There have been a lot of common sense replies to your post but when in comes down to the Court listen to what the SRLR badges say and not what other people think will happen. Those people have all the runs on the board and an excellent track record.
After hearing some of the stories about this, it is a great pity and says something about our society that there are some who have received a very great deal of help sometimes running into the 50 and 60 hours and even more; that have not even bought a cup of coffee. After successful outcomes and a respite period one would think a thank you letter would not have been difficult to write.
I clearly understood they used the term reciprocation to 'give back' and that could mean many things.
Reciprocation is a foreign concept to many people - they want 'Hand outs' in terms of support - what about hand backs?
I never intended to put any of this stuff here. But I'll be damned if I'll be blamed for what happened to me. I did try to understand the courts and what was expected of me. There was no help from anywhere.
One of the presumptions is that the truth comes out in the courts. In my experience, partially described above, it does not. All that comes out is that the courts are prejudiced and incompetent. You're accustomed to dealing with the federal courts. The standards are higher there, and I expect better results are common. The greater proportion of cases never make it to federal court because of the prejudice and ignorance of the lower courts. From what I've seen, that is more often the reason.
I've tried to make some contribution to changing those facts. But as long as people like you ignore the problem, it will not happen. The courts do not find the truth. They are prejudiced - to the point they can be used confidently as tools for extortion. And all the dismissals you can come up with will not change what I witnessed.
Oh, BTW. When I was going through all of this, I called DiDS. There was no local group in those days. DiDS turned me away because I was in a de facto relationship and none of my own children were involved. I don't blame them. As I said, I applaud and admire the work DiDS does. But your dismissals only highlight the many gaps in your thinking and the system. DiDS was not the only group that turned me away. There are over a million de facto relationships in Australia. 40% of marriages begin as de facto relationships. It is a huge oversight.
There are three sides to every story and so far you have only presented yours in a sort of 'I was 100% right and 100% wronged' sort of way
Have you located your local DIDS group and been to a meeting? or are you just content to clutter up postings. What you regard as constructive is little more than ill informed venting
I really dont understand your comments about the greater proportion of cases never making it to a Federal Court - what are you talking about, Family Law, Criminal or Civil Law. That is a very ill informed statement to make
I have read your blog and for someone that epouses their so called knowledge of computers the internet and programming and training it appears 'bs' that you you were unable to locate the neccesary knowledge to act in the local Court.
Time to move on with your life, ill informed venting is not a form of therapy for something that happened years ago.
Which Courts are serviced by the SRL-R group: Aural Visual
I notice that Amoranthus has not addressed some of the comments I made, rather he has launched into another tangent
Of course different terminology is sometime used in different countries. What he is referring to in Australia is workplace training and assessment or more generally known as Cert IV. With some basic experience most people can get a Cert IV in a couple of weeks. In does not represent a very high level of achievement - it is a measure only of basic competence
The term Aural Visual is NOT a term commonly used in this country in the educational field. It is primarily applied in visual arts and theatre and Web design where the main 'receptor' is by Visual or audio means. By trying to muddy the waters and throwing in some nonsense about the original (and now discredited) IQ scale is Amoranthus trying to convince me or himself that he knows what he is talking about?
To me the poster is an armchair general - heavy on the theory but without any apparent practical experience, someone that clouds an issue they do not fully understand and uses the excuse of 'serious discussion' as their platform for doing so. If he wants to criticise SRL Resources let him do it from a position of actual rather than theoretical knowledge. Has Amoranthus been an SRL?, does he help SRLS?
When I started I only had some ideas about what I might need to do, it was they that put me on the right course. As a 'professional' in the education field and an SRL I can look at what they did and how they did it and find little to improve
Which Courts are serviced by the SRL-R group: Which Courts are Serviced
I find the post by Amoranthus somewhat confusing; there is some praise for the helpers and then a very strong implied criticism about their methods. From the post it appears the writer has either limited knowledge about the different and effective methods of instructing people and or the true needs or problems of self represented people.
Firstly my background, I have been involved in 'designing' adult education programs and courses for a number of years, in both TAFE and with commercial organisations. I have been self represented for almost nine months in a lengthy and still continuing Family Court battle. For the past six months these people have been providing assistance to me. I think I can therefore comment about the effectiveness of their methods.
They have never used the word 'training' to me or in their literature, what they focus on is the acquisition of various skills and knowledge to make someone competent. In fact they let me know very early on that the MRA does in fact have structured training courses. These people adopt a different approach based on what time I have available.
I have no idea where the very odd 5-7% figure of so called Aural Visual learners comes from. This is not a term commonly used in this Country. In fact this figure would put someone in the 'very severe educationally sub normal categories'. People acquire knowledge, education, training or skills or whatever one may wish to call it by a variety of methods, all in different measures and parts according to the end target. The four main categories are in fact, listening, reading, observation and participation and each has subsets. The last is participation which is the main area of actually being a part of and the practice of the 'task'. The four main areas apply to 100% of the population - the amount of each particular type of 'education' is determined by the task and the individuals own abilities.
These people put me very early on to a path which I now clearly appreciate led a very logical path to the skills and knowledge I would need (and have already partially used) They were quite emphatic about observation and participation. Observation as they say is; Go and watch in Court and watch how the game is actually played, I can tell you they push this hard. Participation is in role plays (I have been to one of theirs) and they teamed me up with another person so that we could practice this; time permitting, and also prodded me to rejoin Toastmasters.In effect they have provided or pointed me to all the necessary skills and knowledge components of what will be required. The rest in terms of application is up to me.