Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Adelaide - Feminist Anti-Shared Parenting Conference 13-15 April 2005

BriarRose/katie said
 Have you considered that it is in the interests of a misogynist lawyer to use creative means to turn a non-hostile separation into a 'high conflict' one for his own selfish purposes?
Yes of course that is possible. My point is not so much about this specific lawyer, but that lawyers are people who might place their own agenda or greed above the 'Family Law Guidelines' and the childrens' best interests.
BriarRose/katie said
 Where I live there is such a 'lawyer 'who - has caused countless damage to literally hundreds of separating couples who had an initial intention to separate amicably.
This simply enforces my later point about why these people are still practising- despite being 'known' and reported to the Law Society. Why?
BriarRose/katie said
  Women are labeled as 'money gouging, fatherhood denying, liars' when they usually are loving, caring and nurturing mothers.

Should we be more careful of our posts here to avoid reinforcing stereotypes of both men and women?
No intention was implied to discriminate on gender. I accept that slime exists in the legal profession- male and female.
BriarRose/katie said
 I agree, but the question is, why do people who started out with the intention of separating amicably choose to believe these types of lawyers?
Such lawyers are skilled at creating such an air of mistrust, anger and hatred; where cooperation and respect generally existed at the start. I suppose most sensible people (with limited financial capacity) would quickly choose NOT to believe their lawyer's advice and sack them before too much damage is done.

Unfortunately, a few *wealthy* individuals prefer to exert their control and influence over the other parent through the means that has already been established. (I'm going through defending yet another application - 18months post substantive trial and final orders- which took more than 4 years to come before a judge, and cost both parties in excess of $250k).

If one parent has endless buckets of money - whereas the other parent does not due to the circumstances of divorce (I'm a father in the same situation that most women find themselves in post separation. eg the home carer suddenly no longer receiving income by way of distributions from the highly paid professional spouse) it is easier to let the lawyer do all the work for you while you earn 15 times the salary of the other parent. Child support calculations become the focus of where the children should live- rather than accepting that the other parent wants to share the parenting equally - you might as well try to get full custody and drain the other parent financially in the process.

I don't know the answer to the question, but I suggest that irrational behaviour starts to set in once a case drags on for so long and costs so much- it becomes a crusade to win? Oh and the lawyer does not want to end the case quickly with such a generous client!
DACC said
My point is not so much about this specific lawyer, but that lawyers are people who might place their own agenda or greed above the 'Family Law Guidelines' and the childrens' best interests. 
Thanks DACC.

If you and I both expressed our point that way, it would save either of us risking offence to somebody who has already suffered at the hands of that type of lawyer.
DACC said
No intention was implied to discriminate on gender. I accept that slime exists in the legal profession- male and female.
Thanks again DACC

To be honest, I always suspected you did not intend to discriminate.

However, this site is used by both men and women who have been hurt through the system, often badly, and to use one example which may be seen to add to a gender stereotype without using a balancing example can help to build the stereotype.

I understand you probably don't have a counter example such as I did, but the way you put it the second time makes the point without feeding any stereotype. 
That matters to me, so thank you.
DACC said
Such lawyers are skilled at creating such an air of mistrust, anger and hatred; where cooperation and respect generally existed at the start.
I agree entirely.

Having been on the receiving end of that type of experience, I think it is really important that we ALL take care how we express our experiences and make our points in ways that do not feed the types of atmosphere these people seek to create with their generalized stereotypes.

Cheers

Katie



Jadzia said
I think it important to remember that at the basis of Pia's article is that in SOME instances the changes are putting children at risk by forcing time with a parent who is abusive.
Why is the parent abusive? Our view is that the witholding of contact is one of the main and primary factors in "abusive" situations AFTER separation. This leads to "Entrenched Conflict" which as you know has been removed from the Family Law Act as a preluder to effect s65DAA the key section relation to ensuring equal or substantially equal time is looked at.

Why are the children at risk?  What risk?  Risk they do not see the other parent?

If there was a presumption of equal parenting time I would be surprised if there was ANY conflict after separation OR in fact leading up to it if the parties knew that they had in law to effect a substantial time arrangement after separation.

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