Friday, August 28, 2009
A special message to Craig Smith from Dads On The Air who uses the name Neb-Maat-Re and who likes to bag his ex wife constantly when he's not stalking her and whine constantly about child support. We know you work at Department of Natural Resources in Melbourne and we hope your ex wife Googles your name to find out all the mean things you've been saying about her. Oh and Craig if you Google your IP address it shows what websites you've been visiting. 188.8.131.52
"Yes, if you don't want to be found, just don't put yourself on the internet in any format.
She may have taken her Facebook page down, but she is now on Twitter - which seems appropriate.
Is Pink really interested in invitations from a 43 year old nobody from rural Victoria?"
Thursday, August 27, 2009
We say: Really?
When will the Shared Parenting Council of Australia and Michael Green ex husband, ex president ex everything, in particular realise that bullying by men and threats by fathers just will not work anymore? You might have been able to threaten the previous flaccid penis government but it isn't going to work anymore! You might have been able to bully your ex wives when you were married and push your kids around but no more.
The women and children of Australia are tired of your bullying. The people of Australia are tired of your bullying and the Government of Australia in particular is tired of your bullying.
The women and children and good men of Australia will gladly make up your numbers in votes for the Government and relegate you losers to the streets like you deserve. You've lost your funding, lost your suck up political allies and you are now the lepers of society. Change or be left behind. You give all good fathers a bad name.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
CAIRNS NEWSPAPERS > LOCAL NEWS
Lone fathers do it tough -->
George Donnelly, President of the Cairns Lone Fathers Association knows first hand, the hardships men endure when going through separation.
It’s a truism to say there are no winners in a divorce.
Men in particular are often hit hard, dealing with loss, separation and courts which many men say rules in the favour of women.
Some men, faced with these challenges, give up the fight.
George Donnelly, President of the Cairns branch of the Lone Fathers Association has experienced divorce first hand and now offers help and support to other men facing similar circumstances.
“I got involved in the Lone Father’s Associations in the 90s.
I had a wife and a house and kids and I grew up in the old fashioned way.
I came first and then my wife came along and the kids came along and I was responsible and I worked hard and I did that for 25 years.”
When George’s wife met someone else, she also took out a twelve - month domestic violence order against him, which stated, “she feared he may at some time become violent.”
“I was the second person in Australia to get one of these, they’d just introduced them.
I was kicked out of my house of 28 days and told never to go back there again,” he said.
“I started protesting because I felt the law was wrong.
You didn’t have to prove anything, you just had to say, ‘I fear.”
“I got involved because of the injustice of it, I had no say, and I virtually didn’t exist.
I didn’t like that you could be taken out of your house on a word and have no rights, no rights.” “I stood for three days in the rain protesting, in Canberra.
Barry Williams, Ex-President of the Lone Father’s Association came along and said, ‘why don’t you spend your energies helping us?’ and that’s how I got involved.”
Remarried and living in Cairns, George runs the Cairns branch and says there’s about 20 blokes involved at the moment. “People come and go as they get their problems solved.
We don’t have regular meetings, it’s more informal support.” George says there are many who need help and he’s glad he’s been able to make some difference.
“The thing I’ve been able to do is grow my life back again, but also help a lot of people. No matter how angry you are, there’s always light at the end of the tunnel.”
He said The Lone Father’s Association encourages parents to seek support and sustain their children within a happy positive family environment.
Their website can be accessed at lonefathers.com.au Father’s needing support can contact George on 0438 465 883.
Barry Williams is a damn idiot. He is protecting violent, moronic men that have convinced themselves that they have done nothing wrong by bashing the hell out of a woman. How tough of them! And to pretend to care about the children involved, when all these recently separated men do is rob their children and ex-wife or partner blind by spending all the money and lying to child support about how much they earn, so they can spend it all on themselves and more than likely, their new piece of ass that they are in bed with!!! What a total moron.
August 14, 2009 7:37 AM
boo hoo Barry. Just because you were one of the only men to have a supposedly (which I totally doubt) 'real' case in which you were the victim...grow balls you woman hating spastic.
August 14, 2009 7:39 AM
What a hypocrit you are. Your child, Amanda Williams had an affair with my husband for 3 years, and is still in bed with him (hope they burn in hell). I was married to him for 13 years and have 4 children to him. He bashed the hell out of me for 16 years. You have bred a woman that is following in your disgusting hyptocritical footsteps.You deserve the very very worst in life. Rot in hell the lot of you.
August 14, 2009 7:48 AM
Oh my GOD Barry, are you a total idiot????Here is a little bit on info that leaves me speachless:"Back in session, Barry Williams, the president and founder of the Lone Fathers Association, prosecutes some of the familiar themes of the men's rights movement in a mild tone sometimes at odds with the strength of his rhetoric. "Both men and women are, in fact, equally likely to be perpetrators of violence in relationships, although women are somewhat more likely to be seriously injured," he declares.Shit man, are you living on a different planet? You must be doing some serious drugs or something. Maybe you got dropped on your head at birth. Grow up and get an adult view on the world little boy. Just because you are old, does certainly not make you wise. You are a PERFECT example.
August 14, 2009 8:04 AM
The more I read of your completely useless, unfounded satements, the more I belive you have a very limp grip on reality. You think that the patriarch has transformed into a matriarch?? Oh dear. You should get a little more informed and get into a little more reality. And look in your own backyard.
August 14, 2009 8:10 AM
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Outcome of my final hearing
shared care, significant and substantial care, false allegations
It's been over a month since my final hearing, so now may be a good time to do a short write up.BackgroundAs a background, I have one child, a 6.5 year old boy, and I had never married nor been domecile with the mother. However I spent substantial time with the mother at her residence, and I have been significantly and meaningfully involved in every aspect of my child's life in an unbroken manner since the beginning.After separation and upon initiation of proceedings, I sought 5 days out of 14 and continued with this stance through-out. The reason for this, as I explained to the Court, was the distance issue (I live 40 mins from child's school), and secondly, I was of the belief that the mother would not cope with 50:50, and I felt that this would ultimately harm the child.Contrasting ApproachesBefore I go on, I should mention the contrasting approaches to the proceedings between the mother and myself, which I believe had a very real impact on the final outcome.My efforts were very much non-personal and non-emotional, at least on the face of it, and I was in full recognition that the mother, despite her personal flaws, was a very devoted and loving mother. The mother for her part focussed exclusively on vilifying me. Her affidavit was hate-instilled, and her allegations were of the most sinister type.Interestingly, we both had support people/groups. I was lucky enough to have had the support of key people from this site, which I will elaborate on further down. The mother, as I had become aware, was supported by an anti-domestic violence group and a barrister who volunteered her services on a pro-bono basis, at the request of that group.Just by referring to an "anti-domestic violence group", I expect those who are reading this will feel, even in a sub-conscious way, that where there is smoke there must be fire. I know that this is what I would be thinking was I reading this for the first time. Surely if such a group got involved, something violent or at least somewhat threatening must have happened, right? WRONG!I don't know whether my situation is the norm or not, but we separated very amicably, there was never any violence nor any threat of violence, and there never will be. There were no police, no AVO's, no scratches, no questionable injuries, no threatening letters or emails or texts, NOTHING! And yet .......During proceedings, I remember thinking how much the mother had been betrayed by this group that purported to support her, yet was simply exploiting a vulnerable but complicit woman to promote their own self-fulfilling agenda. I still to this day believe that if the mother was properly encouraged to co-operate from the outset, we would not have ended up in Court, and the damaging events that occured in the midst of Court (including to our child) would not be part of our baggage today.But it is not only this anti-domestic violence group that had encouraged the mother into a ferver of anti-father/anti-shared care hysteria. I was in fact left mortified at the "buy-in" of so many family law support insitutions to this notion that I, as a separated father, must unquestionably be a vilain. This included an FRC- Family Advisor who convinced the mother not to negotiate any shared care with me (because its bad for kids), and amongst others, the independant children's lawyer, who stated that she would never agree to the child having any overnight time with me because "its just not healthy for a 6 y/o child to be away from his mother", and because "it would reduce the mother's child support." I would also add that the mother included anti-shared care articles from Adele Horin (Sydney Morning Herald) in her affidavit, which I am sure the mother saw as validation of her stance, and simply emboldened her to continue to resist any form of shared care arrangement with me.The HearingWell, my hope was not to go to final hearing, but whatever hapenned I thought it best that I get Consent Orders.Given the question-mark over the longevity of the current shared care laws, I knew that Orders by Consent were my best bet at maintaining an arrangement after any potential changes to the law. Although I am fully aware that 'significant change' would still be likely to be required to undo existing Orders, I was looking at the strongest outcome for the future under any circumstances, and that I thought would be it.Before we reached the point where our final hearing was imminent, I made an offer to the mother in the hope of avoiding Court, but this was not to be. No movement from her at all.So we went to Court. When I sat in the witness box at the beginning of the hearing, I remember saying the oath, and the Federal Magistrate looked at me squarely in my eyes in a fixed gaze. I felt strangely comfortable in this environment, and at the FM's gaze. I can't be certain why, but I knew that I had nothing to hide, I was making no bizarre allegations, I was not trying to shut anyone out of the child's life, I simply wanted my boy to have a real relationship with his daddy, as was the case before. I felt that this is what the new laws promoted, and this is really what helped me through this, a belief that the Court now, unlike the other support institutions, was guided by a good set of laws, not a gender based ideology.Anyway, the immediate direction the hearing took was a surprise to me, to the extent that it was so overwhelming. Not only was it quickly clear that I would get 5 days out of 14, but the Federal Magistrate agitated for me to accept 50:50. This was based on him seeing no credible reason why I should not, given the abundance of evidence of my very involved and close relationship with the child. I suspect my accomodating and supporting attitude towards the mother, as well as a distinct lack of any evidence of abuse whatsoever, also made an impact.The mother's barrister's line of questioining however, in line with the mother's affidavit, was ill-conceived, spiteful and quite surprising in its lack of legal emphasis. It reflected very poorly on both the barrister herself and the mother.After repeated warnings to the mother's barrister, the Federal Magistrate finally halted proceedings and said to the mother's barrister words to the effect, "I take it that your ongoing line of questioning is at the instigation of the mother. As such, as a matter of procedural fairness I am warning you that I will now be seriously considering the giving of primary care of the child to the father, despite it not being requested."The FM's very strongly worded comment about sole care was enough to finally encourage the mother to agree to Consent Orders.Looking backLooking back on this journey now, I can see that it was probably my restraint more than anything else that won me the confidence of the Federal Magistrate. I was accused of the most serious crime a father can be accused of, and at times I felt at risk of over-reacting, either by retorting with allegations too, or in somehow giving up or otherwise harming myself.But these laws, the laws so zeoulously condemned by many in the media, helped me focus on what I had in common with the mother of my child, not the differences. It helped me focus on our child, not our feelings. It helped me focus on being constructive, not of character assasination. It helped me put aside those allegations, serious as they were, and move on for the child's benefit.Were it not for the shared care laws, I have no doubt that despite my history of being meaningfully involved in every aspect of my child's life, that my little boy would today be deprived of having a father. These laws created an environment where co-operation was possible, I simply took advantage of it.I finish this of by saying that I have no ill-feelings towards the mother. In fact, a few nights ago we both spent more than 4 hours in the casualty section of hospital, waiting for our son to be seen for an ear-ache. We were both there, we both held our child as he fell asleep, and we both chatted together like old friends. This outcome is good for our son, it is good for me, and despite the remarkable resistance displayed by the mother, it is good for her too.On a final note and as possible assistance to others, I was an SRL up until the final weeks prior to my final hearing. At this point I entered into a minimal brief arrangement with a lawyer and barrister. This was because no barrister would agree to direct brief. This may be a very cost-effective model for other SRLs to follow, should the expertise of a barrister be needed come final hearing.In closing, I would like to thank a number of very special people from this site, who selflessly gave for the ultimate benefit of my child.Verdad, you always kept my focus on my child, not my feelings. Your mantra was clear, and you left a real impression on my proceedings. Thanks for your wisom and your help with the written word. Agog, you were there from the start. I have called you many times in a panic asking you questions on points of law. Thank you for your consistently steady hand in these matters. Mr Secretary, you will probably never get the recognition you really deserve, but I appreciate the efforts you made for me, all beyond the call of duty I may add. Monaro, your case alone has been powerful inspiration for me, especially after my Interim Hearing. Thanks for giving when I called for help. Many thanks as well to Monteverdi, OneDadC, 4MyDaughter, MikeT, Artemis and to the many others who I have relied upon.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
MikeT was the first flunky sent in to attack her point of view which was against deadbeat dads and fathers and grandparents whose only involvement in a childs life was abusive. MikeT posted his usual cut and paste from the CSA website and spouted off his usual pompous gibberish. Trouble is Mike we've read your blog and Tricia's comments about your son so we don't understand your high horse attitude. Maybe a move back to England might be in order because we don't like whinging Poms here.
(Google Trish's name if you want to find her blogs.)
Didn't the Familylawwebguide obtain their funding by claiming to be a "Family" resource and the websites own front page says it is for all parents. Why was Singlemum attacked and threatened with a banning because her views don't conform to your misogynistic ones? You just proved the site is only man friendly and proved that you obtained your Government funding by deception and fraud. The current investigation will force you to pay it back to the Commonwealth.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
More options Feb 14 1996, 6:00 pm
From: jac...@melbpc.org.au (Lindsay Jackel)
Subject: Surname: JACKEL / JAEKEL / JAECKEL etc.
Reply to author Forward Print Individual message Show original Report this message Find messages by this author
I am seeking to find out as much as I can about my German ancestors who came to Australia (state of South Australia - Barossa Valley) in the 1840s and then moved over to Melbourne in the state of Victoria, Australia.
Do you know anything of the origin of the name or its meaning?
It originally had an umlaut above the "a".
Do you know why they would have left Germany ('ost prussen'?) at that time?
Carl Erdmann Jackel arrived in South Australia with his wife Johanna (nee BLEICHER) and children Hermann and Auguste.
Thank you, Lindsay Jackel ...@melbpc.org.au>
PS I am also interested in the name KNOLL from Wurtenburg (?). ,-._\ Lindsay Jackel / Oz \ ...@melbpc.org.au> \_,--.x/ Locked Bag 5661 Melbourne Vic Australia 8100
Saturday, August 1, 2009
We wonder what you would diagnose your wife as suffering from?
Lindsay Jackel is Victorian president of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia.
We believe that Lindsay Jackel was involved with the Black Shirts a militant and fanatical group terrorising women in Victoria. Here is proof that he had some involvement with them. Manumit is an alias of Lindsay Jackel's.
And what does "Martyr to the cause" mean exactly???
From: Manumit Exchange [mailto:manumit@...]
Sent: 26 July 2002 17:41
To: Manumit Exchange
Cc: jeffface@...; fried@...
Subject: (AUS) Blackshirts
"Some of you may have already heard a little about this group. Below is a
composite of various articles about the Blackshirt group in Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia, fwd fyi by way of background.
Additionally, several associated articles follow, and are in turn followed
by various commentary.
The group is organised and in your face. They are Dads who have lost
everything, have received no justice or fairness at the hand of a feminist
(family and magistrates) court and legal (government) system (when they
were taught in school that they would if innocent), have nothing to lose
and are frustrated and angry. Their hopelessness has turned to despair and
to depression. The Blackshirts offers them community and hope.
John Abbott, their leader, is known to me. He is both angry and committed.
He will not be deterred and, if necessary, will no doubt be prepared to be
a "martyr" to the cause.
Victoria is a southern state of Australia.
Melbourne is the capital city of Victoria."
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
| The capacity for both parents to be violent is clear! |
Joined: 14 February, 2008, 10:18 PM
Primary group: Platinium Member
When authorities found the infant's body, Sanchez told officers the devil made her do it, police said.
PHOTOS: Tragedy of baby Scott
"She was a sweet person and I still love her, but she needs to pay the ultimate price for what she has done," the baby's father, Scott W. Buchholtz, told the San Antonio Express-News Monday.
"She needs to be put to death for what she has done."
Relatives and Buchholtz said Sanchez's mental health deteriorated in the week before her son's death. Buchholtz, who called his son "baby Scotty," said she often talked about how she needed to see a counsellor.
Sanchez told detectives she had been hearing voices.
Otty Sanchez's aunt, Gloria Sanchez, told The Associated Pressthat her niece had been "in and out" of a psychiatric ward, and that the hospital called several months ago to check up on her.
Sanchez was hospitalised Tuesday with self-inflicted stab wounds and was being held on $1 million bail. Police have said she does not have an attorney.
Authorities found the baby with three of his toes chewed off, his face torn away and his head was severed.
Otty Sanchez's sister and her sister's two children, ages 5 and 7, were in the house at the time, but none were harmed.
Sanchez and Buchholtz lived together during the pregnancy and the first two weeks after their son was born, Buchholtz said.
The paper reported that Sanchez's recovery from giving birth was complicated by an infection, and she was required to use a catheter for about a week.
That setback darkened her mood, and she was soon diagnosed with postpartum depression.
She moved out of the couple's shared home July 20. on Saturday, she showed up to see Buchholtz at his parents' house.
She became agitated when he told her he needed copies of the baby's papers, Buchholtz said.
Sanchez ran out of the home with her son in a car seat, threw the car seat into the front passenger seat of her car and sped away without buckling him in, Buchholtz said.
She left behind a diaper bag, her purse and her medication. Buchholtz's mother called police, and a sheriff's deputy investigated the incident as a disturbance, according to court records. The next day, authorities said, she killed her son.
Officers called to Sanchez's house at about 5am local time Sunday found her sitting on the couch screaming "I killed my baby! I killed my baby!" San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said.
McManus described the crime scene as so grisly that police officers barely spoke to each other while looking through the house.
If you or anyone you know may be suffering from depression or are in crisis, contact Beyond Blue on 1300 224 636 or Lifeline on 131 114.
disgruntled men. They are stating that I must be successful in my endeavors to bring about all ‘their’ wanted changes, …
or else!!! These are stupid statements by those people. The Lone Fathers Association, of which I am president, is only one
of the players in this latest attempt to bring about significant Child Support and Family Law changes."
It seems the Dads On The Air members make a habit of making death threats!!!
Monday, July 27, 2009
The male backlash
A Mensline counsellor takes another call.
Photo: Michael Clayton-Jones
What has made the dominant sex feel like victims?
Paul Black is not the sort of bloke to take to the streets in protest. But this week he did something atypical: fuelled by intense feelings of frustration, he got in his car and made the long trip from Mulgrave to Canberra to attend a two-day conference of the Lone Fathers Association.
"I don't see myself as a radical, I'm not the sort who wants to go ripping out letterboxes or shouting slogans," says this new recruit to the men's movement. "But the inequalities that were there for women 20, 30 years ago are now there for men. The pendulum has swung from too many opportunities for men to too many opportunities for women."
Black has entered the organised men's movement along a well-worn path: relationship breakdown. There are up to 200 men's groups in Australia, according to estimates - and many could be called estranged fathers' groups. They bear names from Dads in Distress to the cuddly sounding Fatherhood Foundation, and typically attract men in midlife. While the groups claim a growing membership, the extent of their support is unknown. The Lone Fathers Association says it helps 30,000 men a year, but their paid-up membership is 9000 nationally. However, La Trobe University researcher Michael Flood says the number actively agitating in the men's movement would be no more than 2000.
What makes them remarkable is that they subvert the traditional paradigm of social activism in that they represent the interests of the dominant group in society. Or do they? The argument these men's groups mount, with growing political muscle, is that they are getting an unfair deal, not only when it comes to family law issues but in other areas such as men's health. There is a growing lobby for free prostate screening, boys' education - crystallised in a federal push for more male primary teachers - and even domestic violence.
Blokes in their 30s and 40s who are on low incomes and are not partnered are in a diabolical situation."
Bob Birrell, demographer
In Canberra, over two days of sometimes torrid testimonials, Black, 39, took heart from the shared experiences of men who, like him, had undergone unexpected separation from their spouses.
Two years ago, Black returned from work one evening to find his de facto partner had left home with their baby daughter.
"She was just six months old," he says forlornly. As he clutches a "showbag" stamped with the logo of the Child Support Agency (it contained pen, pad and instructive government literature), he reveals the source of his feeling of powerlessness: "I've only seen my daughter five times since then."
Back in session, Barry Williams, the president and founder of the Lone Fathers Association, prosecutes some of the familiar themes of the men's rights movement in a mild tone sometimes at odds with the strength of his rhetoric. "Both men and women are, in fact, equally likely to be perpetrators of violence in relationships, although women are somewhat more likely to be seriously injured," he declares.
He warns his membership to be on guard against "further development of an ideologically based domestic-violence industry funded by the taxpayer". "There is a very serious issue of discrimination here," he says.
It's these sorts of arguments that bother researcher Michael Flood about the growing influence of groups such as the Lone Fathers, a peak body formed 32 years ago around the time the Family Law Act was established. The group is now federally funded.
This week's conference attracted two federal cabinet ministers - Family Services Minister Kay Patterson and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock - to Wednesday's opening. Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward spoke the next day.
Flood does not dismiss serious issues men contend with: old certainties have been swept away as women's roles have changed. He has researched the intensity of the loneliness felt by many men.
The loneliest men of all, a survey published this year concludes, are sole fathers rearing children. More generally, when males hit midlife they feel most isolated, especially if they live alone.
Yet Flood believes a more nuanced approach is needed than simply railing against domestic-violence programs.
"We need to address men's pain in these areas, but without blaming women or putting children at risk," he says. "Yes, men can now cry on TV, but the institutionalised power relations between and among men and women have hardly gone away."
Eva Cox, who was at the barricades as a founding member of the Women's Electoral Lobby, believes men's rights groups are making the mistake of using some of the oppositional "victim strategies" that women once deployed but which, in retrospect, did not necessarily serve them well.
"They are blaming a lot of what's going wrong on women for taking things away," she says. "But we are not running the world, sorry. Where are the female law partners? Where are the female senior surgeons? . . . If you are looking for men in primary schools, tip them all out of the principals' offices."
While citing the continuing disparity between men and women's pay - for every dollar men earn in full-time work, full-time women earn 85 cents - Cox is not unsympathetic to the plight of low-skilled men, many of whom have lost the opportunity to do their fathers' and grandfathers' jobs.
Economist Bob Gregory has tracked the impact of the decline in manufacturing on men's income. In 1982, about 500,000 men of working age were on welfare. Now, there are about a million men on benefits and the job boom over a period of apparently unprecedented prosperity has barely reached them.
Monash University demographer Bob Birrell, who conducted a study of the clients of the Child Support Agency - which has 90 per cent of Australia's separated parents on its register - concludes that most separated fathers come from the ranks of the poor and low-paid. "Marriage is closely associated with the resources men can bring into a relationship," he says.
In a separate study on partnering, Birrell found the greatest decline in partnering rates in Australia was among low-income men.
"Blokes in their 30s and 40s who are on low incomes and are not partnered are in a diabolical situation," he says.
Paul Black, who made the lonely journey back from Canberra yesterday, counts himself luckier than some of his contemporaries. He has a stable trade as a plumber, but the loss of his daughter and relationship has left him deeply confused.
"Towards the end, we were fighting about the housework," he says. "But I thought there were two roles there: she didn't work, so she was the homemaker and mother. I was supposed to be the provider and father."
WE guess Barry Williams has to justify all of that government funding somehow. Barry we challenge you to provide 500 names of the 30,000 men that you have "helped". Is this like the 5 men a day that you stop from committing suicide??
We know that there are less than 2,000 men who are responsible for the Fathers Rights movement in Australia because we have their names. The creation of false identities are a deliberate attempt to fool the public into thinking there are more of them but they are definitley a very small minority group albeit very loud and aggressive (which is exactly why they lost their families in the first place we think). They are just playground bullies in mens clothing.
Posted Today, 09:12 AM
Joined: 08 January, 2008, 12:48 AM
Primary group: Master_Editor
Globalman has claimed a dubious record on this site. 12 posts in less than 24 hours, the majority of which were removed by the moderators. He also received 8 warnings in less than 12 hours which is another record. Faced with an additional avalanche of moderator warnings and complaints by members of the FLWG his membership on this site was terminated.
FLWG and the moderators respect the right of robust comment and discussion but it will not allow fools and charlatans to peddle their wares.
Senior Site Moderator and Administrator
WE applaud this move and now expect Michael Green/Agog/Sisyphus to remove all references endorsing Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) made by Lindsay Jackel/Matrix/Dad4life and Wayne Butler/Oneringrules from www.familylawwebguide.com.au. As proven, PAS is a junk science and is pushed as a tool by men seeking to disguise their abuse of families. It was named by Richard Gardner a pro pedophile self publishing doctor who committed suicide by disembowelling himself in his kitchen (as if that guy didn't have some serious shit going down.)
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Joined: 16 May, 2007, 01:10 PM
Primary group: Silver Member
Its all about assisting the one party generally the mother to condemn the father. After all these women think that men generally can't control there sexual urges to the extent that children aren't safe. I think they generally do interview the accused mainly to see if there is a confession in the offering. Perhaps they have already formed the view that this won't happen in your case. Or to see if you express any anger, which confirms your enemy status.
I've been through all this and my poor little daughter was interrogated mercilessly, There were three different organisations including one that claimed to be treating her protective strategies. The fact that the allegations were found unsubstantiated meant nothing in the end.
About the only hope you and your child have is getting a red hot barrister. Otherwise regardless of the outcome they will be unwilling to allow you access to your child due to the distress the mother is said to have endured and the stigma.
In may case I wasn't even accused of sexual abuse, the allegation was that there might have been sexual abuse, based on me teaching my daughter how to XXXXXXXXXXXXXX and that my daughter had seen me XXXXX.
I understand that the only way these dirty tactics get overturned is when a court is persuaded that there is deliberate alienation going on. However be careful never to mention the syndrome ie: PAS or you'll get nowhere.
The fact that you haven't been interviewed might assist you in your case.
I wish I had done this. The idea that all will be well once they find the allegations aren't substantiated is fanciful.
"When your going through hell keep going" is about the only other advice I can offer.
Perhaps you should start researching how the alienation defense has been used successfully in other cases.
And remember litigation is about devastating the opponent. Don't let the fact that she the mother of your child allow you to be soft. Her lawyer certainly won't be going soft on you, and she probably would have lost control of the process long ago (or be in such a state that she is vulnerable easily manipulated).
Unfortunately these stories don't have a happy endings. The best you can hope for is persuading the court that your ex is 'the abuser' to maximise your contact.
Please contact me off list if you like.
He had already previously posted her address and name contained in the DVO and went to Laurie Nowell at the Sun Herald with his bogus story which was printed in the newspapers. Simon Hunt also identified himself via the comments section of that same article affording his daughter even more shame. This is a classic example of how this man puts himself first constantly and he blames the courts for banning him from being around her? The courts were right in making the decision that he cannot see her until she is an adult..this man does not deserve the title of father!!
The familylawwebguide and the the Shared Parenting Counil by allowing these types of posts are condoning further child abuse.
Globalman, another new crackpot child support avoider has joined the ranks of Familylawwebguide and should feel quite at home.
This quote however had us seriously worried:
"Those of you thinking that women are the problem are missing the mark. If the problem was only women it would not be a problem. Men would deal with that swiftly and permanently."
Just what does "swiftly and permanently" mean exactly? And if it means what we believe it to mean, as in "murder" this is proof that Shared Parenting Council and Familylawwebguide condone violence against women or else they would have removed that post.
They can edit other men's posts to make it appear that they have an IQ above 80 but they can't edit a post to remove offensive content to women that incites violence?
Globalman has been spreading his evil thoughts far and wide:
"So that when the time comes to kill women and children overtly, rather than covertly, many men will not fight and die to protect them."
"I am here to say I will never, ever, ever pay one cent in 'child support'.
Not one cent.
I will go to jail.
I will die before I let the unlawful CSA take one single cent of money from me."
"I dis-owned my children and I will never speak to them again.
When more men do this, we will get somewhere."
Monday, July 20, 2009
Joined: 02 August, 2006, 10:11 PM
Primary group: Percolo Alio
FLWG Closed VOIP Telephone: 114888
','auto','http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/themes/default/images/forum_navigation/members.png');" class="ocf_poster_member">Secretary SPCA
In respect to courts read up on Shared Parental Responsibility. If you don't get over that threshold it makes it harder for significant contact and you cannot automatically go on to 65DAA equal or substantial time. That is at court. You are in Mediation. The threat of an AVO is one thing but to have one is another. If you have proceedings under way in a Families Court and there is an AVO proceeding it is not significant until there is actually an AVO in place . Then it becomes an issue. The other side will most likely use it against you in any proceedings. Why not? as another court has already determined you are a violent person or otherwise why would they have issued the AVO....
It is interesting reading some of Michael Green's material and other specialists on the different sorts of violent behaviours after separation. Often much is frustration, hostile words, which can lead to more serious physical violence. Step back and take a deep breath. Mediation is the best place to be and make a genuine effort to resolve issues.
We ask when did Michale Green become such an expert on violent behaviours after separation. Was it due to his own experience as we are in receipt of information that says Michael Green has no formal qualification whatsoever in psychology, sociology of psychiatry. What makes him an EXPERT? Is it in his practise of mediation where he fails to declare hs obvious bias towards fathers and men? We are very happy to see the recent changes to accreditation and intend to raise this issue with the AG's office.
Joined: Yesterday, 06:35 PM
Primary group: General Member
I am going to contest the AVO in court but mediation will happen before that time. There is no issue about abuse of the children, just fighting in front of the children, verbal abuse and the such. But that was directed between my partner and myself.
So anyone who has any idea how the mediator will convene this, will it be held against me as a father? As my partner and I have separated, there shouldnt be an issue of domestic violence of any sort.
I have always been a good and loving father who has always provided for my family, taken them to school, picked them up, cooked most of the meals, doing the things that a father does.
I believe that my partner will try to stop access. With me only wanting what is fair, what is likly to happen?
Joined: Yesterday, 06:35 PM
Primary group: General Member
I have also tried on many occasions to attempt to re-concil with my partner, but have been in vain. I wont say our relationship was a bed of roses latly, as we had been under alot of stress from buisness and her mothers constant interferring in our relationship, and the fact that I had given up smokeing late last year, but as I had never stuck her, only had verbal disagrements, with me haveing the loudest voice. She has claimed physical abuse such as I struck her twice in the upper right thigh with my fist(as the most recant) I never did this but am afraid as she has a iron defenancy wich leads her to bruise very easily. There are also claims that I threatent to kill her in front of our children, I know it dosnt sound good, but I never did such a thing, I love her very much as I do with the kids. I have come to grips that she dosnt want anything to do with me anymore(breaks my heart) but I have to deal with it. I will do whatever I have to to be close to my children as I always have, but am afraid that she will block me at every possible opppertunity. I am going to the mediation today so I will post the results this afternoon, but I am not hopeful of a good outcome, but hope and pray otherwise(I am a active member of a church)
This is very distressing especaly in the fact that I havent seen my children since the morning of the 21/5/2009...
Thank you for your response, as I hadnt had any from other sites like ''dads on the air''
Thanks guys...cheers Dazza
And yet here on Dads On The Air he admits to making threats:
|View previous topic :: View next topic|
|Back to top|
Saturday, July 18, 2009
"Double-dipping divorce not on
July 18, 2009
By Vanda Carson
Reference source: WikipediaBUSINESSMEN who have tried to reopen their divorce settlements to seek a larger slice of the pie because their post-divorce wealth has fallen dramatically in the global recession have had no luck in the courts.
Now the shoe is on the other foot and a legal precedent has been set blocking women from claiming a larger portion of their former husband's bigger asset pool.
In a British case this week Kim Walkden failed to claim a larger share of the assets of her former husband, Martin, whose wealth had quadrupled since their divorce.
Because Mr Walkden took his slice of their assets in shares in his timber company, and his wife took cash, he ended up better off. A year after the divorce Mr Walkden cashed in his shares and pocketed about 3 million.
He ended up with 82 per cent of the assets and Mrs Walkden 18 per cent. Mrs Walkden received 225,000 in cash, about a quarter of the estimated value of the company.
Sue Pearson, of Pearson Family Lawyers, a Sydney firm, said Australian courts were also unlikely to allow divorced spouses to reopen an asset settlement.
She said the Walkden decision was in line with the case of a British-based South African financier, Brian Myerson, who has failed to compel his former wife to return the 11 million she received in their split."
Totally incorrect and misleading information.!! Too late boys, there is already a precedent been set in Australia where you can go back for a fairer redistribution after the initial property settlement.
As snarly as you have lost ground now that they are winding back the changes to Family Law, you sure will be a lot grumpier then.
Joined: 05 June, 2009, 06:48 AM
Primary group: Bronze Member
Posted Yesterday, 06:14 PM
Joined: 16 February, 2007, 07:38 PM
Primary group: Silver Member
What a daft thing to say, how on Earth can you make such an absurd comment? Perhaps balanced posts are not your thing?
Have you ever been to an FLRA meeting? Another preposterous statement!
The self rep area can be joined, they have private areas to protect the posters, surely you managed to read that? I would like to know if you ever took the SRL-R Quiz and the result because that would show us just how much you really don't know!
I think the real reason is that you have come onto this site dispensing outmoded concepts, soap boxing (10,000 matters) and realize that many people are far more knowledgeable than yourself.
I notice one of the moderators caught you out making a guest post which is a sure sign of a lurker.
Posted Yesterday, 06:24 PM
Joined: 05 June, 2009, 06:48 AM
Primary group: Bronze Member
Posted Yesterday, 06:39 PM
Joined: 16 February, 2007, 07:38 PM
Primary group: Silver Member
Perhaps because I cannot bear idiots lightly? Only a bit rude? I must be having an off week.
Then where are these marvelous other sites PLEASE!
I visit a few sites and when factual questions are asked people are invariably referred to this site.
As I understand the traffic to this site absolutely dwarfs all the other sites.
PS You did not respond to my statements about the FLRA, why some of the self rep areas are private and any of your Quiz results!
Posted Yesterday, 06:51 PM
Joined: 05 June, 2009, 06:48 AM
Primary group: Bronze Member
Posted Yesterday, 07:42 PM
Joined: 16 February, 2007, 07:38 PM
Primary group: Silver Member
That remark really says a lot about you. From some of your previous posts you are a legend in your mind. Your opinions about Family Law seem as ill founded as some of you ill researched other opinions.
Is it possible that you could just answer rather than avoid:
Why your comments about the FLRA
Where are these marvelous other sites?
Why don't you understand that the self reps have private areas to protect their posters
Why lurk as a guest
Posted Yesterday, 07:56 PM
Joined: 05 June, 2009, 06:48 AM
Primary group: Bronze Member