Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Search – Forums

Your search gave 41 results:

Post #23775 by Dads_R_Tops on July 26th 2009, 12:10 PM (in topic “Contravention and Brainwashing”)

Contravention and Brainwashing

Please quote any relevant case laws if available:

1. Is Brainwashing a form of abuse?? Does the Family Court recognize this?

       2.  Is there a way to make Court Orders (parenting) stick, at the moment it seems like its value is less than toilet paper if one party does not want to comply?
- Besides from contravention application what else can we ask of the Family court to do to ENFORCE their court orders? Because State Police POWERLESS, Federal Police POWERLESS (unless recovery orders). The other party knows this and continually tries to provoke to anger.

3. Can Recovery orders be granted to a Non primary carer (as per interim order)? Since the other party has contravened on many occasions, recourse was catch up time? What real good is that? Thats not going to stop the other party from breaking the orders again and again. I had made certain bookings and itenaries for the school holidays and it is torn apart because the children was not there?

4. Has the Family Court (Judge/Et all) ever been found discriminatory based on Gender when making a decision?
How many Contravention and Contempt Applications must one file before it is taken seriously?

*** Any relevant case laws would be great****

Opinions??

5. Does anyone else feel that the family law system is a scam and a profiteering business for and by unscrupulous members of society that is rather unproductive to society but insidiously clever?

6. Has any one ever thought of petition to your local or is it federal Politicians to make COURT orders ENFORCEABLE at an instance whether or not there is a recovery orders? Is it not a form of Kidnapping?
If petition was done in item 7, what was the outcome? When was it done? Is it worth to do another?
Any information and critique welcome.

Ciao

Al Capone The Godfather

Last edit: by Dads_R_Tops

Go to post

Post #23774 by Dads_R_Tops on July 26th 2009, 12:08 PM (in topic “Spouse refusing to pay for child care”)

Spouse refusing to pay for child care:

Get over it…If you decide by whatever means (Allegations) etc and you want to have the children full time, then you should pay for full time.

Otherwise be fair and allow the other parent to have equal parenting time…otherwise it is YOUR responsibility

end.

Go to post

Post #23442 by Dads_R_Tops on July 11th 2009, 12:57 PM (in topic “Venting”)

Venting

The "A-Holes" will use it against you..it is their "job", bless their poor Cheque books.

You are dealing with a system and industry that is corrupt to the bone….A club/"Bar" Association/council… Its sad but … you will soon find out…if not already… I sympathise with you…it is very difficult time(s)…and it is just the "Beginning"…

From my experience it is a waste of time to invest in services of "A-holes" they only care about covering their A$$ and not really concerned about your kids (outwardly they say they do). Of course they will suck as much as possible from emotional people, they play "marketing" and Psychology to the N th degree. They "promise" the "earth and give you dirt - of course covered under their "liability" "professional" insurance….

Look around you…the "A-holes" are everywhere…you can complain to the legal services "ombudsman" - guess what run by "A-holes" again….So in the end …I think you know what to do…be a man…

This post has been moved by the Senior Moderator from Health and Wellbeing.
The last 2 days this poster has been venting in inappropriate forums. While the site does tolerate some degree of whining - there is a limit. This site is primarily for straight forward discussion and not as a form of therapy.

Go to post

Post #23433 by Dads_R_Tops on July 10th 2009, 6:01 PM (in topic “Are Men the Losers?”)

Are Men the Losers?

From my experience, "men are the losers". the other sex can do whatever they like, false allegations, bizarre allegations (disproved by Psychiatrist). What does she get for her torments - everything.

There is really very little that the Family Court does and can do…just a waste of space and time and tax payers money…it pays the Lawyers and "god"/Judge from the centerlink line. Even the Chief Justice Diana Bryant wants Section 117AB to be removed from the act. So people can make as many false allegations as they want with no recourse. The system is just a waste of money, time and space. Might as well flip a coin and demolish the family Court buildings and make it public housing and or house charitable/self help groups.   

Go to post

Post #23432 by Dads_R_Tops on July 10th 2009, 5:48 PM (in topic “Some Philopsophical Thoughts and Questions”)

Some Philopsophical Thoughts and Questions

ection1;}–>Re: Some Philopsophical Thoughts and Questions

 Hypothesis 2: Is it just me or is the Family Law system just another Big money making business/industry for lawyers and their "friends"? eg. A recent case where a Father lost custody of the Children from a well known cult because the real reason is that "The Exclusive Brethren paid for the mother, Elspeth, to hire one of Melbourne's top family court QCs, Noel Ackman, as well as a junior barrister and a solicitor." Is this just a Justice system only for the Rich??? Not saying that the Judge was female but it does "infer" something. Who knows, maybe a coin flip would have been a more authoritative judgement.
 
 Hypothesis  3: Since most of the Judges are men, Does anyone else have the feeling that these male judges are being "p_$$y" whipped? Either Psychologically or via evolution? Hence other men will not get a "fair" and equitable judgement?
 
 Hypothesis  4: Has anyone ever had experiences where the other parties "lawyers" get away with alot of BS, because they are just "representatives" and hence are not liable for whatever harm they do.? eg Purposely misrepresenting in court (very hard to prove) and the lawyers know how to get away with it. Misleading statements in Submissions to confuse the Judge. And the Judge will get so confused because he handles so many cases but the "A-holes" can do whatever they want and get away with it.
 
  Hypothesis  5: Are anyone interested in posting to a Darren Hinch style website (anynomously)?? Where one can name and "Shame" unethical, unprofessional lawyers and also Praise Fair dikum lawyers that really cares for people and love the law not just the $$$.? This will be a benefit since not all lawyers are from one good ethical tree.   
 
 Hypothesis 6: Is this a civilised society or should we go back to "martial" law. Because the system "breeds" corruption, why do i say this because the system is purposely "broken" so people can be taken for a ride eg. Emotional people, Greedy people, uneducated people are continuosly tricked and "raped" for all their hard earn money by some unethical Lawyers and the Family Dispute industry?
 
 My opinion is that the system still favours one sex than the other and society still believes that one sex is better at caring for children than the other. Are we living in an educated, 21st Century or some backward society that masked itself in cordiality, superficiality and the red tape??
 
 Any opinions appreciated.  

Go to post

Post #21604 by Dads_R_Tops on April 1st 2009, 10:42 PM (in topic “Mother loses children for anti-dad stance - Case Law Reference?”)

Mother loses children for anti-dad stance - Case Law Reference?

Does anyone know the full judgement / case law with regards to this decision?

Thanks.

The Australian
31 March 2009

Mother loses kids for anti-dad stance
By Caroline Overington

Two children who have been in the care of their mother since their parents separated in 2005 have been sent from Hobart to live with their father in Melbourne after the Family Court (Irish & Michelle; PDF attached below) heard the mother encouraged them to have "negative" feelings about their dad.

The two children - a girl, aged nine, and a boy, aged seven - had been struggling with "change overs" between parents, saying things such as "I don't want to go" and "I don't have to go" when their father arrived in Tasmania from Melbourne to collect them for access visits.

The court found the mother did not discourage them from saying these things, and did not encourage a positive relationship between the children and their father.

The children told counsellors they were angry their father had left their mother, and lived with his new girlfriend in Melbourne.

Family Court judge Robert Benjamin said the children "clearly wanted" to stay with their mother, who had been their primary carer since birth, and acknowledged the "disruption to the children's family unit and their stability if they were to move to Melbourne to live with their father".

But Justice Benjamin said the "mother could see what was happening at change overs and did little abut it".

"I have concerns that this will continue in the future," he said.

"Sadly, this is a case where the children may be at unacceptable risk of psychological harm if they remain with the mother."

Justice Benjamin said the girl, B, was becoming "emotionally estranged from her father" and was at risk of "psychological damage, if not psychiatric damage" if she was not allowed to have a relationship with her father.

The decision was made under new laws, introduced by the Howard government, that require the Family Court to adopt the presumption of "shared parenting" when dealing with children of divorce.

The Australian last week reported on new data that showed fathers had a much better chance of getting access to their children by going through the Family Court than they did by negotiating directly with their ex-wives.

A review of recent cases found fathers were given majority custody in 17 per cent of litigated cases, compared with just 8 per cent of cases settled directly with their ex-partners.

The Australian has also reported the case of NSW deputy fire chief Ken Thompson's wife, who fled Australia with their son Andrew, saying the Family Court had become biased towards fathers.

In the case of the brother and sister sent from Hobart to Melbourne, Justice Benjamin ordered the children be removed from their mother's care, and to see her for school holidays and Mother's Day. She is also entitled to a phone call "each Sunday between 6.30pm and 7.30pm".

The court took evidence from a psychologist who helped facilitate a change over between the parents on June 27 last year.

When the time came for the children to get into the car with their father, the girl "started what can only be described as a mantra, or a chant".

"She kept repeating: 'I don't want to go' and 'I don't have to go'," the psychologist told the court. "When her father greeted her, she (said), 'I hate you'.

"The father showed me photographs of the last visit he had with the children, where they were cuddling, laughing and clearly having a very happy time."

The father put the children in the car, but B "was trying to climb out the window" while her brother was "distressed and was hitting and kicking".

B gave the psychologist a list that said: "I don't want to go with my father because he tells lies, he hurts me, he left our family and he has got a girlfriend and I don't like her."

"These children are slowly indoctrinated into believing that their father is cruel and unkind and likely to hurt them, when this is not the case," the psychologist said.


Click for PDF (71KB) of the article: Mother loses kids for anti-dad stance

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