It's all crumbling down!

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24729425-3102,00.html

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

Article from:

• Font size: Decrease Increase
• Email article: Email
• Print article: Print
• Submit comment: Submit comment

Matthew Fynes-Clinton

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".

Is shared parenting harmful to children? Tell us

Last month, The Courier-Mail 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.

Commiserations for Barry and Warwick.

It seems that all is not well in the Mens Rights Movement and they have lost a lot of ground in the last few days.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24713253-23289,00.html


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!

Who is??

Who is the naughty person who works for Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water???

A Message for Peter Saxon/Viking/Conan/SneakyDevil

Peter there is no point trying to bait us via familylawwebguide.com.au as we really have no interest in reading your blog. If you're just a little bit clever you would realise we haven't been there for weeks and are not about to go there because our interest in "little man theories" is non existant.

Keep hiding behind the Shared Parenting Council and save your vitriol for your ex wife.

Danytinkl/Wacman/Donga/Jethro

Like a rat after a nuclear war, like a cold sore when you're hung over, like when you think you sprayed all of the blow flies, Danny Bell just keeps popping up ...here he is renamed as Jethro on CFMboard and up to his usual obnoxious tricks.

Re: The Nature of Truth

by jethro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:51 pm

One man's truth is another man's error.

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.

"And they went out straight away and schemed on how they might get rid of him"

jethro

Initiate

Posts: 18

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:23 pm

Shared Parenting Council is the SLR

More trickery from Shared parenting Council where they try to create an illusion that the other groups involved in the "portal" are unrelated when it is clearly not the truth.


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.

The Lobbying for Shared Care Just Isn't Working

It is so good to see that good prevails over evil and that the Shared Parenting Council and the associated mens rights groups are not making any ground on their issues. The bullying attitude just doesn't cut it anymore and hopefully most people can see through the facade when they state "it's in the best interests of the children". The only reason they make it about the children is to gain control. The kids are just the pawns they use to achieve this. They don't really care about the children, if they did, they would be spending the time with them before they split up or divorced. The children are just pawns to be used in their bullying.

Dicosta & Dicosta [2008] 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."

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCAFC/2008/161.html

Brown Nosing Judges Doesn't Always Work.

Despite all of familylawwebguide/Shared Parenting Council's brown nosing of FM Altobelli, it seems he still has a mind of his own and wasn't swayed by their self serving poppycock.


We refer to Hogan & Hogan [2008] 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."




http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCAfam/2008/1219.html

Monteverdi in a DeadBeat Sandwich

You sure are keeping good company these days Monteverdi/Mike,to the extent that we have drastically revised our opinion of you.

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.




http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/forum/index.php?page=topicview&type=misc&id=3177&start=0#first_unread

Response to Bigred and Mike/Monteverdi

Bigred posted this on www.familylawwebguide.com.au:

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/forum/index.php?page=topicview&type=misc&id=3177&start=0#first_unread


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"

We respond:

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!

An example of the spite displayed by FLWG users.

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/forum/index.php?page=topicview&type=misc&id=3097&start=0#first_unread

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/forum/index.php?page=topicview&type=misc&id=3163&start=0#first_unread

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!)

Charities, we don't think so!

http://thesharedparentingdisaster.blogspot.com/2008/11/government-funds.html

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

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.

Legislative extension to the meaning of charity

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.

It doesn't appear to us that either Fatherhood Foundation or D.I.D.S should have received a rating as a charity when they discriminate against women when that is illegal in this country.
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!!

Some more questions that have been bothering us today

1. 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.
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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.
5. What are the penalties for printing details of court cases?
   

Some truths that need repeating.

S.P.C.A. (Shared Parenting Council of Australia) set up the website www.familylawwebguide.com.au with government funding and without seeing the application for the grant (although this has been requested under the FOI Act) believe it was a fraudulent application because they did not state that they are a Mens Rights group. They attempt to portray themselves as a family based help site but anyone that has joined or participated or even read the site would know that it is very anti mother and if you dare to express any view contrary to the S.P.C.A. one then you will be ostracised. They like to crow about how they have women members and this is true, but the women they allow to participate are second wives and partners and have their own agenda in wanting to take over their partners battle against the ex wife and children. And battle they do although the common problem appears to be the payment of money to the first wife in the form of Child Support.

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.

Want to know who it is???

The author of this blog:

http://gettherealfacts-gettherealfacts.blogspot.com/


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.

Peter what does it feel like to be Used???

http://gettherealfacts-gettherealfacts.blogspot.com/

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!

Some Questions that are puzzling us today.

1. 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?
2. How many members of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia took an active role in their childs care and upbringing before they divorced?
3. Why was Lindsay trawling the homosexual classifieds?
4. 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?
   
5. Why are the Shared Parenting Council of Australia funded by the government and yet publish a hate site against mothers?
6. Why is the Shared Parenting Council of Australia and the familylawwebguide allowed to discriminate against mothers? We thought that was illegal in this country?
   

It seems that we are not alone in wanting the truth to be told!

http://anonymums.blogspot.com/2008/09/truth-about-shared-parenting-council-of.html


It is only a matter of time before the Shared Parenting Council of Australia lies and deceit are exposed publically.

For all of Our New Readers...

You may have come across an Australian based website called http://www.familylawebguide.com.au/ in your quest to find helpful and unbiased advice or information. You may have needed to have fair and factual information to help in your own situation in dealing with Family Law, The Child Support Agency, access to your children or other scenarios. You might have even posted a query to this forum expecting to receive helpful advice from someone else who has been in your situation. You probably read the title of the forum, read the Home page which states:

"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!

Be very careful about joining the S.R.L. group !

A comment left by an Anonymous user prompted us to issue this alert. You really should consider your need to join the S.R.L. Group (Self Represented Litigants) on Familylawwebguide.com.au. In the light of a recent glut of incorrect and misleading information being posted on that site, we would urge any new members to consider their own circumstances and the need to divulge personal confidential information to a group of strangers that may not have your best interests in mind.
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.

Go Away Gooner

Your threats and profanities have been noted and we would hereby like to inform you that you are not welcome here and all comments by you will be deleted. You give all men a bad name and no Gooner, not all women are sluts or lesbians if they don't like you.
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!!

Donga/Danytink is at it again.

And then there's this from the DIDS forum...



"View previous topic :: View next topic
Author
Message
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..

http://www.cfmboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1771&p=20723#p20723


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.
WACMAN
Jedi Master

Posts: 701
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:26 am "

"Natives"?? Really? You are very dangerous and need to be stopped!!!

Donga is there ANY client's details that you have Not posted on the net?

http://forum.dadsontheair.com/viewtopic.php?t=30970&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


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.

Barry???

Is that you Barry????

Advice for the Owners of Familylawwebguide.com.au

You need to be very careful about the advice that is being handed out on that website.

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.

Another "wronged Father"???

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/forum/index.php?page=topicview&type=misc&id=3060&start=0#first_unread

This was posted by MR Cut and Paste, Lindsay.
Some questions we have Lindsay from a different perspective that what you are considering:

1. Why didn't he use reliable contraceptive in the first place to prevent an unwanted pregnancy?
2. Why did he not become responsible for the child for at least 5 years?
3. Did he contribute financially for that child at any time or leave it up to the mother?
4. Did he contribute in any way to that child at all, in any way?
5. Why did the court rule that he could not "have possession" of his child?
6. Why is his donation of an organ reliant on his own imposed conditions? Surely the love for a child is unconditional?
7. Why did his new wife choose to use the discrimination based on race card when it was not demonstrated at all?
8. Why did his new wife choose to move away from her children that she was "so close to" to another continent?
9. 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!

This was posted in the comments but needs to be on the front page!

Anonymous said...
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

Happy Birthday Michael!!

Wow 69 hey! Where did that time go? You will no doubt be looking forward to retiring.

Hypocrisy relating to Gender on Familylawwebguide

This was on FLWG. Imagine if this was a woman posting this and wanting to keep the child from the father....they would tear strips of her like they have done before:


Posted Yesterday, 09:00 PM
#19263
cundletown
General Member
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
#19265
gooner

Silver Member
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
#19273
cundletown
General Member
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
#19274
gooner

Silver Member
Marker
cundletown said
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
#19278
MikeT

Platinium Member
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.

Assumptions anyone!!

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/forum/index.php?page=topicview&type=misc&id=2960&start=20#first_unread

Mike you really need to check out what is written and what has been said before you post and provide damaging advice! You are obviously bitter that you missed out on a job with the CSA!


This is so typical of what goes on at FLWG.

Then today we get Matrix/Dad4life/Nuance/Manumit/Linsday posting a story about a politician who was accused of domestic violence but the DPP did not proceed on the case. Lindsay then makes the statement that it was a false allegation. It didn't say that at all Lindsay, it said the DPP were not proceeding on charges. Get it right and actually read what you are cutting and pasting!