Tuesday, December 30, 2008
"My ex did the same thing, let her b/f move in and continued to claim single parent payment AND legal aid... two swift calls to centerlink and a letter to legal aid later, and suddenly she stopped claiming and LOST her legal aid. I know she stopped claiming because the amount of CSA collected from her went up from the $12 or so they collect whan people are on benefits and the like.....
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, sounds like this particular person wants their cake, everyon elses cake, and the cake mix too
We hope karma bites you on your ass Gooner or maybe Sophie will.
He seems like a great future member of the bully team Aka Fathers Rights. Expect to hear more from Lobsta as he fits the mould that Fathers Rights campaigners love. Older, male, uneducated, angry and arrogant and Oh, forgot to mention a wife basher.
"I have been estranged from my 4 children for almost 8 years. Throughout these 8 years I have continued to search for them. Periodically, I have been able to locate them, however each time I initiate contact, the mother changes her name, the children's names and their residence, causing me to loose contact again. The last time I was able to locate my children was in 2004, when I was informed that the mother had abandoned the children in the custody of a known child sex offender, two month's after his release from prison. At this time I made reports to both NSW Police and DOCS and enquired as to whether I could go and collect them from his custody. NSW Police warned me off, indicating that as I was not the custodial parent I would be breaching the Family Court Orders and that I should contact my solicitor. At no time was I able to contact the mother. I subsequently contacted my solicitor in order to pursue the proper means to re-unite with my children. At this time, the mother applied for an avo (nsw), claiming that I had contacted her and threatened to "kidnap the children in the middle of the night". Upon the advice of my solicitor I proceeded to defend this allegation, being advised to conclude the avo matter before initiating the Family Court matter. I appeared on the listed date to defend the allegation, however the mother did not and the matter was dismissed. I subsequently discovered that the mother had used this opportunity to again flee with the children. At this time I sought the direction of my solicitor and a Chamber Magistrate, who both indicated, that it was my obligation to again relocate them and serve legal process in relation to the Family Court matter. Recently, (September), I relocated them again. Before initiating contact, I engaged another solicitor, who indicated to me that I could have sought a location order instead of searching for them myself. GGRRR!!!
This solicitor began to assist me in the preperation of affidavits and applications to be submitted to the Federal Magistrates Court. He indicated that we would be seeking location orders but informed me that this was a prolonged process, that it could take up to six months. In order to negate this prolonged process, I, using the guidelines set out in the brochure provided by the Family Law Court, titled, "Before you file - Pre-action procedures for parenting cases", addressed an offer of mediation and an intention to claim to the mother through the only point of contact that I had, her "Myspace" page. The response was swift, a reply from the mother's new solicitor, to my solicitor, stating that the mother would oppose any contact between the children and I, then a NSW Police officer delivering an Aprehended Domestic Violence Order Application sighting concerns that it was my intention to kidnap the children. Upon talking to the OIC, it was confirmed that the mother had not informed them of the previous application or it's outcome. The OIC also indicated to me his lack of understanding of the terms Frivolous and Vexatious by stating, "Mate, stop using big words".
At the initial point of loss of contact, 8 years ago, the mother successfully applied for and was granted an avo, claiming domestic violence during the relationship. At this time, I STUPIDLY chose not to defend the application as I could not see any possibility in defending the allegation, despite nothing other than an allegation being made. I was also in a state of considerable emotional turmoil. The matter was decided in my absense. A lesson for any starting down this path, a record now stands against me that domestic violence was proven. None-the less, I believe that I will successfully defend the current application and that there are options for re-uniting my children and I.
I am posting, as I believe my current experiences may assist others before they are placed into this situation and would really appreciate any confirmation on the outcome of similar cases, re forum "AVO matters - Definition of Abuse". Any other advice or information will be taken into consideration. Can anyone help?
This is an exact, minus details of individuals, copy of the offer made:
****** ** December 2008.
Good Morning Ms ***** ******,
This message is made in order to present an offer of mediation in relation to facilitating the access of children with their Father.
**** ****** ******** **/**/**
***** ****** ******** **/**/**
******* ****** ******** **/**/**
********* ***-**** ******** **/**/**
****** ****** ******** **/**/**
Given that some considerable effort has been made to ascertain your where-abouts and at every previous occasion that contact has been established you have continuously changed your name and residence, changed the children's names and residence, applied for A.V.O.'s against the children's Father using fabricated sworn testimony and continued to refuse to allow contact between the children and their Father is viewed by the Father as denying the children a parent.
Subsequent to these previous actions on your part it is the position of the children's Father to present this best and final offer of mediation in relation to facilitating access of the children with their Father. Despite this offer not being manditory in light of your actions, the Father has decided to make this generous offer in an effort to pursue a functional and constructive dialogue with yourself.
Understand, Ms ******, that if you choose to ignore this offer or refuse to reply within the given time frame this message will be retained and submitted in the form of Affidavit with an Application for Final Orders to the Federal Magistrates Court.
Orders to be sought:
Location Orders so as to serve Legal Process upon youself.
Airport Watch List to prevent you fleeing the country.
Residential Orders to prevent your avoidance of these matters.
Orders pertaining to the changing of the children's names.
Orders seeking that the children reside in the custody of the Applicant Father.
Orders pertaining to your Contact and Access to the children.
It will be requested that these matters be decided in your absense.
It is requested that you see reason and join an amicable form of mediation with the Father in relation to these matters. It is further requested that a reply be made to the Father's Solicitor within 14 days and no later than **th December 2008. On which day, if no reply has been recieved Applications will be filed with the Local Courts and Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. Further if you decide to flee the country in the mean-time, this matter will be pursued through the Hague Convention, with substantially and considerably more serious consequences.
It is advised that you seek Legal Advice on these matters.
Your reply may be sent no later than **th December 2008 to:
This is the Father's best and final offer for mediation.
Mr ****** * ********."
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Her user name is Super. Maybe she is a super waitress?
Lets see her qualifications, she's young, she's uneducated, she has been involved in one case only and that is her boyfriends, her big introductory post to familylawwebguide involved making allegations about her partner's child's anus. I guess she is as qualified as most lawyers we know so go for it Monster.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
"I'm of the opinion that although it is not for everyone it could be viable for a lot more if the importance was put more on the children's welfare with regards to stability in all areas.
If it became accepted that both parents have equal importance just in differing ways and we exiled the old detrimental way of thinking that dad is the bread winner and mums stays home, kicking this out of the family law system whilst highlighting that these days this is not the norm it will go a long way.
Encourage fathers to be father and mothers to share for their children, once this becomes socially acceptable then we will not adopt the mistaken view that dads need to work harder to provide money when they should be working less to provide a father.
Mind these are just some random thoughts and even then it will still not be for everyone just easier for those who do want it. "
So D4E the fact that you rely on the government to keep you and provide for your child doesn't matter? No wonder you think it's a mistake for fathers to work harder to provide for the children. Keep your random thoughts to yourself and get off the internet and contribute to society. Loser.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Benefits to provide additional income to non-custodial fathers during
weekend contact visits. Both were identified as key areas where men were
able to continue their imposition of financial abuse of their former female
partners long after the relationship had ended."
Green and Pearce 2002
Friday, December 19, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Here is where he sued for compensation for Negligence because he claimed he suffered a mental illness after he was alleged to have abused his daughter.
The appellant is the father of a child called XXXXX who was born on 29 May 1984. Allegations were made that he had sexually abused her. He claimed damages from the respondents for the psychiatric illnesses he alleged he suffered as a result of the allegations, and as a result of his subsequent separation from his family. His claims were dismissed. He now appeals from the dismissal. ........
An excerpt from the Decision
"On 26 June, Mrs Hillman accused the appellant of playing "patient/doctors" games with Rebecca, using a stethoscope and a wooden spoon, and of sexual abuse to her. The appellant denied any abuse. That night Mrs Hillman phoned Crisis Care and spoke to Lxxxx Sxxxxs (now Vxxxxs) who was on duty. Crisis Care is an after hours service of the Department. It was basically a crisis counselling service by telephone. Mrs Hillman was again referred to the SARC, and this time an appointment was made for the following morning, which was a Saturday. Another Crisis Care worker, Dxxxxa Dxxxxn, drove Mrs Hillman and Rxxxxa to the SARC at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Before the medical examination by Dr Bxxxx, Rxxxxa told Ms Dxxxx that her father had put a wooden spoon in her bottom, and when asked if it hurt she said that it did sometimes. After the examination, Dr Bxxxx and Ms Dxxxn spoke to Mrs Hillman in the absence of Rxxxxxa. Dr Bxxxx said there was no clinical evidence of abuse, but based on what the child had told her and whatever other investigative tool she had, she thought it was more likely than not that there had been some form of molestation. Subsequently, Ms Dxxxxx spoke on the telephone to Detective Mxxd at the Dxxxxton Police Station and advised him what had occurred. Dr Bxxxk also spoke to Detective Mxxd. The examination by Dr Bxxxk at the SARC took almost three hours. Eventually Dr Bxxxx prepared a report which was dated 31 July 1987. It contained the following summary: "In summary Rxxxxxxa has given an explicit account of her father's behaviour, which appear to be inappropriate namely, herself - rubbing cream on his penis - and him putting a 'stick' into her genital and anal region.
Rxxxxxa was observed to have unusual knowledge and preoccupation about sexual parts, in particular her vaginal entrance 'hole'. She was reluctant to discuss the 'special games' and initially showed extraordinary fear of being physically examined. She did not speak during the interview in a way to suggest she had been coached into making allegations.
A localized area of superficial abrasion and redness was observed inside the labia, one of the areas where the child indicated she had been penetrated by the 'stick' ...
It was felt that the child's behaviour, allegations and findings were consistent with her having experienced some sexual interference in the pretext of a game, and some influence to not talk about it. More information needs to be obtained and in view of the history of nightmares and the demonstration of inordinant fears and anger, it was felt that play therapy would be appropriate for this child. It is my experience that during such therapy other details of abuse are often expressed ..."
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Most likely after being alerted to our comments here has attempted to temper what he wrote about the mother projecting her thoughts and feelings after her daughter confided in her that her grandfather touched her.
D4E has now come out whining that he made the comments he did because he assumed that the abuse happened verbally:
"One thing we do need to keep in mind is the nature of the crime so to speak. We have not ask for specifics from Tira and nor should we, but in saying this the advice on how best to deal with the situation would change dramatically if physical contact that was molestation or abuse occurred. I raised the issue of assuming it was a verbal suggestion which is still abuse but more consideration can be given to adopting a solution, if Tira inferred it was physical then this would incur a completely different approach blah blah blah"
Hey Dipshit, the thread is titled "GRANDFATHER INAPPROPRIATELY TOUCHING 15 YR OLD". Did you miss that in your rush to condemn the mother and accuse her of making false allegations? Tira didn't infer anything, she told you outright in the Title and the body of her post, THE GRANDFATHER WAS INAPROPRIATELY TOUCHING THE GIRL!
Maybe one day D4E if your own daughter comes to you with the same problem (God forbid) you will have grown a brain in the interim and realise that there just might be some merit to it or at least err on the side of caution if a child is involved. That is what normal people do, they don't rush to condemn the person making the claim. Get over your bitterness and go back to your daytime television and leave the real issues for the people qualified to help (not any member of familylawwebguide). The only person who recommended the correct course of action was Dominik (thank you). The rest of the posters on that thread are a party to that child being abused and should be held accountable.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Some of the comments from the usual members of familylawwebguide (the mens rights supporters ) have been sickening....from making the statement that girl is old enough to SAY NO! to telling the mother she is probably projecting her own problems because she lost her mother at a young age. Really!
You're being informed of a probable crime (unsubstantiated but then again all you know of it is what the poster has told you) and you still blame the mother and the child??
Do you idiots really think EVERY claim of CHILD ABUSE is a FALSE ALLEGATION? No wonder no-one takes any of you seriously as you clearly do not believe your false mantra of "In the best interests of the child". It's should be "In the best interests of the man!"
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Simon Hunt gets this story printed by deceit in a Melbourne Newspaper and the newspaper fails to mention crucial specific details such as the decision was made by the County Court and it was for a breach of an intervention order. It had nothing to do with Family Law and Simon Hunt has repeatedly already breached this current order now by publishing details of it all over the internet and on familylawwebguide.com.au and now identifying himself and therefore his ex wife and daughter as well posting his ex wife's address all over the internet. We think it's time to alert the Victorian County Court in order to protect his child. Shame on you Simon Hunt and you say you love your child but you are willing to use her to further your own cause. No wonder they won't let you see her her, she needs to be protected from you!
And this Gem Posted in The Comments Section
Posted by: Neb-Maat-Re of Melbourne 3:40pm today
Comment 134 of 140
Comment 133 of 140
Posted by: Daniel of Frankston 2:22pm today
Comment 132 of 140
Simon Hunt is one of the original members of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia along with Sue Price and Matilda Bawden until they all had a falling out and those three were either kicked out or left. He goes by the user name Vascopajama on familylawwebguide.com.au.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Why so interested in "prison rape" when the topic being discussed was the Australian Tax Office?
Are you embarrased for previously supporting PAS? It seemed like a great idea didn't it? It's a pity that guy Gardner too had pedophilic tendencies.
Why did you describe yourself as follows on Google groups and yet still join the Shared Parenting Council and not declare that you are an abuser who hates women?
"Fathers' Rights Activist, Men's Rights Activist, Misogynist, Abuser
Lobbyist (as some feminists call any separated father who wants to see
his children), etc.
Why does this have everything to do with gay people?
Lindsay have you been talking to Barry Williams and Warwick Marsh?
"Thanks for once again demonstrating the alliance between feminism and
homosexuality - in their diminishment on normal heterosexual men as
What you say is wrong. There is a difference between a normal
heterosexual man being a father and a pervert thinking he can be the
same from the start with another man and without a mother for the
Children have rights. And one of those rights is to grow up in a
normal heterosexual union/family of one father and one mother.
otherwise is unnatural and perverted and a gross injustice to the
And this gem:
"Yep. And I'm satisfied that God is correct and that he says
homosexuality is wrong and will be punished be it ever so severely. "
Can we get this straight Lindsay? You don't like women, homosexuals or muslims is that right?
"Sadly, your response is a very angry and violent one. And this just
tends to confirm all the media stereotypes of wild, murderous muslims. "
The question we have is for Lindsay. If you exposed Liz Kates by posting her name and all of her details on the internet and defended a probable pedophile at the same time was that because you were jealous of her and her successes?
Saturday, November 29, 2008
More bad news for the soon to be out of work Shared Parenting Council of Australia.! The poor old "portal" thefamilylawwebguide is barely getting a post and then from the same old same old CSA avoiders. Ho hum!
PS. Someone needs to tell Simon H/Vascopajama that he has already breached his Intervention Order by posting it all over the net. And it's in the poorest form possible to publish his ex wife's address!!
Equal parenting for divorced couples may be scrapped
- Font size: Decrease Increase
- Email article: Email
- Print article: Print
- Submit comment: Submit comment
November 30, 2008 11:00pm
THE controversial and "distressing" equal-time parenting laws for divorced couples could be overhauled, the federal Attorney-General says.
Robert McClelland said some shared-parenting orders that followed relationship breakdowns were "clearly not appropriate and (were) causing extreme distress for children and their parents".highlighted the problems in a series of reports on the family law system.
"I'm very aware of media reports and research about the 2006 reforms," Mr McClelland said. "In particular, I have read reports about the impact on children of some parenting orders favouring significant sharing of parenting time.
"I assure you that I appreciate the seriousness of all I am hearing ... and that we will be mindful of these views when it comes to formulating new policies and making possible amendments to legislation."
Mr McClelland made the remarks during a recent Women's Legal Service family law forum in Brisbane.
He confirmed that the Australian Institute of Family Studies, a government statutory authority, had begun a "comprehensive empirical assessment" of how families were faring under the shared parenting regime.
The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act was introduced by the Howard government in 2006 to rectify perceived unfairness in custody orders and assuage concerns about the impact of absent fathers.
The changes direct trial judges and magistrates in the federal family law courts to "presume" that "equal shared parental responsibility" is in the best interests of children.
This means separating parents are legally bound to jointly attempt to make major decisions on their children's welfare, such as those about health and education. Fifty-50 parenting time is not automatic.
But when shared responsibility is imposed (child abuse or family violence cancels the presumption), the courts are required to consider a further order that a child spend equal time with each of the parents.
In the Courier-Mail reports, Brisbane former Family Court Judge Tim Carmody, family lawyers, academics and child psychologists said the laws were emotionally damaging children, many of whom lived week-about between the homes of highly conflicted parents.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
So Barry, we know you're a regular visitor, we extend our commiserations to you and we are making a donation to the Mardi Gras Committee in Sydney in your name.
If Nicola Roxon didn't like your comments, she's going to hate the comments Lindsay Jackel Victorian Director of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia and major contributing member of Familylawwebguide has made about women, lesbians and homosexuals!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Keep hiding behind the Shared Parenting Council and save your vitriol for your ex wife.
by jethro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:51 pm
ultimate truth according to scripture is that which is revealed to us by God - not one two or three individuals but a host of followers will have it and be following it.
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:23 pm
11. Self-Represented Litigants Program
A close alliance has been fostered between SPCA and the Self-Represented Litigants (SRL) group and program whereby SPCA jointly assisted numerous persons in Court Cases and with their individual Child Support issues. The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice has been a supporter of SRL reforms to enable the SRL to better prepare. We have also further enhanced our relationships with key major lobby groups
Every other group listed on the familylawwebguide community page is a part of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia and is not independent like they want you to believe.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Dicosta & Dicosta  FamCAFC 161 (29 October 2008)
"His Honour then immediately said that he had concluded “that it would not be in their best interests” (that is, to spend equal time with each parent) and he went on to give the following reasons for this conclusion:
31. The first, but not of enormous significance, is the fact that Ms Styles recommends a continuation of the status quo. I give this limited weight for two reasons. First, as was submitted by counsel for the father, some of her conclusions as to the effect that such an arrangement would have on [K] are based on exiguous materials. Secondly she said in paragraph 7.7 of her report that she saw no “compelling reason” to change the status quo. The legal test as I apprehended it does not require any compelling reason to be shown before a change [to] the status quo can be made and so it is possible that her report is infected by that. Nevertheless, as I have said, I do give some weight to her assessment in relation to the possible affect [sic] on [K] of such an arrangement.
32. The second and more important matter is the fact that the arrangement whereby the mother is the primary parent and the father has a significant but lesser involvement with the children has been one which has existed throughout the children's lives. As I have said, the parties adopted a conventional arrangement during the marriage with the mother as the primary parent. I do not see sufficient reason to change this and, given that it has been the arrangement during the marriage and since March of this year, I consider it would be in the best interests of these children for that arrangement to continue."
We refer to Hogan & Hogan  FMCAfam 1219 (14 November 2008) and specifically where he says:
"Equal time or substantial and significant time?
73. For the reasons that I have set out above, I do not believe that it is in the best interests of the children for them to have equal time with their father. However, I would have come to that conclusion even if I had not been concerned about the husband's addiction to cannabis.
The Family Consultant was of the opinion that equal time was contra-indicated in this case because of the high level of conflict, and low level of communication that existed between the parents. I agree with the Family Consultant in this regard.
74. In the Family Report, the Family Consultant reports that the husband described his relationship with the wife as "pretty bad". He is recorded as acknowledging that one of the disadvantages of his shared care proposal is that "[Ms Hogan] and I would need to communicate okay about the kids".
75. The wife expressed the view to the Family Consultant that:
Shared care could not be conducted adequately because she and Mr Hogan do not verbally communicate. She said matters relating to the children “have to be written down” and that
Mr Hogan will not provide timely answers. Consequently, she is frequently frustrated in her attempts to manage the children. She cited an occasion when she gave Mr Hogan the health care card when he took a child to the doctor. She said 'I have asked three times for the card' to be returned.
76. In relation to the suitability of shared care in this family, the Family Consultant provides the following evaluation at paragraph 34:
If the parents were able to verbally communicate, and positively interact, shared care would seem to be an appropriate option. At this point, however, according to the parents, they avoid interacting, and Ms Hogan intends to rely on email to communicate. She said she cannot trust Mr Hogan and contends that he is untruthful and unreliable. A shared care arrangement requires substantial information to pass more frequently between parents than otherwise is the case. Thus, the opportunities for conflict between parents increases and the children's exposure to that conflict. Exposure to conflict creates emotional reactions which affect relationships, not only with the family, but in later life. In this matter, the parties say they have an acrimonious relationship."
On one side you have BigHead who sole aim in life is to reduce and minimise his Child Support obligation. His hare brained schemes now involve tax issues which can only be viewed as TAX AVOIDANCE which is illegal in this country. (Bighead you might want to consider the fact that familylawwebguide have your identifying details on their files (IP etc) and as you are registered for online contact with the CSA that Familylawwebguide/Shared Parenting Council do not sell you out.)
On the other side of the sandwich you have Styx, who is a guy called Peter from Melbourne who CHOOSES not to see his children, who CHOOSES not to work despite being a tradesman, and who CHOOSES not to support his children.
You guys really do not get it do you? You have no credibility at all with the public, with the government or with anyone that matters. The only people that Familylawwebguide attracts are losers. You all want to sit in your angry misery and blame women for the no fault divorce, for stealing your children, for stealing your money when the issues are really about CONTROL. Which co-incidentally domestic violence is all about, CONTROL. It angers you all that you do not have control.
The content of all posts is how to not pay Child Support, how to steal children and how to put down women. And now you don't support White Ribbon Day and the issues of violence against women and children? That'll really help the Fathers Rights cause you morons. No wonder the Attorney General is turning his back on you. You're becoming social lepers.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Bigred made this assumption:
"The payer is a taxpayer. That means they contributed to the bonus because it can only be paid because the government has a surplus of revenue over expenditure"
Bigred you really need to become more informed. The statistics do not support your claim and in fact 39% of payers are regarded as being unemployed and pay no tax at all and only the minimum of Child Support, and then you have the very wealthy who employ tax minimisation schemes who also pay either no tax or the very minimum.Further there are those that use cash transactions and self employment to understate their tax liabilities and as a direct result their Child Support liability. We have direct evidence of some assessed payers of Child Support that despite earning several million dollars per annum still do not pay any tax at all. Also a fact is there are quite a few members of the FLWG that are the recipients of Government funding and are payers of Child Support (again the bare minimum) that in no way comes close to supporting a child. The current Child Support arrears bill is $1 billion dollars. So that is $1 biilion dollars that has not been paid to support children! Fact: The The government is currently spending how many dollars a year (of people who do pay tax) in chasing up and enforcing these arrears.
The $1,000 bonus will benefit a child either directly or indirectly so stop being greedy and spiteful and put your efforts into supporting your child instead of finding ways to be a turkey!
And you assume that we will be flattered that you have sympathy for certain views we have? Not likely! Your arrogance is already evident in your posts and we really do not desire any support from any person that does not willingly support their own children. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Mike/Monteverdi we are not interested in a debate at all. Your constant calls for us to expose who we are only confirm your desire to see us threatened in some way. What does it matter who we are, the truth is still the truth and unless you can post some cold hard facts to prove that what we state is not true then it stands. The FLWG and the S.P.C.A. have either threatened us, attacked us or called on us to expose our identities. Where is the rebuttal if in fact what we have exposed is not the truth.
We are well aware of your views and posting them on a forum makes you as liable as we are, so when posting your little blurb from The Age, we hope you are taking notice of your own implied threat. Further, by posting in support of Bigred as a representative of FLWG and therefore the Shared Parenting Council of Australia you are only further reinforcing the message that his view is your view. We get it ok? Do you also support the use of threats of violence against us? Yes we thought so!
We are sure Gerry Orkin will not be impressed with you posting his name all over the internet and also by posting to Peter Saxon on his blog that you firmly believe it is Gerry Orkin who writes on this blog. You have left yourself wide open and we certainly hope that Gerry uses whatever means possible to force you to retract your statements. Egg on your face Mike! And as Peter Saxon says 1+1 does not equal 3!
Friday, November 21, 2008
Bigred is advising all who will listed to launch a Change of Assessment to the Child Support Agency about the Rudd Government payment of $1,000 per child to families currently receiving Family Tax Benefit A. He knows that the payment is not taxable and yet he hopes to be able to flood the CSA with enough of the C.O.A. applications to cause damage and worse, hopes that at the very least it will hold up the payments of the $1,000 to the recipients.
The Shared Parenting Council by allowing the posting of this type of message (and yet censoring and deleting pro mother posts) not only agree with this type of action but are actively encouraging it. Shame on you!! And we thought you really cared about "the best interests of the child" -NOT!!!
Oh and a message to moderators, you really ought to put a muzzle on Artemis as she really is posting some very bizarrely incorrect information (strangely whilst simultaneously berating other users for not being a smart as she is = weird!)
Thursday, November 20, 2008
We left this comment and question on the above blog TheSharedParentingDisaster:
"Expose The Truth has left a new comment on the post "Government Funded Propaganda":
Fathers4Equality breeds hatred for women and has attracted a lot of the more extremist Fathers Rights members. We believe they should be shut down for promoting hate.
A question for you:
How did the Fatherhood Foundation and D.I.D.S, get to be rated as a charity?
The Fatherhood Foundation Public Fund is a public fund listed on the Register of Harm Prevention Charities under Subdivision 30_EA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.
Dads in Distress Inc is registered as a harm prevention charity. If you would like to donate to our organisation please mail cheque or money order with your name and address details to: Dads in Distress Inc. Po Box J 395, Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450. (The Dads in Distress Public Fund is a public fund listed on the Register of Harm Prevention Charities under Subdivision 30_EA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) "
It started us thinking, so we looked on the Australian Taxation Office site for the definition of Charity and found the following excerpts:
The characteristics of a charity are:
- it is an entity which is also a trust fund or an institution
- it exists for the public benefit or the relief of poverty
- its purposes are charitable within the legal sense of that term
- it is non-profit, and
- its sole purpose is charitable.
Charitable purposes are:
- the relief of poverty or sickness or the needs of the aged
- the advancement of education
- the advancement of religion
- other purposes beneficial to the community, and
- the provision of child care services on a non-profit basis.
A statutory extension to the common law meaning of charity introduced from 1 July 2004 allows:
- open and non-discriminatory self-help groups that are for charitable purposes only, and
- closed or contemplative religious orders that offer prayerful intervention for the public,
to meet the public benefit test. To be considered charities, these entities must satisfy all other characteristics of a charity. That is, these entities will also need to be non-profit, and have a sole or dominant purpose that is charitable.
Organisations that are not charities
Many community organisations are not charities. An entity is not a charity if:
- it is primarily for sporting, recreational or social purposes
- it is primarily for political, lobbying or promotional purposes
- its purpose is illegal or against public policy, or
- it is primarily for carrying on a commercial enterprise to generate surpluses.
We will keep digging to see what we get back regarding the funding provided to S.P.C.A. for www.familylawwebguide.com.au. Stay tuned!!
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
- Why is Michael Green constantly on our blog and yet does not bother to reign in his flunkies? He has made 3 visits so far today (amend that to 5 now) (now 6) and never fails to check us out first thing in the morning when he can't sleep (hopefully because he feels some guilt about his deceit of the Australian public). There is no other conclusion than to declare that all of the harasment and lies perpetuated by Peter Saxon are on the instruction of Michael Green.
- Why do we constantly get visits from people at work like Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Government departments and Fairfax? Are you being paid to look at our site or are you using your time that is paid for by your employer?
- If Monteverdi works for SMH, how does he get to spend so much time in court helping fathers get control of their ex wives and children?
- Isn't the familylawwebguide and therefore the Shared parenting Council, responsible for printing details of court cases and therefore liable under Section 121 of the Family Law Act? If we can easily find out who is who on there, so can anyone else.
- What are the penalties for printing details of court cases?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Shared Parenting Council do not want anyone to know that it is them that operate the website and they have created numerous steps to distance themselves from the responsibility of ownership, most likely to protect the money provided by the government. They have done this by creating false identities for themselves on the website, conducted discussions on how to lure more traffic (and as a direct result more money) and made a concerted effort to attract more women to the site in order to gain a disguise for their true agenda. Shared Parenting and the hatred of mothers is the common theme.
A majority of what is posted on familylawwebguide.com.au, and in the process endorsed by The Shared Parenting Council is how to avoid paying Child Support and how to minimise financial support for first family children. Advice of this kind is not only welcomed but encouraged. They also endorse advice on how to carry out DNA testing of children and how to use the courts to the mens advantage. There is also discussion on Domestic Violence but the majority opinion is that all allegations of Domestic Violence must be false or exaggerated. Child sexual abuse allegations according to the website are mostly made up by mothers wanting to alienate children from fathers.
The Shared Parenting Council under the guise of wanting to appear to be non gender specific (because it is against the law to discriminate isn't it) and not necessarily pro Shared parenting made a big show of having other seemingly unrelated Groups join the familylawwebguide to make a "Community". Then it's a happy healthy "portal" with something for everyone, right? The problem was that all of the other groups either have key members in common with the Shared Parenting Council , or were set up as a group by the Shared Parenting Council. You can follow the trail on the internet as it is very easy to find and we have included some on this blog to help you. The most blatant one was the Mothers4Equality set up by Michael Green and Debra Esquilant who is a major contributor at Fathers4Justice, a very extremist anti mother group that was also set up by The Shared Parenting Council of Australia as a lobby group for them.
The Shared Parenting Council don't want you to know all of this though. Why? Is it only about the money?
Since we started this blog, we have been under constant attack by the Shared Parenting Council of Australia. They have sent in various flunkies to try to beat us down. They have made threats of violence, posted a series of 27 offensive comments mostly dealing with lesbianism and alternative names for female genitalia and now have set up a blog attempting to discredit us. By resorting to threats of violence and using abuse is a typical behaviour of an abuser. They've said that everything we have posted is a lie and even gone so far as to suggest that we tried to extort money from them. That's a crime and our only aim is to expose them. Would we have posted this first and then asked for money? Come on guys, think about it before you post lies like that. They think that we are so many different people so they name about 10 in their blog without knowing who we are. Michael Flood and Gerry Orkin get the blame for it all because they dared to write criticising Mens Groups years ago and they've never quite gotten over it. Their anger burns. (For the record we're not Michael Flood or Gerry Orkin or even Anonymum)
Why would they feel the need to do this if they were as transparent as they say they are. If it is all lies, why don't they ask us to talk to them to "set us straight" if they think we are under any misconception?
Why, because it is all true and now the Shared Parenting Council of Australia have been caught out and they're very upset and embarrased. That is what happens when you don't tell the truth. Let them try to stop us with their threats of violence and insults, it's not going to work.
that was set up by the Shared Parenting Council of Australia via familylawwebguide.com.au to slam us is a guy called Peter Saxon. aka Nasty little man.
He is a founding member of Familylawwebguide.com.au and is a member of the SLR there. He is also a member of Dads In Distress.
One of his user names on familylawwebguide.com.au is Conan. Another is sneakydevil. There are others. Oh yes, another one is Viking, we almost forgot.
Whatever way you look at it, he is an accomplished liar and blatantly avoids the truth.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
We read your blog Peter and quite frankly we haven't had such a belly laugh for quite some time. You do realise that you are being used by Michael Green and friends to attack us as they don't have the gumption to do it themselves. They did the same with Danny Bell and if you want to contact Danny to ask about his AVO regarding threats made to a person that had nothing to do with this blog, we heartily recommend that you do this as a matter of urgency.
You have made a number of incorrect allegations and some pretty outrageous assumptions but then again with your level of intelligence, it is within our expectations of you.
We are also reasonably sure that the incorrect and outrageous allegations you have made against specific persons will result in some type of legal action being taken against you.
You have alleged blackmail and extortion which is a criminal offence in our country. Allegations of this kind will be dealt with by the police.
You have named people and user names in your blog of which we have no knowledge but we will be sure to track them down to alert them of your claims. We are sure that most will not be happy.
You have claimed that what is contained on this blog is untrue but what if we are correct (and we are)? Is it so unpalatable that you must dramatically announce that it is all lies and that it must be the work of various people (and you can't quite make up your mind on that one can you)? We would suggest that you conduct some of your own research as it is all out there on the internet for all to see.
You have stated that Womens groups are part of S.P.C.A. and FLWG and yet we have proof that the only females represented there have been set up by women (grandmothers and second wives) who have affiliations already with militant Mens Rights groups. It is all a farce and deliberate attempt to defraud not only the public but also the government who funds the Familylawwebguide under false pretences.
You have also claimed that it is dishonest to track traffic to a website. Once again you are only showing your ignorance and embarassing yourself. We have always shown that we know who is coming to the website and it is a common practice and is in no way illegal, dishonest or immoral. You just got caught out so you hide your embarassment with aggression. So typical.
It also needs to be pointed out to you that despite you not wanting to provide the address of this blog on either your blog or on familylawwebguide.com.au (an attempt to portray only one side of the argument...what on earth are you afraid of?) that many people have the intelligence to know how to find us anyway. You wouldn't know that though. All one has to do is type in part of a quote and it takes them directly to that page. Your flaccid attempts to censor information have proven fruitless and we would like to thank you once again for all of the extra traffic and hope that readers or contributors of FLWG will be alerted to the truth that hasn't been provided by that website.
The SLR was set up by SPCA and so was Mothers4Equality. Debra Esquilante from the Gold Coast set this up in conjunction with Michael Green. Debra Esquilante is an active and key member of Fathers4Equality which is one of the vilest and most anti female mens groups out there. Spot any inconsistencies there Peter?
Coral Slattery is also a key member of FLRA and SPCA and yet fights only for grandparents rights, not mother rights. More inconsistencies?
Don't try to play the "but we have women involved" card as we know it is a common discussion amongst Mens Rights groups that they need to enlist and enrol as many women as possible in order to gain credibility. Trouble is the only women they allow are second wives who are notorious for "protecting the money" which righfully should go to the children that were fathered first. Once the shoe is on the other foot watch them turn. You would know this.
The CRC was set up by Lionel Richards one of the founding members of SPCA and now Ed Dabrowski is a Director of that as well as a Director of SPCA. And you are trying to say that they are independent? It appears we know more about the Shared Parenting Council and of familylawwebguide than you do! Please also read our post on the CRC on our blog for more information on the sham group.
Remember that we know who you are and where you are so you cannot rely upon the anonymity of the internet to protect you. You also cannot rely upon the members of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia to provide you with assistance as they will do to you what they did to Danny Bell. Their habit is to attack you after you have completed their dirty work for them!
- Why aren't any of these men's groups campaigning for Shared Care of Children during marriage? Surely that is the answer to all of these problems? If the men took an active role in their children, possibly there would be less divorces and separations?
- How many members of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia took an active role in their childs care and upbringing before they divorced?
- Why was Lindsay trawling the homosexual classifieds?
- Why did the SPCA decide to set up a sham Mothers site and call it a part of their community? Was it anything to do with the funding and government scrutiny?
- Why are the Shared Parenting Council of Australia funded by the government and yet publish a hate site against mothers?
- Why is the Shared Parenting Council of Australia and the familylawwebguide allowed to discriminate against mothers? We thought that was illegal in this country?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
It is only a matter of time before the Shared Parenting Council of Australia lies and deceit are exposed publically.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
"This website devoted to the special concerns of people facing serious and difficult challenges in their relationships.Our website offers advice, tips and resources to people struggling with having to make important decisions for themselves and about their relationships, their children and their futures. "
and assumed that it was not a gender specific web site and that they were concerned about the plight of both husbands and wives and mothers and fathers.If that was the case then you are WRONG!!!!!
Thefamilylawwebguide is a thinly veiled front for the Shared parenting Council of Australia.
Dads On The Air, Equal parenting Network, Family Law Reform Association Nsw are all for various aggressive mens groups like and are really just a part of the SPCA and have most members in common.
Most of the male members of FLWG have a long association with at least one of these groups and it is obvious from the online conversations that are searchable on the site, that a concious decision was made to entice female members to FamilyLawWebGuide in an effort to be taken more seriously.In other words:THEY NEEDED WOMEN TO BE INVOLVED SO THAT THEY COULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Oh the irony!
Although a couple of the members make some attempt to at least appear to be fair (Monty), most give up all pretence (knowing full well that they have the support of the senior administration) and launch biased and discriminatory attacks on the female members. At the time of writing there are only 2 or 3 female members that fully contribute and only one (Artemis) that is fully accepted mostly due to her attacks on other female users and of her denouncing members of her sex (in other words she is a suck up to the male members of the group).They like to toss around such comments as "Femrat" and "Feminazi" to describe the mothers of their children. Of course they don't support the "no Fault" divorce because it was a sudden surprise that their wife just up and left them one day and "stole" their children off them and then proceeded to "steal" money off them. They don't support their children and the website is full of tips and tricks on how to avoid or minimise your child support liability.The group is headed by an ex NSW Queens Counsel turned mediator who finds it difficult to hide his hatred for women and most times does not bother. The four questions have to be asked:If you're an ex QC, why do you keep touting it as a qualification now?Why did you leave the NSW bar only to become a mediator? (Seems like a demotion?)Why are you still providing legal advice to members of the group who choose to Self Represent in the Courts? How you you act as an impartial mediator in matters of family law, when you hate women so much? Another question that is pertinent is why do you all choose to operate under multiple aliases? Is that a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader that there are more active members than there are in reality? And yes Dad4life/Matrix I mean you too. Coincidentally are you aware that the The Matrix Guild is a Victorian support group for lesbian women aged over 40? Then again you probably already did know that didn't you?And Wayne you haven't escaped notice and it is blatantly obvious which aliases you are on there for all of your patronising ill informed comments. Jon Pearson? What can one say...it's all their for you to read including the fact that he had a whole year of illness to avoid paying child support for his own children. read the case report, it's all on there.Then there is one guy from WA who actively avoids paying his $50 a week in child Support and openly posts on there how he salary sacrifices just to avoid paying more. And the mediator from WA who has it posted all over the internet about his hatred for women and his compulsion for pornography. Familylawwebguide = CESSPIT!!You have been warned!
We do find it curious that all new users to the forum (sorry "Portal" they call it that because they think it removes some of the responsibility from them) are not only encouraged but urged as a matter of importance to join the S.R.L. group and then they turn around to profess just how busy and overworked they are and "hey we're doing this on a volunteer basis so don't hassle us" mentality. It would make one wonder why they would want all of your details if they're too darn busy to do anything with it anyway. We believe it is just a ruse to obtain all of your personal information. Be very careful about divulging anything to FamilyLawWebGuide as it could be used against you. Remember information is power.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Rejection is a very hard thing to overcome. We promise you that things will get better and you will eventually get over the fact that your wife left you. Make new friends and you will find things do improve with time.
We see you and Donga have formed a lovely little alliance, that is great as you will need all the support you can get through this difficult time.
Thank you for all of the traffic too, it helps greatly with our site rankings!!
"View previous topic :: View next topic
donga1Joined: 13 Oct 2008Posts: 2Location: Oz
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject: We need to offer dad's more than awaiting the court ruling
Sometimes I have included an option for dads to just go and get the child/ren. Where the mother of the children is out to punish the dad for hurt suffered in the relationship and refuses to let the father see the child for no good reason or refusing to mediate and disallowing contact - then why not? Not that the father should continue to keep the chilren but as a consequence of a wife not willing to negotiate then he has no other option. Until negotiations begin then he would of course return the child maybe. This can be used without ramification or the police being able to do anything about it. No court orders? - then there is nothing to say a father cannot pick up his children from school and refuse to give them back until the wife comes to her senses._________________There are no feminists when the lifeboats are lowered"
And this from the CFM board..
Re: Political Correctness, Feminiism and some of its origins
"by WACMAN on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:21 pm
Yeah agree with you AB.We have reverse discrimination here in OZ when it comes to our natives. A white person cannot get medical treatment or help from services that are specifically designed to help natives - they satisfy the criteria but they are not black and so.....
NeoHasEscapedMatrix is an imposter and did the dirty on this site when he left last time.
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:26 am "
"Natives"?? Really? You are very dangerous and need to be stopped!!!
Donga/Danytink/Wacman etc etc posted this:
"donga1Registered UserJoined: 21 Oct 2008Posts: 19
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: Legal Kidnapping
Let's try this on. No court orders exist for a father or mother who have a boy of 3 years old. The mother in a paranoid state and in PSPM (post separation punishment mode) keeps the father from seeing the child stating her legal advice is to have supervised access ony for a couple of hours a fortnight at a premises chosen by her. There is no criminal records except the police attended once when he rang them as she branded a knife at him. Nothing came of it. The father is distressed thinking he will never see his child because she walked out of mediation. What advice would you give? Is it fair to sya that the father could go and take the child while on one of his access visits and hold onto that child until a fairer arrangement can be put in place? According to law, Police cannot do anything unless the child appears distressed while in the company of the other parent. Is it wise to play the trump card in these circumstances and step out on a limb hoping the law willl save you?_________________There are no feminists when the lifeboats are lowered"
Do you not know how to do your job, because it seems to us that you have to post your clients private details all over the internet to ask how to solve the problem? Maybe someone should post a warning in your local newspaper to show your clients where their details have been dispalyed on the net for all to read along with your biased and misogynistic comments? Do you declare your bias as you are bound to do when you first meet clients? We thought not.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
MikeT, Artemis and D4E seem to be the most prolific providers of advice and from our experience, most of what they write is incorrect and poorly researched.
Artemis in her desperation to appear as the expert in all subjects either provides innaccurate information, states the obvious or fails to comprehend the situation. Her and MikeT must be related we think. We would love to see an apology from either of them when proven to be wrong.
Cutting and pasting the CSA legislation in an attempt to support blatantly wrong advice can leave you open to legal challenge, particularly as you make no attempt to correct the wrong information being supplied when alerted to the fact via this blog.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
This was posted by MR Cut and Paste, Lindsay.
Some questions we have Lindsay from a different perspective that what you are considering:
- Why didn't he use reliable contraceptive in the first place to prevent an unwanted pregnancy?
- Why did he not become responsible for the child for at least 5 years?
- Did he contribute financially for that child at any time or leave it up to the mother?
- Did he contribute in any way to that child at all, in any way?
- Why did the court rule that he could not "have possession" of his child?
- Why is his donation of an organ reliant on his own imposed conditions? Surely the love for a child is unconditional?
- Why did his new wife choose to use the discrimination based on race card when it was not demonstrated at all?
- Why did his new wife choose to move away from her children that she was "so close to" to another continent?
- Why is there any dilemma at all whether he choose to donate the organ or not, people do itall of the time? To strangers even, without trying to impose conditions.
Lot and lots of holes in the story but don't let that get in the way when trying to tell a story about another "wronged father". The only victim here is that child and maybe one day he will live long enough to read what his father is saying about him in the newspapers. Shame on him and shame on you!
A message for MikeT and overcsaWe sense a pattern in the thread about payment of child support beyondthe age of 18.First Mike makes the usual assumptions 1. The mother is the payee. Wrong! She is the payer!2. The injustice was done to the payer. Wrong again! The injustice wasdone to the payee as it most often is!The thing is, this case just shows yet again that CSA is in fact veryreluctant to create a debt for the payer, even where they have lied about their income, and the injustice overcsa complains of is a very commonoccurrence for payees.Second, nobody notices and corrects him because it is not the party lineto admit payees get a hard time too and that CSA bends over backwards for the payer.Mike even said that CSA is likely to ask the payee to agree to dismissthe arrears. That is what often happens, but nobody bothered to pointout they do that in the interests of the payer, not the payee or the children. Oops, can’t let on that a payee has not had justice. That is just not the image FLWG wants to project at all!!Lucky debraesq eventually weighed in with yet another example of thepayer getting preferential treatment over the payee. Still no commentfrom the ususal ‘dads/payers as the only victims’ players, but at leastthe story was not deleted.The real tragedy comes in Mike’s advice to overcsa – he keeps on and onabout the application not being signed by both parties.Again, nobody notices his error or corrects him. Shame really! Mike iswell meaning, speaks very respectfully of his ex despite the FLWGculture but he often gets the details wrong and always assumes the payergets the raw end of the deal.For the record, so others will not be inconvenienced by this very pooradvice, here is what the CSA actually said An application to extend the child support assessment (made orally or inwriting) should include:• the name of the child; • the name of the school or college; • whether the child receives full-time secondary education; • the last day of secondary school for that year; and • if the application relates to a child support agreement, theapplication must be in writing and signed by both parents. The application only needs to signed by both parents if there is acurrent child support agreement in place.Come on!Look again!Overcsa did not say there is a current child support agreement in place.Even the usually pedantic bigred missed that one.Overcsa, it is a pity you characterised payees as ‘riding the wave ofwealth in the guise of parenting’. Sure you only meant the one inquestion, but you should know by now what dad’s army does with thosekinds of comments. You want justice for when your partner was a payee and for now when he is payer?Well then, play nicely!We might have steered you in the right direction if you had played nicely.Instead, just a few hints.Forget the blah blah blah about the signature unless there was a childsupport agreement – it is irrelevant.Think about private schools versus state schools, final assemblies etc.Think about why you did not object when you got the notification in August.Forget compensation. It is another red herring if you did not object on time.Could be you can do something with those.Could be you blew it.As for Mike, will someone please back him up! How about checking what he says very carefully instead of just running with it.
November 2, 2008 1:56 AM
Posted Yesterday, 09:00 PM
Marker My wife left 7 months ago and left me with the kids.Only one is not grown up and he is only 7 and all the payments are paid to me.During that time she has only sent him 2 bits of clothes and shesendstext messages to him to say good night nearly everynight but that is it.We do have a private agreement with child support which i said earlier she has not kept up.I am in the process of my solicitor giving me fullcustody and her visitation rights with a consent order.She lives nearly 700kms away and wants him to spend all the Christmas holidays with her and then send him back to me. My concern is that without a court order she could decide to keep him there and I do not trust her.What are my options? Should I tell her to wait for the consent orders before she takes him away? Or if she did decided that she was not going to return him how easy is it to get him back.
Posted Yesterday, 11:12 PM
Marker cundletownOnly you know the real risk of this actually happening. It would be a huge thing for her to do to a school aged child... and to be honest, she would already need to be well advanced in the plans to pull it off.. think about it, school enrollments and stuff that seven year olds do.....If you are in the process of trying to get consent orders, then i would get them consented to as quicly as you can.What you have had in the past can work for you in court to get your child back IF your scenario happenedThe current residence situation will not help you one bit to get your child back, without legal action, if she decided to not return your child, the police wont do anything and if you went to get the child, you would almost certainly be slapped with an arrest and an AVOIts quite simple really No orders = No rules and ANYTHING can happen (which does not mean of course that it will!!!)Its another double edged sword in the world of families splitting upPersonally, i would not do it without a firm agreed contact of whats going to happen, and my ex only lives 1km away... but thats just me.......thanks Last edit: Yesterday, 11:20 PM by gooner
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
Posted Today, 10:34 AM
Marker The reason I do not trust her is because she wanted me to lie about how many days she has him so she can claim more from centrelink.Also she is renting a 2 bedroom flat for 220 a week.She is only on the single pension which only leaves her about 130 a week to live on if you include rent assistance.I think maybe my best bet is to say no till all the orders are in place just in case.She has already told me that she would not keep him but i guess you hear so amny horror stories of mothers playing hard ball when it comes to the kids.What do you all think?
Posted Today, 11:09 AM
The reason I do not trust her is because she wanted me to lie about how many days she has him so she can claim more from centrelink.Also she is renting a 2 bedroom flat for 220 a week.She is only on the single pension which only leaves her about 130 a week to live on if you include rent assistance.I think maybe my best bet is to say no till all the orders are in place just in case.She has already told me that she would not keep him but i guess you hear so amny horror stories of mothers playing hard ball when it comes to the kids.What do you all think? I think you just answered your own question. Get it confirmed legally in writing
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
Posted Today, 02:06 PM
Marker Cundletown.You are very right to be concerned. Far too often a parent wants custody for the extra financial assistance that they can get.I believe that if you and your ex could agree, you could have consent orders filed in little time, the application can be lodged and filed without having to go to court and even I guess with having to go to a Family Relationship Centre. The one area that concerns me is that the child will be the one missing out.Have you perhaps considered means by which she could have some contact? Perhaps her coming to see the child rather than the child going to her.Perhaps supervised by a relation or friend who you do trust. Perhaps even at a centre that will oversee supervised contact. There could be many options and permutations driven by the situation.
Why aren't you posting to this that he has to ensure that it is in the childs best interests to facilitate contact with his mother like you did recently with a female member who wished to move? Why is it suddenly the mother is assumed to be only interested in financial gain for wanting to have her child? Why is it recommended that she only have supervised contact and on what basis? Why is it preferred that the mother go to the child instead of having the child go to her MikeT, when you were on that website complaining about this very issue? No wonder you only have a very special core group of angry men posters and the rest you chase away. All familylawwebguide is a self help group for men to avoid child support, to make it hard for the mothers to parent their children.