Tuesday, December 30, 2008
"My ex did the same thing, let her b/f move in and continued to claim single parent payment AND legal aid... two swift calls to centerlink and a letter to legal aid later, and suddenly she stopped claiming and LOST her legal aid. I know she stopped claiming because the amount of CSA collected from her went up from the $12 or so they collect whan people are on benefits and the like.....
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, sounds like this particular person wants their cake, everyon elses cake, and the cake mix too
We hope karma bites you on your ass Gooner or maybe Sophie will.
He seems like a great future member of the bully team Aka Fathers Rights. Expect to hear more from Lobsta as he fits the mould that Fathers Rights campaigners love. Older, male, uneducated, angry and arrogant and Oh, forgot to mention a wife basher.
"I have been estranged from my 4 children for almost 8 years. Throughout these 8 years I have continued to search for them. Periodically, I have been able to locate them, however each time I initiate contact, the mother changes her name, the children's names and their residence, causing me to loose contact again. The last time I was able to locate my children was in 2004, when I was informed that the mother had abandoned the children in the custody of a known child sex offender, two month's after his release from prison. At this time I made reports to both NSW Police and DOCS and enquired as to whether I could go and collect them from his custody. NSW Police warned me off, indicating that as I was not the custodial parent I would be breaching the Family Court Orders and that I should contact my solicitor. At no time was I able to contact the mother. I subsequently contacted my solicitor in order to pursue the proper means to re-unite with my children. At this time, the mother applied for an avo (nsw), claiming that I had contacted her and threatened to "kidnap the children in the middle of the night". Upon the advice of my solicitor I proceeded to defend this allegation, being advised to conclude the avo matter before initiating the Family Court matter. I appeared on the listed date to defend the allegation, however the mother did not and the matter was dismissed. I subsequently discovered that the mother had used this opportunity to again flee with the children. At this time I sought the direction of my solicitor and a Chamber Magistrate, who both indicated, that it was my obligation to again relocate them and serve legal process in relation to the Family Court matter. Recently, (September), I relocated them again. Before initiating contact, I engaged another solicitor, who indicated to me that I could have sought a location order instead of searching for them myself. GGRRR!!!
This solicitor began to assist me in the preperation of affidavits and applications to be submitted to the Federal Magistrates Court. He indicated that we would be seeking location orders but informed me that this was a prolonged process, that it could take up to six months. In order to negate this prolonged process, I, using the guidelines set out in the brochure provided by the Family Law Court, titled, "Before you file - Pre-action procedures for parenting cases", addressed an offer of mediation and an intention to claim to the mother through the only point of contact that I had, her "Myspace" page. The response was swift, a reply from the mother's new solicitor, to my solicitor, stating that the mother would oppose any contact between the children and I, then a NSW Police officer delivering an Aprehended Domestic Violence Order Application sighting concerns that it was my intention to kidnap the children. Upon talking to the OIC, it was confirmed that the mother had not informed them of the previous application or it's outcome. The OIC also indicated to me his lack of understanding of the terms Frivolous and Vexatious by stating, "Mate, stop using big words".
At the initial point of loss of contact, 8 years ago, the mother successfully applied for and was granted an avo, claiming domestic violence during the relationship. At this time, I STUPIDLY chose not to defend the application as I could not see any possibility in defending the allegation, despite nothing other than an allegation being made. I was also in a state of considerable emotional turmoil. The matter was decided in my absense. A lesson for any starting down this path, a record now stands against me that domestic violence was proven. None-the less, I believe that I will successfully defend the current application and that there are options for re-uniting my children and I.
I am posting, as I believe my current experiences may assist others before they are placed into this situation and would really appreciate any confirmation on the outcome of similar cases, re forum "AVO matters - Definition of Abuse". Any other advice or information will be taken into consideration. Can anyone help?
This is an exact, minus details of individuals, copy of the offer made:
****** ** December 2008.
Good Morning Ms ***** ******,
This message is made in order to present an offer of mediation in relation to facilitating the access of children with their Father.
**** ****** ******** **/**/**
***** ****** ******** **/**/**
******* ****** ******** **/**/**
********* ***-**** ******** **/**/**
****** ****** ******** **/**/**
Given that some considerable effort has been made to ascertain your where-abouts and at every previous occasion that contact has been established you have continuously changed your name and residence, changed the children's names and residence, applied for A.V.O.'s against the children's Father using fabricated sworn testimony and continued to refuse to allow contact between the children and their Father is viewed by the Father as denying the children a parent.
Subsequent to these previous actions on your part it is the position of the children's Father to present this best and final offer of mediation in relation to facilitating access of the children with their Father. Despite this offer not being manditory in light of your actions, the Father has decided to make this generous offer in an effort to pursue a functional and constructive dialogue with yourself.
Understand, Ms ******, that if you choose to ignore this offer or refuse to reply within the given time frame this message will be retained and submitted in the form of Affidavit with an Application for Final Orders to the Federal Magistrates Court.
Orders to be sought:
Location Orders so as to serve Legal Process upon youself.
Airport Watch List to prevent you fleeing the country.
Residential Orders to prevent your avoidance of these matters.
Orders pertaining to the changing of the children's names.
Orders seeking that the children reside in the custody of the Applicant Father.
Orders pertaining to your Contact and Access to the children.
It will be requested that these matters be decided in your absense.
It is requested that you see reason and join an amicable form of mediation with the Father in relation to these matters. It is further requested that a reply be made to the Father's Solicitor within 14 days and no later than **th December 2008. On which day, if no reply has been recieved Applications will be filed with the Local Courts and Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. Further if you decide to flee the country in the mean-time, this matter will be pursued through the Hague Convention, with substantially and considerably more serious consequences.
It is advised that you seek Legal Advice on these matters.
Your reply may be sent no later than **th December 2008 to:
This is the Father's best and final offer for mediation.
Mr ****** * ********."
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Her user name is Super. Maybe she is a super waitress?
Lets see her qualifications, she's young, she's uneducated, she has been involved in one case only and that is her boyfriends, her big introductory post to familylawwebguide involved making allegations about her partner's child's anus. I guess she is as qualified as most lawyers we know so go for it Monster.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
"I'm of the opinion that although it is not for everyone it could be viable for a lot more if the importance was put more on the children's welfare with regards to stability in all areas.
If it became accepted that both parents have equal importance just in differing ways and we exiled the old detrimental way of thinking that dad is the bread winner and mums stays home, kicking this out of the family law system whilst highlighting that these days this is not the norm it will go a long way.
Encourage fathers to be father and mothers to share for their children, once this becomes socially acceptable then we will not adopt the mistaken view that dads need to work harder to provide money when they should be working less to provide a father.
Mind these are just some random thoughts and even then it will still not be for everyone just easier for those who do want it. "
So D4E the fact that you rely on the government to keep you and provide for your child doesn't matter? No wonder you think it's a mistake for fathers to work harder to provide for the children. Keep your random thoughts to yourself and get off the internet and contribute to society. Loser.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Benefits to provide additional income to non-custodial fathers during
weekend contact visits. Both were identified as key areas where men were
able to continue their imposition of financial abuse of their former female
partners long after the relationship had ended."
Green and Pearce 2002
Friday, December 19, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Here is where he sued for compensation for Negligence because he claimed he suffered a mental illness after he was alleged to have abused his daughter.
The appellant is the father of a child called XXXXX who was born on 29 May 1984. Allegations were made that he had sexually abused her. He claimed damages from the respondents for the psychiatric illnesses he alleged he suffered as a result of the allegations, and as a result of his subsequent separation from his family. His claims were dismissed. He now appeals from the dismissal. ........
An excerpt from the Decision
"On 26 June, Mrs Hillman accused the appellant of playing "patient/doctors" games with Rebecca, using a stethoscope and a wooden spoon, and of sexual abuse to her. The appellant denied any abuse. That night Mrs Hillman phoned Crisis Care and spoke to Lxxxx Sxxxxs (now Vxxxxs) who was on duty. Crisis Care is an after hours service of the Department. It was basically a crisis counselling service by telephone. Mrs Hillman was again referred to the SARC, and this time an appointment was made for the following morning, which was a Saturday. Another Crisis Care worker, Dxxxxa Dxxxxn, drove Mrs Hillman and Rxxxxa to the SARC at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Before the medical examination by Dr Bxxxx, Rxxxxa told Ms Dxxxx that her father had put a wooden spoon in her bottom, and when asked if it hurt she said that it did sometimes. After the examination, Dr Bxxxx and Ms Dxxxn spoke to Mrs Hillman in the absence of Rxxxxxa. Dr Bxxxx said there was no clinical evidence of abuse, but based on what the child had told her and whatever other investigative tool she had, she thought it was more likely than not that there had been some form of molestation. Subsequently, Ms Dxxxxx spoke on the telephone to Detective Mxxd at the Dxxxxton Police Station and advised him what had occurred. Dr Bxxxk also spoke to Detective Mxxd. The examination by Dr Bxxxk at the SARC took almost three hours. Eventually Dr Bxxxx prepared a report which was dated 31 July 1987. It contained the following summary: "In summary Rxxxxxxa has given an explicit account of her father's behaviour, which appear to be inappropriate namely, herself - rubbing cream on his penis - and him putting a 'stick' into her genital and anal region.
Rxxxxxa was observed to have unusual knowledge and preoccupation about sexual parts, in particular her vaginal entrance 'hole'. She was reluctant to discuss the 'special games' and initially showed extraordinary fear of being physically examined. She did not speak during the interview in a way to suggest she had been coached into making allegations.
A localized area of superficial abrasion and redness was observed inside the labia, one of the areas where the child indicated she had been penetrated by the 'stick' ...
It was felt that the child's behaviour, allegations and findings were consistent with her having experienced some sexual interference in the pretext of a game, and some influence to not talk about it. More information needs to be obtained and in view of the history of nightmares and the demonstration of inordinant fears and anger, it was felt that play therapy would be appropriate for this child. It is my experience that during such therapy other details of abuse are often expressed ..."
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Most likely after being alerted to our comments here has attempted to temper what he wrote about the mother projecting her thoughts and feelings after her daughter confided in her that her grandfather touched her.
D4E has now come out whining that he made the comments he did because he assumed that the abuse happened verbally:
"One thing we do need to keep in mind is the nature of the crime so to speak. We have not ask for specifics from Tira and nor should we, but in saying this the advice on how best to deal with the situation would change dramatically if physical contact that was molestation or abuse occurred. I raised the issue of assuming it was a verbal suggestion which is still abuse but more consideration can be given to adopting a solution, if Tira inferred it was physical then this would incur a completely different approach blah blah blah"
Hey Dipshit, the thread is titled "GRANDFATHER INAPPROPRIATELY TOUCHING 15 YR OLD". Did you miss that in your rush to condemn the mother and accuse her of making false allegations? Tira didn't infer anything, she told you outright in the Title and the body of her post, THE GRANDFATHER WAS INAPROPRIATELY TOUCHING THE GIRL!
Maybe one day D4E if your own daughter comes to you with the same problem (God forbid) you will have grown a brain in the interim and realise that there just might be some merit to it or at least err on the side of caution if a child is involved. That is what normal people do, they don't rush to condemn the person making the claim. Get over your bitterness and go back to your daytime television and leave the real issues for the people qualified to help (not any member of familylawwebguide). The only person who recommended the correct course of action was Dominik (thank you). The rest of the posters on that thread are a party to that child being abused and should be held accountable.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Some of the comments from the usual members of familylawwebguide (the mens rights supporters ) have been sickening....from making the statement that girl is old enough to SAY NO! to telling the mother she is probably projecting her own problems because she lost her mother at a young age. Really!
You're being informed of a probable crime (unsubstantiated but then again all you know of it is what the poster has told you) and you still blame the mother and the child??
Do you idiots really think EVERY claim of CHILD ABUSE is a FALSE ALLEGATION? No wonder no-one takes any of you seriously as you clearly do not believe your false mantra of "In the best interests of the child". It's should be "In the best interests of the man!"
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Simon Hunt gets this story printed by deceit in a Melbourne Newspaper and the newspaper fails to mention crucial specific details such as the decision was made by the County Court and it was for a breach of an intervention order. It had nothing to do with Family Law and Simon Hunt has repeatedly already breached this current order now by publishing details of it all over the internet and on familylawwebguide.com.au and now identifying himself and therefore his ex wife and daughter as well posting his ex wife's address all over the internet. We think it's time to alert the Victorian County Court in order to protect his child. Shame on you Simon Hunt and you say you love your child but you are willing to use her to further your own cause. No wonder they won't let you see her her, she needs to be protected from you!
And this Gem Posted in The Comments Section
Posted by: Neb-Maat-Re of Melbourne 3:40pm today
Comment 134 of 140
Comment 133 of 140
Posted by: Daniel of Frankston 2:22pm today
Comment 132 of 140
Simon Hunt is one of the original members of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia along with Sue Price and Matilda Bawden until they all had a falling out and those three were either kicked out or left. He goes by the user name Vascopajama on familylawwebguide.com.au.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Why so interested in "prison rape" when the topic being discussed was the Australian Tax Office?
Are you embarrased for previously supporting PAS? It seemed like a great idea didn't it? It's a pity that guy Gardner too had pedophilic tendencies.
Why did you describe yourself as follows on Google groups and yet still join the Shared Parenting Council and not declare that you are an abuser who hates women?
"Fathers' Rights Activist, Men's Rights Activist, Misogynist, Abuser
Lobbyist (as some feminists call any separated father who wants to see
his children), etc.
Why does this have everything to do with gay people?
Lindsay have you been talking to Barry Williams and Warwick Marsh?
"Thanks for once again demonstrating the alliance between feminism and
homosexuality - in their diminishment on normal heterosexual men as
What you say is wrong. There is a difference between a normal
heterosexual man being a father and a pervert thinking he can be the
same from the start with another man and without a mother for the
Children have rights. And one of those rights is to grow up in a
normal heterosexual union/family of one father and one mother.
otherwise is unnatural and perverted and a gross injustice to the
And this gem:
"Yep. And I'm satisfied that God is correct and that he says
homosexuality is wrong and will be punished be it ever so severely. "
Can we get this straight Lindsay? You don't like women, homosexuals or muslims is that right?
"Sadly, your response is a very angry and violent one. And this just
tends to confirm all the media stereotypes of wild, murderous muslims. "
The question we have is for Lindsay. If you exposed Liz Kates by posting her name and all of her details on the internet and defended a probable pedophile at the same time was that because you were jealous of her and her successes?