Usually you're the type that they love on Familylawwebguide, the second wife who is bitter and twisted and loves to grind her axe about the ex wife. But we think you went too far and so did some other posters of familylawwebguide. So you got in a huff when challenged, you'll get over it!
Maybe you could hang out here:
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:qKAnmw55ac8J:www.stepfamily.asn.au/forum/index.php%3Ftopic%3D28584.0+clutterbug+stepfamily&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=23&gl=au
It's a really good site where they love to bag and put down the ex wife, all the while protesting how they really love the stepchildren. Sure!
Artemis (Clutterbug) just loves this site although a lot of what she posts is in direct contradiction to what she posts on familylawwebguide.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Danytink/Danny/Donga/Dipstick
Danytink/Danny/Donga/Dipstick posted confidential details of his mediation clients yet again on Familylawebguide.com.au
"I need to play the devils advocate in order to get a quick answer on this one.
A couple go to mediation and sign an Honourary Financial Agreement that is set out clearly and is worded according to the templates on the Family Law Website. The agreement outlines full indemnity operating both ways and it is sewn up pretty tightly in regards to future ownership and rights of the applicant and respondent.
This agreement is not filed in any court and it has not had a solicitor look over it or a certificate attached to it. The agreement is to do with the property of a separating/divorced couple.
Why is it not binding according to Family Law when any other agreement of it's kind in real estate or financial areas are? "
Given that Mandurah is not a very big town, and you don't have many clients, it would be easy to identify who these people are. You are breaching your code of ethics yet again.
And for the record, other agreements are not necessarily legally binding but then you wouldn't understand that either.
"I need to play the devils advocate in order to get a quick answer on this one.
A couple go to mediation and sign an Honourary Financial Agreement that is set out clearly and is worded according to the templates on the Family Law Website. The agreement outlines full indemnity operating both ways and it is sewn up pretty tightly in regards to future ownership and rights of the applicant and respondent.
This agreement is not filed in any court and it has not had a solicitor look over it or a certificate attached to it. The agreement is to do with the property of a separating/divorced couple.
Why is it not binding according to Family Law when any other agreement of it's kind in real estate or financial areas are? "
Given that Mandurah is not a very big town, and you don't have many clients, it would be easy to identify who these people are. You are breaching your code of ethics yet again.
And for the record, other agreements are not necessarily legally binding but then you wouldn't understand that either.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Some responses to recent posts on Familylawebguide
Question! just get over it will you. Go and get a job yourself instead of trying to alienate your partners ex and children. Provide for your own children yourself. Nothing worse than a second wife taking over the battle of her partner with such venom. It's not your battle, nor your business. Get over it!
For Debraesq who posted that to ensure she or her child does not experience violence during handovers of the partners children that she video tapes it all. We ask, what the hell are you doing at handovers of your partners children anyway? Have you ever thought that you can guarantee that you (or your child) won't get hurt by staying the hell away? See above comment....nothing worse than a venom filled second wife who decides to make the battle her own. And how can you even think for a moment that you are not hurting any child yourself (either your own or those of your partners)? Someone should report you to DOCS. Actually we think we will.
Gooner you're just an idiot no wonder you like familylawwebguide so much!
For Debraesq who posted that to ensure she or her child does not experience violence during handovers of the partners children that she video tapes it all. We ask, what the hell are you doing at handovers of your partners children anyway? Have you ever thought that you can guarantee that you (or your child) won't get hurt by staying the hell away? See above comment....nothing worse than a venom filled second wife who decides to make the battle her own. And how can you even think for a moment that you are not hurting any child yourself (either your own or those of your partners)? Someone should report you to DOCS. Actually we think we will.
Gooner you're just an idiot no wonder you like familylawwebguide so much!
CraziestOzzy =Deadbeat Dad loser
As is typical for the website familylawewebguide.com.au another deadbeat dad posts looking for advice to conquer the Child Support system. Luckily there are people like MIKET only too willing to help the losers out. The user named CraziestOzzy recently posted this to familylawwebguide on the subject of non payment of Child support:
"
CraziestOzzy
I will keep to the facts...1) I am required to maintenance each month to the CSA.2) I am not getting any money from any source to pay the money I am required to pay each month to the CSA. I have been challenged by CSA that it is impossible for anyone to live with no money, but I have told them I have sought employment to no avail and cannot earn Social Security as my spouse is over the ceiling set by Centrelink ...so my spouse supports me by feeding me and giving me a roof over my head.3) I have been challenged by the CSA as to why my spouse will not make any payments on my behalf...I am in a defacto relationship and my spouse has been supporting me (as mentioned) and refuses to pay maintenance as she is not compensated by the government in any way for doing so.4) As a result of the above, I am in debt to CSA of about $500 and it is increasing each month by the minimum monthly required payment of about $50. The total debt thus far has been incurred while I have been receiving no money but yet still expected to pay due to this legislation.5) I have no qualifications that would make me an attractive prospect to an employer.6) I have spent the last eight years off and on study at university in the hope of getting a decent job, but have had to finally withdraw due to health reasons.7) I spent six years in the army as a dental nurse but that has proven to be not enough to gain employment to raise money...I have come to the same conclusion as my father who experienced similar years ago...too old to work for someone and not physically fit to be competitive against other applicants.8) My partner and I came to the conclusion early this year that I should work in a joint venture with her as a photographer...a home business, self employed scenario.9) We did just that and through purchasing cheap second hand equipment off Ebay with her money, got a camera and the minimum required to get started.10) To this day we have sought customers through advertising pamphlets, refering people to our business website and to this day have got no customers. We cannot afford to advertise in the yellow pages or pay for advertising at the moment and have recently closed our business website of about four months old as it was not bringing in customers and costing her too much.11) Our next business step (as set out from the beginning by us as to the steps to take to get customers should our initial plan fail) is to get a physical portfolio consisting of prints, where I can do a door knock and show businesses what I have to offer or can do. She is not getting enough money to pay for more than one print a fortnight...I need at least 20 to having something respectable and will obviously have to wait a few months to reach that aim.12) I have been contacted by CSA today asking me when am I am going to pay this debt of $500 off...I have replied they will either have to wait for our business to get off the ground or wait until the mango season starts in a few months where they will be guaranteed money at least then.13) They have told me on the phone that they will refer my situation to debt collection where they will seize my jointly owned business assetts as I refuse to pay. That is not true...I repeatably corrected the persons ( I spoke to three during the day) and told them that I am physically unable to pay and to please stop accusing me of refusing to pay.SUmmary: I am at a loss how the CSA can seize assetss (albeit not worth a great deal) purchased by my spouse over the year for a jointly owned business ( for the sole purpose of me getting an income) and wreck any future plans or prospects for me getting a wage of some description where I could make eventually steady payments to CSA...just because "they are required by legislation" to settle the current debt now raher than wait a few months where I am certain of getting money from seasonal work at least.The fact this debt ( and future debt if I dont get a job or earn money) has entirely been raised based on "new" legislation that ignores the fact that I am not getting money from any source to meet the minimum monthly payment I have been told by government to pay is blatantly rediculous and a source of much bemusal and stress I can currently do without due to my current medical condition.
EDIT :I failed to mention that after a few months of no money comming in from our new business venture, I started to look for work on "career one" website and got only two interviews and no work. My recent job application was two weeks ago and had interview with local service station as they advertised for job...a young girl got the job. Also CSA were constantly hassling every TWO weeks without fail upto about two months ago and asking am I getting money to pay the debt...and going through the usual stuff...no-one can live with no money, my spouse should pay the money I owe etc.. It is of interest that the CSA settled on the idea about two months ago that they were "happy" I had started a new business venture and were "happy" to wait until I get some money in...I too was "happy" with the arrangement and the phone calls stopped... until today when out of the blue I am told to cough up $500 and after I said I have not got the money but in the next few months I will, they throw without warning that are referring the matter to debt collection who will seize my only assets...that of the joint venture business...I get more courtesy out of finance companies (and some warning) "
We respond as follows and like CraziestOzzy will stick to the facts as well:
1. Just who do you expect to support your children then CraziestOzzy? Your ex? The government? You breed them you feed them!
2.Your trail is all over the internet and it doesn't appear that you have too many health issues that would stop you working. You can manage to travel vast distances, spend hours crouched over subjects to photograph, spend hours on the internet socialising and gambling.
3. If your current partner took you on willingly and is content to provide your basic expenses then she should also take on your responsibility to feed your children. It is part of the package.
4.You're not expected to pay CS due to the legislation, you're expected to pay child support to provide for the children you sired. man up!
5. 41 is not too old so stop using it as an excuse to bludge.
6. There are plenty of jobs available in your area Glenn. http://searchjobs.careerone.com.au/search/search.cgi?view=1&lookid=careerone&tmpId=&collection=careerone_xml&query=&meta_N_phrase_sand=townsville&meta_q_phrase_sand=&meta_x_orsand=&meta_s_phrase_sand=&qMatch=all&qField=All&qCountry=Australia&qMiles=15&pp=20&search.x=51&search.y=12&start_rank=1
7. Take what you spend on Online Gambling and send to the CSA to support your children.
8. If we could find out so much about you by doing a cursory check on the internet then the CSA can too.
9.It is losers like you that give all fathers a bad name.
"
CraziestOzzy
I will keep to the facts...1) I am required to maintenance each month to the CSA.2) I am not getting any money from any source to pay the money I am required to pay each month to the CSA. I have been challenged by CSA that it is impossible for anyone to live with no money, but I have told them I have sought employment to no avail and cannot earn Social Security as my spouse is over the ceiling set by Centrelink ...so my spouse supports me by feeding me and giving me a roof over my head.3) I have been challenged by the CSA as to why my spouse will not make any payments on my behalf...I am in a defacto relationship and my spouse has been supporting me (as mentioned) and refuses to pay maintenance as she is not compensated by the government in any way for doing so.4) As a result of the above, I am in debt to CSA of about $500 and it is increasing each month by the minimum monthly required payment of about $50. The total debt thus far has been incurred while I have been receiving no money but yet still expected to pay due to this legislation.5) I have no qualifications that would make me an attractive prospect to an employer.6) I have spent the last eight years off and on study at university in the hope of getting a decent job, but have had to finally withdraw due to health reasons.7) I spent six years in the army as a dental nurse but that has proven to be not enough to gain employment to raise money...I have come to the same conclusion as my father who experienced similar years ago...too old to work for someone and not physically fit to be competitive against other applicants.8) My partner and I came to the conclusion early this year that I should work in a joint venture with her as a photographer...a home business, self employed scenario.9) We did just that and through purchasing cheap second hand equipment off Ebay with her money, got a camera and the minimum required to get started.10) To this day we have sought customers through advertising pamphlets, refering people to our business website and to this day have got no customers. We cannot afford to advertise in the yellow pages or pay for advertising at the moment and have recently closed our business website of about four months old as it was not bringing in customers and costing her too much.11) Our next business step (as set out from the beginning by us as to the steps to take to get customers should our initial plan fail) is to get a physical portfolio consisting of prints, where I can do a door knock and show businesses what I have to offer or can do. She is not getting enough money to pay for more than one print a fortnight...I need at least 20 to having something respectable and will obviously have to wait a few months to reach that aim.12) I have been contacted by CSA today asking me when am I am going to pay this debt of $500 off...I have replied they will either have to wait for our business to get off the ground or wait until the mango season starts in a few months where they will be guaranteed money at least then.13) They have told me on the phone that they will refer my situation to debt collection where they will seize my jointly owned business assetts as I refuse to pay. That is not true...I repeatably corrected the persons ( I spoke to three during the day) and told them that I am physically unable to pay and to please stop accusing me of refusing to pay.SUmmary: I am at a loss how the CSA can seize assetss (albeit not worth a great deal) purchased by my spouse over the year for a jointly owned business ( for the sole purpose of me getting an income) and wreck any future plans or prospects for me getting a wage of some description where I could make eventually steady payments to CSA...just because "they are required by legislation" to settle the current debt now raher than wait a few months where I am certain of getting money from seasonal work at least.The fact this debt ( and future debt if I dont get a job or earn money) has entirely been raised based on "new" legislation that ignores the fact that I am not getting money from any source to meet the minimum monthly payment I have been told by government to pay is blatantly rediculous and a source of much bemusal and stress I can currently do without due to my current medical condition.
EDIT :I failed to mention that after a few months of no money comming in from our new business venture, I started to look for work on "career one" website and got only two interviews and no work. My recent job application was two weeks ago and had interview with local service station as they advertised for job...a young girl got the job. Also CSA were constantly hassling every TWO weeks without fail upto about two months ago and asking am I getting money to pay the debt...and going through the usual stuff...no-one can live with no money, my spouse should pay the money I owe etc.. It is of interest that the CSA settled on the idea about two months ago that they were "happy" I had started a new business venture and were "happy" to wait until I get some money in...I too was "happy" with the arrangement and the phone calls stopped... until today when out of the blue I am told to cough up $500 and after I said I have not got the money but in the next few months I will, they throw without warning that are referring the matter to debt collection who will seize my only assets...that of the joint venture business...I get more courtesy out of finance companies (and some warning) "
We respond as follows and like CraziestOzzy will stick to the facts as well:
1. Just who do you expect to support your children then CraziestOzzy? Your ex? The government? You breed them you feed them!
2.Your trail is all over the internet and it doesn't appear that you have too many health issues that would stop you working. You can manage to travel vast distances, spend hours crouched over subjects to photograph, spend hours on the internet socialising and gambling.
3. If your current partner took you on willingly and is content to provide your basic expenses then she should also take on your responsibility to feed your children. It is part of the package.
4.You're not expected to pay CS due to the legislation, you're expected to pay child support to provide for the children you sired. man up!
5. 41 is not too old so stop using it as an excuse to bludge.
6. There are plenty of jobs available in your area Glenn. http://searchjobs.careerone.com.au/search/search.cgi?view=1&lookid=careerone&tmpId=&collection=careerone_xml&query=&meta_N_phrase_sand=townsville&meta_q_phrase_sand=&meta_x_orsand=&meta_s_phrase_sand=&qMatch=all&qField=All&qCountry=Australia&qMiles=15&pp=20&search.x=51&search.y=12&start_rank=1
7. Take what you spend on Online Gambling and send to the CSA to support your children.
8. If we could find out so much about you by doing a cursory check on the internet then the CSA can too.
9.It is losers like you that give all fathers a bad name.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Hey Fleuroman!!
Did you win your case at the SSAT? May is a tricky word isn't it?
We hope you didn't embarass yourself too much!
We hope you didn't embarass yourself too much!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Childrens Rights Council
Familylawwebguide and Shared Parenting Council of Australia promote one of the members of "their community" as the Childrens Rights Council. It is apparent that they are not that concerned about "the children" at all. We suspected as much.
This was from thelizlibrary:
"A WORD ABOUTTHE CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COUNCIL
The Children's Rights Council, "CRC", is a father's rights group originally founded by, inter alia, FR ideologue David Levy, who is its president. It is a 501(c)(3) organization that purports to be"educational." In reality, its membership is strongly tied to FR political lobbying groups. It's political, not educational.
When the organization was formed, (about the time it began to become popular for father's rights groups to include mention of "children" in the names of their organizations, and also about the time joint custody started getting a lot of academic notice via Ph.D. studies as a "new idea"), the founders put together an honorary membership in a "board" that currently is listed on the organization's stationery. It is common for non-profits, particularly charitable non-profits (this is not) to solicit actors and other famous persons in this way. They do it because it facilitates their public relations appearance of philanthropy and interest in causes, and in return, this simultaneously lends an air of immediate credibility to the non-profit organization.
The Children's Rights Council carefully postures its supposed "officials" in a way designed to make it appear that the group is inclusive of all interests.
In particular, the C.R.C. plays down its FR ties, and plays up its "women" ties, e.g. hawking joint custody supporter, Karen DeCrow (childless second wife) and FRster Warren Farrell because that permits repeated mention of these individuals now dubious ties to "N.O.W." to cast the impression that the C.R.C. is a group comprising mothers and sanctioned by feminists!
But according to its masthead, the working officers and board consist of only four persons.
Of those four, two are David Levy, president, and Ellen Dublin Levy, secretary. This information is indicated in small, inconspicuous type on the Council's stationery. Quite a tight-knit group. Few might notice or question this, however, or notice that it's not at all up-front about who are the powers-that-be-in-charge, because the organization's stationery (below, as of 1998) and publications obscure this lack of informative information with a LENGTHY listing of ostensible executives including, among others:
An Honorary President (what the heck is this?) comedian David Brenner
Parenting Education Spokesperson, NBA hall-of-famer, Wes Unseld (based on his child development experience or his legal experience?)
National Spokespersons, Darryl Grant, Washington Redskins; Doug Superman, a country music singer; and Dwight Twilley, a pop music singer. (More entertainers and ball players...)
The "general counsel" is FATHER'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST-lawyer-writer MICHAEL L. ODDENINO who is a founder and organization ideologue.
His actual influence is downplayed by listing his name as if it is on a par with the comedians and sports figures.)
Then there's the long "impressive" list of "Advisory Panel" members:
Mendel Abrams, a rabbi, Abigail Van Buren (Dear Abby), Senator Fred Thompson (TN), an actor,Senator Bob Graham (FL), Judith Bakersfeld, president of the Stepfamily Association of America, Kay and Ray Berryhill, founders of Grandparents Rights in New Strength, David Birney, an actor.Pat Boyd, of Parents Without Partners, Jim Cook, president of the Joint Custody Association, an FR organization, Karen DeCrow, former president of NOW and well-known misguided supporter of the FR agenda (but if you didn't know this, her inclusion on a quick glance down the roster certainly makes this organization look woman-friendly, doesn't it), Ellen Diamond, Children's Rights Council Co-founderPhyllis Diller, an entertainerWarren Farrell "Ph.D., a self-proclaimed "sexologist" and father's rights activist,Larry Caughan, director of Family Mediation of Washington, DC, Jonathan Goodson, the Hollywood TV producer, Jennifer Isham, president of Mothers Without Custody, and Joan Berlin Kelly, researcher and author.
The panel listing was designed to appear to represent a spectrum of positions and interests, particularly to be inclusive of women and feminists.
The former NOW presidency of (childless, second wife) Karen DeCrow is touted as her sole claim to fame (is it?), and, as is typical, so is (childless) Warren Farrell's board membership in the NYC chapter of NOW, which (as he usually portrays it) is written up to appear to have been membership in the national board, with a dangling modifyer implying that the national board is headquartered in NYC. (One has to wonder about THIS being Farrell's listed credential? What about his decade or so AFTERWARD studying incest and pedophilia and claiming to be a sexologist...?)
In summary, then, the C.R.C. honchos, both active and titular, include: lots of sports figures and entertainers, a representative of a stepparent's association, a representative of a noncustodial mother's association, a couple of childless former feminists (including one who has opined that "...millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves"), the founders of a grandparents rights organization, the P.W.P. social dating club, and okay so there's the unmistakable FRs like Oddenino and Jim Cook, but everyone's represented, right? Wrong.
Notably, you will not see one single individual or organization listed, even among the titular luminaries, who represent primary parenting-custodial mothers, married, unwed or divorced. Not represented. Mothers with children are not represented. At all. The single largest demographic group with hands-on experience in child rearing, the one demographic group with the MOST interest in and concern for children's welfare: NOT represented.
The agenda of the C.R.C. is in favor of joint custody and extended visitation rights. It has put its support behind a range of FR legislative proposals and position papers. Its featured speakers include (e.g. 11th Annual Conference in fall of 1997) the likes of Sanford Braver, Ph.D. (pro-joint custody propagandist "researcher"), Richard Gardner, M.D. of Parental Alienation Syndrome fame, Canadian Senator Anne Cools (dyed in the wool anti-feminist for those of you who are familiar with Canadian politics -- what was she doing here in a U.S. policy group?). Members of Congress routinely are invited to the organization's D.C. area meetings, such as the above 11th annual conference which featured the above notable anti-mother activists.
The C.R.C. downpeddles its FR agenda and RR ties, and markets itself in a way designed to appear to the disinterested observer as an organization backed by important people, concerned about, studying and working in the interests of children and their divorce problems.
The agenda of groups such as the C.R.C. often passes easily on a quick look-see by scholars and legislators as neutral and benign. (Another one of these, albeit not an organization per se but a program is the National Fatherhood Initiative.) Although these professionals should be "smarter," their very posture as objective and neutral means that they frequently will fail to examine surface presentations. And many of them are in fact men with personal agendas that are not pro-woman.
So what's the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers doing endorsing this bunch on its website? There are two possibilities: either (1) this supposed smart group of some of the nation's top family lawyers is ignorant of family law politics, or (2) they are themselves anti-mother, non-neutral, father's-rights ideologues."
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/aaml.htm#crcmain
This was from thelizlibrary:
"A WORD ABOUTTHE CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COUNCIL
The Children's Rights Council, "CRC", is a father's rights group originally founded by, inter alia, FR ideologue David Levy, who is its president. It is a 501(c)(3) organization that purports to be"educational." In reality, its membership is strongly tied to FR political lobbying groups. It's political, not educational.
When the organization was formed, (about the time it began to become popular for father's rights groups to include mention of "children" in the names of their organizations, and also about the time joint custody started getting a lot of academic notice via Ph.D. studies as a "new idea"), the founders put together an honorary membership in a "board" that currently is listed on the organization's stationery. It is common for non-profits, particularly charitable non-profits (this is not) to solicit actors and other famous persons in this way. They do it because it facilitates their public relations appearance of philanthropy and interest in causes, and in return, this simultaneously lends an air of immediate credibility to the non-profit organization.
The Children's Rights Council carefully postures its supposed "officials" in a way designed to make it appear that the group is inclusive of all interests.
In particular, the C.R.C. plays down its FR ties, and plays up its "women" ties, e.g. hawking joint custody supporter, Karen DeCrow (childless second wife) and FRster Warren Farrell because that permits repeated mention of these individuals now dubious ties to "N.O.W." to cast the impression that the C.R.C. is a group comprising mothers and sanctioned by feminists!
But according to its masthead, the working officers and board consist of only four persons.
Of those four, two are David Levy, president, and Ellen Dublin Levy, secretary. This information is indicated in small, inconspicuous type on the Council's stationery. Quite a tight-knit group. Few might notice or question this, however, or notice that it's not at all up-front about who are the powers-that-be-in-charge, because the organization's stationery (below, as of 1998) and publications obscure this lack of informative information with a LENGTHY listing of ostensible executives including, among others:
An Honorary President (what the heck is this?) comedian David Brenner
Parenting Education Spokesperson, NBA hall-of-famer, Wes Unseld (based on his child development experience or his legal experience?)
National Spokespersons, Darryl Grant, Washington Redskins; Doug Superman, a country music singer; and Dwight Twilley, a pop music singer. (More entertainers and ball players...)
The "general counsel" is FATHER'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST-lawyer-writer MICHAEL L. ODDENINO who is a founder and organization ideologue.
His actual influence is downplayed by listing his name as if it is on a par with the comedians and sports figures.)
Then there's the long "impressive" list of "Advisory Panel" members:
Mendel Abrams, a rabbi, Abigail Van Buren (Dear Abby), Senator Fred Thompson (TN), an actor,Senator Bob Graham (FL), Judith Bakersfeld, president of the Stepfamily Association of America, Kay and Ray Berryhill, founders of Grandparents Rights in New Strength, David Birney, an actor.Pat Boyd, of Parents Without Partners, Jim Cook, president of the Joint Custody Association, an FR organization, Karen DeCrow, former president of NOW and well-known misguided supporter of the FR agenda (but if you didn't know this, her inclusion on a quick glance down the roster certainly makes this organization look woman-friendly, doesn't it), Ellen Diamond, Children's Rights Council Co-founderPhyllis Diller, an entertainerWarren Farrell "Ph.D., a self-proclaimed "sexologist" and father's rights activist,Larry Caughan, director of Family Mediation of Washington, DC, Jonathan Goodson, the Hollywood TV producer, Jennifer Isham, president of Mothers Without Custody, and Joan Berlin Kelly, researcher and author.
The panel listing was designed to appear to represent a spectrum of positions and interests, particularly to be inclusive of women and feminists.
The former NOW presidency of (childless, second wife) Karen DeCrow is touted as her sole claim to fame (is it?), and, as is typical, so is (childless) Warren Farrell's board membership in the NYC chapter of NOW, which (as he usually portrays it) is written up to appear to have been membership in the national board, with a dangling modifyer implying that the national board is headquartered in NYC. (One has to wonder about THIS being Farrell's listed credential? What about his decade or so AFTERWARD studying incest and pedophilia and claiming to be a sexologist...?)
In summary, then, the C.R.C. honchos, both active and titular, include: lots of sports figures and entertainers, a representative of a stepparent's association, a representative of a noncustodial mother's association, a couple of childless former feminists (including one who has opined that "...millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves"), the founders of a grandparents rights organization, the P.W.P. social dating club, and okay so there's the unmistakable FRs like Oddenino and Jim Cook, but everyone's represented, right? Wrong.
Notably, you will not see one single individual or organization listed, even among the titular luminaries, who represent primary parenting-custodial mothers, married, unwed or divorced. Not represented. Mothers with children are not represented. At all. The single largest demographic group with hands-on experience in child rearing, the one demographic group with the MOST interest in and concern for children's welfare: NOT represented.
The agenda of the C.R.C. is in favor of joint custody and extended visitation rights. It has put its support behind a range of FR legislative proposals and position papers. Its featured speakers include (e.g. 11th Annual Conference in fall of 1997) the likes of Sanford Braver, Ph.D. (pro-joint custody propagandist "researcher"), Richard Gardner, M.D. of Parental Alienation Syndrome fame, Canadian Senator Anne Cools (dyed in the wool anti-feminist for those of you who are familiar with Canadian politics -- what was she doing here in a U.S. policy group?). Members of Congress routinely are invited to the organization's D.C. area meetings, such as the above 11th annual conference which featured the above notable anti-mother activists.
The C.R.C. downpeddles its FR agenda and RR ties, and markets itself in a way designed to appear to the disinterested observer as an organization backed by important people, concerned about, studying and working in the interests of children and their divorce problems.
The agenda of groups such as the C.R.C. often passes easily on a quick look-see by scholars and legislators as neutral and benign. (Another one of these, albeit not an organization per se but a program is the National Fatherhood Initiative.) Although these professionals should be "smarter," their very posture as objective and neutral means that they frequently will fail to examine surface presentations. And many of them are in fact men with personal agendas that are not pro-woman.
So what's the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers doing endorsing this bunch on its website? There are two possibilities: either (1) this supposed smart group of some of the nation's top family lawyers is ignorant of family law politics, or (2) they are themselves anti-mother, non-neutral, father's-rights ideologues."
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/aaml.htm#crcmain
Everybody is leaving...pout!
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:xywiCD0dposJ:www.coderforums.net/member.php%3Fu%3D1+lindsay+jackel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=52&gl=au
Oooh Lindsay are you going to do the same thing as OneRingRules or are you just upset about our comments on your picture? We're sorry.
"Brendan
Administrator
Last Activity: 05-05-2008 09:25 AM
User Lists
Visitor Messages
About Me
Statistics
Contact Info
»
Visitor Messages
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 1 of 1
08-13-2008 11:11 PMLindsay Jackel
Hi Brendan.I would like to close my forum account - userid "Lindsay Jackel" - please.I haven't been able to do it myself, so am writing to you as Admin to please close and delete my account please.I'm winding down my website activities due to a change in interests and lifestyle.All the best and thank you very much.Lindsay Jackeljackel@melbpc.org.au"
Oooh Lindsay are you going to do the same thing as OneRingRules or are you just upset about our comments on your picture? We're sorry.
"Brendan
Administrator
Last Activity: 05-05-2008 09:25 AM
User Lists
Visitor Messages
About Me
Statistics
Contact Info
»
Visitor Messages
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 1 of 1
08-13-2008 11:11 PMLindsay Jackel
Hi Brendan.I would like to close my forum account - userid "Lindsay Jackel" - please.I haven't been able to do it myself, so am writing to you as Admin to please close and delete my account please.I'm winding down my website activities due to a change in interests and lifestyle.All the best and thank you very much.Lindsay Jackeljackel@melbpc.org.au"
For Some Great Reading....
http://www.kidsindistress.org.au/index.php
A good range of articles witht he focus on the best interests of the child,
http://www.xyonline.net/
Another good source of some cold hard truths about the fathers rights groups.
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/~liz/liz/contents.html
American based but blows the lid off some of the facts about mens rights groups. Warren Farrell is mentioned on there and he is touted by the SPCA as a guru of parenting.
A good range of articles witht he focus on the best interests of the child,
http://www.xyonline.net/
Another good source of some cold hard truths about the fathers rights groups.
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/~liz/liz/contents.html
American based but blows the lid off some of the facts about mens rights groups. Warren Farrell is mentioned on there and he is touted by the SPCA as a guru of parenting.
It seems we're not the first to blow the cover of the SPCA
"Organised resistance to feminism has existed for over a century,
but anti-feminist groups of men organised specifically on the basis
of their position as men (or as fathers) are more recent, appearing
only in the last 30 years. Such groups in Australia include the
Lone Fathers Association, the Men’s Rights Agency, the Men’s
Confraternity, Fathers Without Rights, the Shared Parenting
Council, Dads Against Discrimination, and many others. “Men’s
rights” groups overlap with “fathers’ rights” groups and with noncustodial
parents’ groups, whose members are often fathers. These
groups sometimes also have female members and even co-founders,
including ‘second wives’ and other family members of men who
have had some engagement with family law...........................
For example, one of the key groups in Australia currently lobbying for
a rebuttable presumption of joint custody is the Shared Parenting
Council, a new coalition of fathers’ rights groups with links to
such conservative Christian groups as the Festival of Light. Another,
the National Fatherhood Forum, has close links to the Australian
Family Association, a conservative Christian and ‘pro-family’
organisation. A handful of men’s and fathers’ rights groups do have
more flexible visions of family and gender relations. But most share
the common enemy of feminism, as well as gay and lesbian politics
and other progressive movements and ideals.................................
Men’s rights and fathers’ rights advocates do not accurately
represent the views of the majority of divorced and separated men.
While many men (and women) find the processes of divorce and
separation to be hurtful, only a minority subscribe to the aggressively
conservative agendas of anti-feminist men’s groups................................
Fathers’ rights advocates seem
less interested in supporting children than in maintaining or
assuming control over their ex-spouses and the children. They
use the language of “shared parenting”, offering an ideal few could
dispute, but this goal is undermined by their acrimony towards
the custodial parent and their commitments to a patriarchal family
structure.
In addition, their proposed solutions to child support
and contact issues often show insensitivity to children’s welfare
and involve one-sided restrictions on the custodial parent.
http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/backlash.pdf
but anti-feminist groups of men organised specifically on the basis
of their position as men (or as fathers) are more recent, appearing
only in the last 30 years. Such groups in Australia include the
Lone Fathers Association, the Men’s Rights Agency, the Men’s
Confraternity, Fathers Without Rights, the Shared Parenting
Council, Dads Against Discrimination, and many others. “Men’s
rights” groups overlap with “fathers’ rights” groups and with noncustodial
parents’ groups, whose members are often fathers. These
groups sometimes also have female members and even co-founders,
including ‘second wives’ and other family members of men who
have had some engagement with family law...........................
For example, one of the key groups in Australia currently lobbying for
a rebuttable presumption of joint custody is the Shared Parenting
Council, a new coalition of fathers’ rights groups with links to
such conservative Christian groups as the Festival of Light. Another,
the National Fatherhood Forum, has close links to the Australian
Family Association, a conservative Christian and ‘pro-family’
organisation. A handful of men’s and fathers’ rights groups do have
more flexible visions of family and gender relations. But most share
the common enemy of feminism, as well as gay and lesbian politics
and other progressive movements and ideals.................................
Men’s rights and fathers’ rights advocates do not accurately
represent the views of the majority of divorced and separated men.
While many men (and women) find the processes of divorce and
separation to be hurtful, only a minority subscribe to the aggressively
conservative agendas of anti-feminist men’s groups................................
Fathers’ rights advocates seem
less interested in supporting children than in maintaining or
assuming control over their ex-spouses and the children. They
use the language of “shared parenting”, offering an ideal few could
dispute, but this goal is undermined by their acrimony towards
the custodial parent and their commitments to a patriarchal family
structure.
In addition, their proposed solutions to child support
and contact issues often show insensitivity to children’s welfare
and involve one-sided restrictions on the custodial parent.
http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/backlash.pdf
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Questions For Today?
- How many people in the Shared Parenting Council of Australia have actually had 50/50 shared parenting experience?
- Why are most of the members of the Shared Parenting Council men who are over 50?
- Does the fact that they are over 50's men, impact upon their attitudes to women and divorce? (eg loss of power and control over women?)
- Leading on from that is it a product of their upbringing or the era they were brought up in where the man was considered the "head of the house"?
- Is that why they are against the "no Fault" divorce?
Monday, September 1, 2008
More Interesting Reading.....
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/commttee/R8540.pdf
Scroll down to where the Shared Parenting Council of Australia make their submission. We find it very interesting that Michael Green chooses to quote Jenn McIntosh to support his argument for Shared Parenting. He certainly changed his tune later on when she published studies that did not support Sahred Parenting.
We find it atrocious when he comments on two of his clients (we wonder if he had permission as he would be contavening the mediators code of practice if he didn't) and the act of violence that occurred between these two people. See Page 40 of the PDF link.
"A case I had last week was mediation between a father and mother
who had an arrangement going that for some reason had broken down. He was aggravated by
this, he drank too much and he went around and shouted at the mother and children inside the
house, ‘I want to see my kids!’ That was it. She applied, quite reasonably, and got an AVO. That
was all settled in the mediation that followed."
We ask how it was settled? Did Michael Green as the mediator leading the discussion impart his own beliefs in this matter? Did he tell the woman that she was over reacting and that it wasn't exactly domestic violence? Did he coerce this woman into dropping the AVO? We would like to know. If she genuinely felt fear from the man involved (and that is justifiable) and had the presence of mind to seek protection from him, why during the process of mediation with Michael Green did she change her mind?
Scroll down to where the Shared Parenting Council of Australia make their submission. We find it very interesting that Michael Green chooses to quote Jenn McIntosh to support his argument for Shared Parenting. He certainly changed his tune later on when she published studies that did not support Sahred Parenting.
We find it atrocious when he comments on two of his clients (we wonder if he had permission as he would be contavening the mediators code of practice if he didn't) and the act of violence that occurred between these two people. See Page 40 of the PDF link.
"A case I had last week was mediation between a father and mother
who had an arrangement going that for some reason had broken down. He was aggravated by
this, he drank too much and he went around and shouted at the mother and children inside the
house, ‘I want to see my kids!’ That was it. She applied, quite reasonably, and got an AVO. That
was all settled in the mediation that followed."
We ask how it was settled? Did Michael Green as the mediator leading the discussion impart his own beliefs in this matter? Did he tell the woman that she was over reacting and that it wasn't exactly domestic violence? Did he coerce this woman into dropping the AVO? We would like to know. If she genuinely felt fear from the man involved (and that is justifiable) and had the presence of mind to seek protection from him, why during the process of mediation with Michael Green did she change her mind?
Zoehasrights
Due to the views expressed by user Zoehasrights and the unethical views published by that person, we have decided to ban all comments by him. His postings of how to avoid paying child support and his anti women blather do not add anything positive to this blog and we see no reason to engage him. We feel for his children and express sympathy to his family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
