive, 2008.
I had thought this was posted already but can't quickly find it. I will see if this can be added to the library.

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
…..The ICL is attempting to overturn 3 equal shared care family reports conducted over 2 years with this new research. She claims contrived conflict is blameless. The ICl has never even spoken to any of the parties. I read somewhere that Dr Altobelli has McIntosh's measure. Can anyone refer me to his or other's articles?
I have attached an abridged version of Dr Tom Altobelli's article for you to review.

Attachment
Hot Topics in Kids Matters

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