Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Search – Forums

Your search gave 21 results:

Post #40678 by DACC on January 11th 2012, 5:58 PM (in topic “Can my Ex stop me from moving with my dauhter”)

Can my Ex stop me from moving with my dauhter:

Sorry to say- I have Orders, but my ex has decided to move interstate without my consent, without mediation (specified mandatory in the Orders) and the move in total contravention of the orders. The amount I have now spent on legal fees is getting up near $200k, so affording legal representation is getting very "difficult" for me- to say the least. My kids have been poisoned about their home (where we live) and sugar-coated stories about the new place (which they have never seen)- the warm weather, the proximity to the beach and pop stars ("our new house is a few houses from Silverchair") apparently.

I don't even have an address and can't do much at the moment as the legal system is still closed for holidays, and no Orders have 'officially' been broken as the kids are supposed to be with their mother until school goes back.

So much for Equal Parental Responsibility!

Good luck with your case!

Go to post

Post #10766 by DACC on June 7th 2008, 1:06 PM (in topic “Family Dispute Resolution - Phase 3”)

Family Dispute Resolution - Phase 3:

Jon Pearson said
Bizarre.- actually formalising a denial to justice on the basis of a 'parental' type view of the applicants.

"Oh you two - if only you could sit down over a nice cup of tea'

3) Complex and silly law - lawyers busy with that



Denying cases and making it even more difficult to get speedy decisions is idiocy and continued systematic abuse.

 

Jon you are making sense, particularly given the already ridiculous time frames for getting a Trial heard to bring things to a quick resolution and reduce legal fees getting there. (Mine took 4 years and the legal fees added up over this time were more than I earn in 5 years. Clearly a speedy trial would have saved me a lot of money.)

However, if you think you will 'get justice' simply by coming before a judge I think you are missing the point.

I agree with you that unfortunately our FRC's and mediators are generally very poorly trained to deal with and resolve the issues- by focusing on the 'perceived conflict' rather than the best alternatives for children. Unfortunately the psychobabble BS that most FRC and Mediators is driven by the likes of Jen McIntosh and as this offers no solutions other than 'stop the conflict' it is unlikely to affect the behaviour of litigious parents who want lawyers to do their bidding.

Luckily not everyone can AFFORD to waste these amounts of money and just the act of getting them into a room away from their lawyers can and often does result in both parents opting to 'sort out the arrangements' by consent.

I have witnessed a 'conflicting parent' coming to her senses in a POP course- and I can say emphatically that it was not anything that the course offered that made that parent change her view of the other parent- it was in her words' listening to the other participants and considering their views' that made her change her mind. So there is an argument that 'they really do have good outcomes' -even if it was nothing that the course offered apart from a peer group. For the other 5 participants on the course- nothing changed.  Obviously the courses, the mediation and counselling needs to improve dramatically in my anecdotal opinion.

Moving the onus to 'fix' things and actually provide results onto the FRC and mediators might actually force them to do their job better. I do like to be positive about this alternative because I believe our current Family Court system (and associated unethical lawyers) are not conducive to 'reducing the conflict' - they encourage you to 'win' at whatever the cost (that's how to drum up legal fees) and our law society stands by idly watching unethical lawyers continue to practice.

Courts in general should be a last resort- where criminals are brought to justice - not 'conflicting parents'.

So now the problem lies with the FRC and Mediators, its up to the government to properly fund and educate them so they are 'not just psychobabbly trained interferons' - which at the moment I would have to agree with you that's exactly what they are.

It's going to be a big task for them to start becoming more accountable for their funding and to stop being so influenced by 'feminist propaganda' or poor scientific research.

Go to post

Post #10744 by DACC on June 6th 2008, 10:13 PM (in topic “ABC 7:30 Report Tuesday 3th June 2008 - Topic Shared Parenting”)

ABC 7:30 Report Tuesday 3th June 2008 - Topic Shared Parenting:

matrix said
katie said
That does not translate to 50/50 has to go.  It translates to both parents need to co-operate for 50/50 to work.
It also translates to: "If I don't want to share parenting with the father it's in my interests to manufacture conflict and then use that to work for and gain sole or major custody and residency so that I can then control the children and their father."

That is the typical and sad reality in all many cases.

Notice that for the mother, Jo Snibson, highlighted in this segment, her stated 'conflict' was more about her and what she wanted, and less about the children and what they wanted.  The 'conflict' seems to arise from and be associated with the mother's desire to move from Melbourne to Ballarat, rather than the 'best interests of the children' in their home environment in Melbourne.
 

Here! Here!- This could be my story- only difference is my ex has the money to carry it out whereas it would appear Ms Snibson does not.

katie said
 The transcript shows that no details of the situation for that child were given - neither parent's attitude was indicated. 

You are right Katie, as we know nothing about the details of this child- for all we know this child could have been in a 63/37 or 95/5 ratio- or could have been in a 'normal family- happily married but no time for the kids due to work or other committments'.  This child may also resent getting told to go to bed or get up for school- and thus views everything in the context of time. We also know nothing about the level of conflict (but are led to believe this is a high-conflict - real or manufactured? We don't know).

This is sensationalistic journalism at its finest. This I believe was done in a very negative way. Where were the reports from kids in a working 50/50 relationship as a counterpoint?

Absolutely no scientific merit should be attached to this child's drawing as a case against 50/50.

Last edit: by DACC

Go to post

Post #10704 by DACC on June 5th 2008, 8:56 PM (in topic “Convincing the 'Australian System' - Jen McIntosh vs the likes of Warren Farrell?”)

Convincing the 'Australian System' - Jen McIntosh vs the likes of Warren Farrell? :

DACC, i have the meta-analysis, joint vs sole custody arrangements - quite in depth showing the importance and benifits that shared parenting brings, i have to appologise it is copywrite and i cannot post it.
Yeah, I have to agree with Aphrodite, I can understand the need for reward for effort, but suggesting that the only way to share in important findings of research (his analysis of meta-analyses) is through buying his books is not the way scientists should behave.  Even if his work is copyrighted- *someone* must have the right to check or measure what he asserts are items of fact. Therefore, I would expect at least one essay or paper examining his findings. Alas there does not appear to be one.



I'm going to drop this guy from my list- even though I think he does have some very fine ideas- because without the transparency required by 'sharing' results in a public arena, there can be no trust in his views. I'm sticking with Dr Tom for my retort to Ms Jen.

Go to post

Post #10623 by DACC on June 4th 2008, 9:01 PM (in topic “Convincing the 'Australian System' - Jen McIntosh vs the likes of Warren Farrell?”)

Convincing the 'Australian System' - Jen McIntosh vs the likes of Warren Farrell? :

DACC said in a earlier post  
DACC said
'political scientist'- a degree you can 'literally buy' in USA.
  I don't mean to set out to discredit Dr Warren Farrell, but almost all the material quoted by previous posters is 'from his website' and thus should be viewed with some healthy skepticism. When you are attempting to 'sell yourself' you are hardly likely to write about anything but the positives.

I am particularly interested in the extract in that BIO: "Dr. Warren Farrell's meta-analyses on what works best for children of divorce is peer-reviewed in his most recent book, published in 2008 by Oxford University Press. Oxford University Press, along with Harvard University Press, is known for subjecting its books to the most extensive peer-reviews."

I really don't see how that kind of statement will stand up to scrutiny from any well respected Australian scientist. Particularly if it originates from his own website.

I also hardly think drawing attention to your appearances on "Oprah, the Today Show, Larry King, Peter Jennings and Barbara Walters" or by association with "Cosmopoliton, Ms, Working Mother and Men's Health" will do anything for his image as a scientist, but it will do everything to promote his book sales in the same vein as popular fiction.

Why hasn't Dr Farrell published the findings of his "meta-analyses" for review in a psychology or medicine journal for proper peer review? This is the appropriate forum for getting 'the best interests of children' heard.

? - Anyone?

Go to post

Post #10589 by DACC on June 4th 2008, 9:29 AM (in topic “Convincing the 'Australian System' - Jen McIntosh vs the likes of Warren Farrell?”)

Convincing the 'Australian System' - Jen McIntosh vs the likes of Warren Farrell? :

monaro said
DACC,
i am glad to see you have come to your senses, i have posted a little on Dr Farrell on this site and quoted some of his work from his book "FATHER AND CHILD REUNION".

The latest video i have viewed called "The Best Interests of the Child" has given me true insight to the word Best interest's, i strongly recommend it to all in similar circumstances to yours.
 

Monaro -  I'm not sure 'come to my senses' accurately describes my view. I am genuinely interested in what Farrell has to say, and treat his findings with the same scrutiny deserving of McIntosh. My gut feeling (call it intuition if you like) - urges me to explore Farrell's work as one source of possible truth about what really is best for our kids.

If you scrutinize both points of view there will always be someone who claims that 'their agenda' is driven irrationally by either the 'womens' or 'mens' movements and then you start hearing statements like 'very dangerous, fake, non-scientific, propaganda, etc)

I am grateful for those who have contributed to this thread, particularly in support of a rational view about the real effects of conflict on children. Unfortunately, although the rebuttal does appear to agree with at least some of the theories offered by Farrell about what is best for kids, it does not elevate his work to the level required by peers in the psychology, and therefore fails to be seen as a factual reference by our Family Court's or supporting Family services.

I really want to motivate people who can make a difference to our children to read Farrell's books, but find it impossible to convince them. Does anyone have any references to peer reviews or rebuttals of Farrell's work?

Go to post

Post #10567 by DACC on June 3rd 2008, 9:45 PM (in topic “Convincing the 'Australian System' - Jen McIntosh vs the likes of Warren Farrell?”)

Convincing the 'Australian System' - Jen McIntosh vs the likes of Warren Farrell? :

OMG - Did anyone see the 7:30 Report tonight. If that is Jen McIntosh and that is how the 7:30 report conducts itself when reporting- there is no hope for our children! :(

1. My partner wants to know if the 'bitch on wheels' woman actually cares about her kids more than controlling her ex? Why does she want to move away?

2. The picture drawn by a 'victim child of parental conflict' shown and discussed by Jen was so scientifically revealing. NOT - My partner commented that Jen doesn't look sincere when she is telling her anecdotes- does she even have children of her own?

I need no affirmation by way of your rebutal - It seems there is no hope convincing our sick system when you have such biased non-scientific views broadcast on our national network- shame on 7:30 report for such a one-sided story - I expect more from ABC than you get from Today Tonight or Current Affair.  O_o

Go to post

Post #10447 by DACC on June 1st 2008, 10:59 PM (in topic “Convincing the 'Australian System' - Jen McIntosh vs the likes of Warren Farrell?”)

Convincing the 'Australian System' - Jen McIntosh vs the likes of Warren Farrell? :

Secretary SPCA said
We are extremely concerned at the elevation of this piece of journalism as an authoritive document without extensive longitudinal studies and with such a minuscule sampling as to make it hardly worthy of write up.
Not only did they refer to her work, but in the POP course I was ordered to attend run by Relationships Australia, Launceston TAS the facilitators decided to 'embellish' the supposed results by quoting that 'recent studies by Jenn McIntosh have found that the youth suicide rate is as high as 1 in 4 for children who have separated parents in high conflict'.

I tried but could not find such a statistic quoted by her work.

BTW- the POP course attempted very poorly to achieve its very vague objectives by focusing mainly on the negatives. I asked why they focused so much on the negatives, and was told that their course has such good outcomes- it must be working???

The course material consisted of hackneyed 'Positive Visualization Techniques- 'man trapped in freezer wills himself to death"' and MBTI theories about personality types, lots of handouts on communication grids, moving on from separation, marriage decline, separation and life rebuilding. At the end we got another form which we were asked if we would like to use to 'communicate with the other parent'- this has a very annoying heading (according to my partner, looks as though it was written specifically with the 'father in the playground or supervised contact centre' in mind.) For me the 'moving on' stuff was a bit late- I repartnered almost 3 years ago and have 2 wonderful step kids (pure 50/50). I could not believe that chucking a 'communication' form at us without a plan was any use at all.

The course seemed to make a lot of noise about 'the conflict' but didn't really attempt to address this concern adequately. I found it even more bewildering as to why it never offered any REAL tools to improve effective parenting. It was nothing more than a 6 week information session with 6 counselling sessions - a waste of tax payers money and funding ought to be withdrawn or major changes made to make it effective… but I digress.

Thanks to everyone for your input.


To Sec SPSCA - I will take a look at your rebuttal article with interest. Obviously your rebuttal is a very important document - am I able to refer others to this rebuttal?

I guess I was also hoping for something more positive about other research that looks at the effects on children when there is a dominant parent. It would be fantastic to be able to refer to a scientific analysis that supports some alternative to the 'dominant view' held by our institutions.

Thanks- DACC

Go to post

Post #10424 by DACC on June 1st 2008, 2:21 PM (in topic “Convincing the 'Australian System' - Jen McIntosh vs the likes of Warren Farrell?”)

Convincing the 'Australian System' - Jen McIntosh vs the likes of Warren Farrell?

I am a father who has been actively involved with my children. (Quit my career to care for my children from 3 months old to allow ex-wife to enhance and continue in her highly paid profession - income in excess of $850,000 p.a.).

My kids are now 9 and 12 respectively, and I have been thoroughly abused by 'the family court' system, forced into protracted legal proceedings, wasted ridiculous amounts of money, etc etc. I went from having care of my 2 children for almost 90% to getting the stereotypical 'fathers' deal in the substantive Trial of 37/63%- mainly as a result of 'the contrived level of conflict' generated by her lawyer.

Now going through further mediation as a result of further action taken by my vexatious ex and her feminist/single junkyard dog of lawyer in an attempt to overturn the final Orders to seek 100% with the mother.

I joined this Forum to learn what other father's in similar situations are doing to prevent this injustice to our children. I read with interest the article posted previously about the work of Dr Warren Farrell and watched the 'powerful video' suggested by another forum member.

I was very heartened by his 'research' and took his view regarding the merits of forcing conflicting parents to equally parent children vs placing the children with a 'dominant' parent to FRC workers and other meditation counsellors.

Their reaction to viewing Dr Warren Farrell's video is one of complete disbelief. I was warned 'this guy is not a scientist, he is a fake.' and

'his views are extremely destructive, damaging and plainly wrong when it comes to the children's best interests.' and

'Warren Farrell's work doesn't hold a candle to Jenn McIntosh's research' and

'Farrell goes on about the 'non-measurable data' - which simply translates into very dangerous and misleading work by the 'mens movement' at the expense of the children' and

'his work is simply not peer-reviewed by the scientific community - whereas Jenn McIntosh is a respected Australian pyschologist- he is just a good writer and salesman.'

In summary, I have to agree that on the face of it - Dr Farrell may be nothing more than a 'popular author' masquerading as a 'political scientist'- a degree you can 'literally buy' in USA.

I'd really like to put some meat on the bones about his work, because no-one I come across who seems to be interested in anything but the 'preliminary data of the work done by Jenn McIntosh' where she  has found that 'parents in conflict are highly damaging on the children'. Go to the FRC or do a POP course and you get a face full of the apparent negative and damaging effects on children caused by parents in conflict.

Comments please.

(DACC = Dad's Against Contrived Conflict)

Go to post

Post #8968 by DACC on May 2nd 2008, 7:34 PM (in topic “Can CSA be avoided by agreement between "shared parents"”)

Can CSA be avoided by agreement between "shared parents":

katie said
Thanks.  You did it, so obviously it can be done.

Did you have other child issues before the court or just child support?
Yes - A 3 way battle, custody, property, child support
katie said
If this is not too nosy a question, why did you go back to CSA collect? Only, it sounds like a backward step to me.
Other parent seeking to overturn final orders seeking 100% live with (not bad since I was the stay at home 'mother' at separation and had been for several years).

Battle still raging in current mediation (5 years post separation). Other parent does not want to pay child support under any circumstances (despite salary > 900k pa).

CSA collect is my only option once the Consent Orders expired.

Go to post

Enter the words you wish your result to include, with spaces between them.

Advanced…

The template search will find all entries matching the criteria. For example, a search with a criteria of ‘Manhattan’ in the field named ‘Description’ (assuming there is one) would find any entries containing the substring ‘Manhattan’ in the ‘Description’ field.

If there are additional categories available underneath a category then there will be a clickable ‘plus’ icon shown to the left of it. Choose your selection by clicking the label (you will see it get highlighted). Hold the ctrl key to expand all child categories also.

Recent Tweets