Saturday, April 25, 2009

Mediators not acting properly

We can't wait to see what Michael Green thinks about the following post to Familylawwebguide. When you're lodging your complaint "One" you might want to ask how Michael Green can run a Family Law Mediation service when he is President of a Mens Rights Group.


One wrote:

"I had three mediation sessions with my child's mother with the last being at the end of last year. Recently I sought further mediation. After visiting the FDR office and giving my reasons for seeking mediation an appointment was made. I then received a message from the centre's secretary stating 'the mediator says this is not a matter suitable for mediation'. After questioning why i received a call from the mediator. I was told that the file had been closed some months ago and since then a conflict of interest had arisen. The mediator said he had been 'connecting with the other party on a social basis, over coffees and such'. He said the initial reason given was motivated by a desire to keep his social life private(from his secretary). To quote him ' i tried to fob you off earlier'. As it turns out the term 'socially' is a gross understatement. I have been looking for advice on where to go from here and getting answers initially proved frustrating. I find myself questioning the entire mediation process. I wonder whose interests have been served. My questions centre around whether a mediator can be involved with a party socially after the mediation process has been closed. I was not informed it was closed. I was not informed further mediation was no longer possible. Obviously the other party must have known these details. The reasons for seeking further mediation are sensitive and I am appalled that the ex-mediator has knowledge of their nature due to having to say why I wanted further mediation when applying. Also the mediator and myself had a prolonged discussion about my reasons for wanting further mediation... he told me that he could still give impartial advice. on a surface level I trust that confidentiality wont be broken. However, recent changes in the other party's behaviour have led me to conclude that she is receiving advice on how to act. At first i found these changes reassuring and I believe the mediator is trying to help. The reality is this advice weakens the chances of effectively resolving the issue that led me to seek mediation. The surface level confidence might be easy to live by but how can anyone say that they wont apply the information they possess on a more subtle level, or make a 'slip'. I sought advice and consequently sent a letter to the mediator and another to the director of his organisation."

Thursday, April 23, 2009

More Wicked Stepmothers

These women say that they are supporting their men in fighting for the best interests of the child/children. And yet when you read comments like this you know it's nothing to do with what is best for the children, it's purely about spite. These are the women that Familylawebguide and Lone Fathers association like to brag are a part of their causes and are joined in the fight. We think women like this are DAMAGING to children.




#24203
General Member

Rank image

My partner is currently paying child support for 3 children. His ex has never worked and her children are all now at school. If she receives a reduction in her centrelink payments because she is making no effort to work does this mean that my partner will have to pay more in child support because her 'income' has decreased?

We are also wanting to dispute paternity now that we have a baby of our own. We have been paying Child Support to this woman for 8 years. Approximately 18 months into paying her doubts surfaced about the real paternity of these children however over the years each time we have sought advice about disputing paternity we have been told we do not have strong grounds to dispute paternity. Is having a young family of our own strong enough grounds as this effects our child too now not just us? All we are seeking is the truth.
Back to the top
Quote post (24203),


And this Gem from DOTA which is a part of Shared Parenting Council of Australia:





Suffering Partner
Snr. Registered User


Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 334
Location: Blue Mountains NSW

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:20 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

I found both of hubby's daughters on Facebook & My Space.

Good to see the C$ is going towards a broadband connection. Rolling Eyes

Neither have bothered to contact their father in over 6 yrs but they are daily members of both sites.

Good to see that they are BOTH fat & ugly just like their mother. Razz
_________________
Will this nightmare ever end?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Lindsay Jackel Supports Black Shirts

The Black Shirts were a so called Fathers Rights crackpot group originating out of Melbourne Victoria (also where Lindsay Jackel lives) and decided to run a terror campaign of stalking and harassment against any women they heard had left her husband. The leader John Abbott was found guilty in court. They were exposed as a crank group and a simple Google search will reveal the lack of mental stability for anyone involved in the group.

Here Lindsay Jackel, Victorian Director of the Shared Parenting Council, executive of SRL and Dads On the Air makes a post on DOTA forum supporting the stance of the BLACK SHIRTS.

"Perhaps her face was blocked out because she was incapable of taking the smirk of triumph off her face.
I wonder if she was the one filmed throwing the bucket of, hopefully, water over the Blackshirts?
As if the son has really endured three years of fear from these men in black. I hope he hasn't been exposed to Men in Black I and II or both the female protagonists in the Alien series.
I also hope she is not going to spend any of the interview money sending him off to see Predator vs. Alien.
Such a delicate little soul with such a frail looking mother.
"

Note his callous comments about the affected child and his mother who had been terrorised by this group.

We wonder if Lindsay Jackel was actually a member of the Black Shirts as he was already living in Melbourne and research available on the internet proves that he was a militant supporter of mens rights and now to find public support for the Black Shirts? Is this coincidental? Another coincidence is that an ally of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia is The Richard Hillman Foundation. John Abbott is now a member.

"http://forum.dadsontheair.com/viewtopic.php?t=1085&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Ex QC Jailed for Child Porn

A RETIRED Victorian senior barrister will serve six months behind bars after pleading guilty to child pornography offences.

Neil James Williams, of Newham in central Victoria, was charged with single counts of using a carriage service to access child pornography, using a carriage service to transmit child pornography and knowingly possessing child pornography.

The retired Victorian Queens Counsel was arrested by Australian Federal Police (AFP) in October last year.

He was sentenced today by Judge Joe Gullaci in the Bendigo County Court and ordered to serve an immediate six-month jail term.

He will then be released on a recognisance order to be of good behaviour for 18 months.

Williams was among 19 men arrested in Australia by the AFP as part of a 12-month global child abuse investigation.

More than 15,000 videos and 500,000 images of child abuse - described by police as among the worst they have seen - were seized in the investigation.

The images and videos, which captured the sexual abuse of children, were shared between members of an online network.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25375628-5005961,00.html

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

What is the Shared Parenting Councils Relationship with the Child Support Agency?

Wayne Butler is constantly referring to his special relationship with the Child Support Agency and implying that he can exert a lot of influence with that department? Mike Taylor has also referred to the special arrangement. We would like to know what is the nature of that arrangement and all that it entails. Is the Child Support Agency aware that the Shared Parenting Council of Australia really is just a rebadged Mens Rights group who have every interest in avoiding the payment of Child Support. Surely they have read the majority of the posts on the forum Familylawwebguide that are mainly concerned with the minimisation and avoidance of Child Support liabilities? Why are they still involved as a participant ont he site then? Why have they not admitted the bias towards payees and withdrawn their participation from the site? So many questions.

Lindsay Jackel Airing his dirty Laundry in Public

Lindsay Jackel wrote in a submission to the Government:

"It is wrongly claimed that because a father may not agree with a mother that he will abuse his children. This is not true. Children are safer with their separated fathers than with their separated mothers. There is an increased risk of hurt and harm for children living with separated mothers, both from the mother herself and form her current partner. This risk is greater than if they were living with their father and his new partner. One of the writers of this submission has firsthand knowledge of this, with his 13 year old daughter being slapped by the mother’s female partner, resulting in the father being called to come and remove the daughter from that explosive situation until it was safe for her to return to be with her mother."


It is a pity Lindsay Jackel did not have an Anti Denigration Clause added into his parenting Agreement to speak respectfully of his childs mother. (He changed the names from Lindsay and Susan in an attempt to disguise that it was his Parenting Plan that he wrote. It reveals a very controlling person.) Jackel has been spouting this plan around the Mens Rights groups for many years. Jackels daughter has Aspergers. Jackel has also witten several very spiteful things about his ex wife and posted her personal information on various Christian, Mens Rights and homosexual forums, including the fact that she ran off with another woman.

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
IN THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY No. SY 1234 of 1997
IN THE MARRIAGE OF:
DANIEL PETER JONES and VANESSA LEE JONES
(Husband/Father) (Wife/Mother)
Address for Service: Address for Service:
17 Botanic Grove 13 High Street
Waverley Epping
New South Wales 3150 New South Wales 3150
Telephone: 9123 1234 Telephone: 9987 9876
PARENTING PLAN
This Parenting Plan will operate for the benefit and in the best interests of the only child of the marriage of Daniel Peter Jones and Vanessa Lee Jones:
Mary Elizabeth Jones
born on 28 March 1989.
PARENTING PLAN
By consent the parties agree:
Introduction
a. That Mary Elizabeth Jones (Mary), born 28 March 1989, has a right to enjoy the love, care and affection of both her mother and her father and to experience this in equal time spent with each of them; and
b. That this will contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of Mary's self-esteem, social development, academic performance, Christian faith, personal empowerment, adjustment to and satisfaction with life, the management and treatment of her diagnosed condition of Asperger's Syndrome, and the development of positive and realistic interactions with both parents and the like.
1. Residence/Residence
a. That the daughter of the marriage of Daniel Peter Jones and Vanessa Lee Jones, Mary Elizabeth Jones (Mary), born 19 February 1990, reside alternately, one week with Daniel and one week with Vanessa;
b. That the commencement of each week (of residency) start on the Friday afternoon after school at the River Valley Primary School (No. 1234), Whites Lane, Riverview, New South Wales, with the residential parent meeting Mary at either her classroom at 3:30pm or subsequently at the After School program prior to 6:00pm;
c. Where 'residential parent' is defined as "the parent with whom Mary is currently residing in terms of this parenting plan, particularly in relation to the alternate weekly residence" and 'non-residential parent' is defined as "the parent with whom Mary is not currently residing in terms of this agreement, particularly in relation to the alternate weekly residence";
d. That a diary be jointly purchased, by Daniel and Vanessa, and used to maintain a record and notice of Mary's residency, activities, commitments, health and the like, and that that diary accompany Mary between her two homes;
e. That Mary not reside for more than two days with a third party on behalf of either Vanessa or Daniel without the consent of the other parent, except in the case of a legally married spouse of either Daniel or Vanessa, in accord with the Marriage Act 1961 of the Commonwealth of Australia as amended, or as otherwise agreed for contact as specified in this parenting plan;
f. That in the event of the death of both Daniel and Vanessa, it is intended that Mary reside with the family of one of Daniel's brothers (Alan Samuel Jones or Andrew Ross Jones) in the order outlined in this paragraph or as otherwise determined by them, and after consultation with Mary and due regard for her stated wishes, and that Mary not be excluded from contact with her maternal family;
g. That there be scope for variation of Mary's time residing with either parent following agreement (preferably written agreement but not limited to written agreement) between both parents, and allowance for flexibility and goodwill in living arrangements, in order to maximise the attainment of Mary's best interests, on such other terms as agreed between both parents; and
h. That this residency order commence on or before, but no later than, the afternoon of Friday 25 April 1997, with Mary residing with Vanessa for the week so commencing.
2. Residence/Contact
a. That Mary reside alternately, one week with Daniel and one week with Vanessa, and have contact with the non-residential parent during the course of each week to allow for her participation in ongoing activities and arrangements, both current and new (such as swimming lessons, German language classes, family, social, music and sporting activities and the like);
b. That the non-residential parent be entitled to be the primary provider of childcare for Mary, and be primarily offered the first option to care for her, when the
residential parent requires care for her at any time, particularly in respect to occasions requiring overnight stays;
c. That both Vanessa and Daniel encourage and facilitate Mary's contact with the non-residential parent via telephone calls, written correspondence, occasional non-scheduled visits and the like on a regular basis, and that each parent may initiate reasonable such contact with Mary;
d. That Mary have contact with each parent for half of each school term holiday period and for half of the Christmas school holiday period of each year, subject to paragraphs (e) and (f) below, or other such arrangements as agreed between both parents;
e. That Mary have contact with both Daniel and Vanessa on Christmas day for half a day each, with Mary spending the Christmas morning of 1997 with Vanessa and the afternoon with Daniel (with a change over at 2pm, or as agreed), and alternately in subsequent years, or other such arrangements as agreed between both parents;
f. That Mary continue contact with her paternal grandparents (Peter James Jones and May Alice Jones, who currently reside on a farm at Bathurst, New South Wales) for a period of one week over the Christmas school holidays of each year, or other such arrangements as agreed between both parents;
g. That Mary have contact with her maternal grandparents (Patricia Robyn Newman and Richard Henry Newman who reside in Epping, New South Wales) via ongoing and regular short term visits whilst with the residential parent, and that these visits include no more than seven full nights of residential care with them, either in their domicile or any other domicile, except as agreed otherwise after discussion between both parents;
h. That consideration be given for Mary to have contact with the families of her cousins during school holidays, and at other times, as determined from time-to-time by the agreement of both parents;
i. That consideration be given for Mary to attend camps during school holidays, and at other times, as determined from time-to-time by the agreement of both parents;
j. That in the event of Mary's birthday occurring whilst she is residing with Vanessa then she shall, if her birthday occurs on a school day, spend three hours after school with Daniel, or, if her birthday occurs on a weekend or holiday, spend the morning with Daniel, or such other amount of time as agreed by Daniel and Vanessa. Wherever practicable a joint birthday celebration shall be organised at which both parents can attend and participate;
k. That in the event of Mary's birthday occurring whilst she is residing with Daniel then she shall, if her birthday occurs on a school day, spend three hours after school with Vanessa, or, if her birthday occurs on a weekend or holiday, spend the morning with Vanessa, or such other amount of time as agreed by Vanessa and Daniel. Wherever practicable a joint birthday celebration shall be organised at which both parents can attend and participate;
l. That Mary shall spend a minimum of three hours with Daniel, or such other amount of time as agreed by Daniel and Vanessa, when Daniel's birthday occurs whilst Mary is residing with Vanessa, and that Daniel shall meet and return with Mary to Vanessa;
m. That Mary shall spend a minimum of three hours with Vanessa, or such other amount of time as agreed by Vanessa and Daniel, when Vanessa's birthday occurs whilst Mary is residing with Daniel, and that Vanessa shall meet and return with Mary to Daniel;
n. That Mary shall spend time with Vanessa on Mother's Day from 10:00am until 5:00pm, or such other amount of time as agreed between Vanessa and Daniel, and that if Mary is residing with Daniel, Vanessa shall meet and return her to Daniel;
o. That Mary shall spend time with Daniel on Father's Day from 10:00am until 5:00pm, or such other amount of time as agreed between Daniel and Vanessa and that if Mary is residing with Vanessa, Daniel shall meet and return her to Vanessa;
p. That travelling for the purposes of contact be shared equally between Vanessa and Daniel, and that in situations of both regular and ad hoc contact that this be primarily on the basis of the non-residential parent seeking contact being responsible for meeting and returning with Mary at the home of the residential parent, with, for example, Daniel returning Mary to Vanessa's residence on the Monday evening of Mary's residence with Vanessa, after German language
classes, and Vanessa returning Mary to Daniel's residence on the Thursday evening of Mary's residence with Daniel, after swimming lessons, or otherwise as agreed;
q. That in the event of illness and/or medical treatment of Mary, Daniel or Vanessa that Mary’s place of residence be varied by agreement between Vanessa and Daniel to flexibly manage the situation for Mary's best interests;
r. That consideration and allowance be made, as agreed by Vanessa and Daniel, for Mary to have contact on public holidays (eg. Australia Day, Moomba, Anzac Day, etc. commemorations and celebrations), Show Days and the like, with either or both parents, flexibly for varying amounts of time, regardless of residency, allowing for, but not mandating, joint participation of both Daniel and Vanessa, and for ad hoc contact for special days and events, and family, party, and social activities and outings of either Vanessa or Daniel;
s. That allowance be made, by prior agreement, for Mary to spend compensatory contact time with one parent in situations where she has spent additional time with the other parent; and
t. That contact be exercised equally, flexibly and with goodwill overall, and at such other times and on such other terms as agreed between both parents.
3. Specific Issues
a. That Mary reside alternately, one week with Daniel and one week with Vanessa, and that Vanessa and Daniel share joint responsibility for decisions involving Mary's long term care, welfare and development;
b. That Daniel, in consultation with Vanessa, as required, have responsibility for the daily care, health and welfare, development of Mary during periods in which she is in his care;
c. That Vanessa, in consultation with Daniel, as required, have responsibility for the daily care, health and welfare, development of Mary during periods in which she is in her care;
d. That Daniel and Vanessa participate in and share equally and flexibly Mary's activities, in particular her health and schooling activities and programs, including her appointments with medical practitioners, dentists, counsellors and the like;
e. That both Daniel and Vanessa be informed of all matters of Mary's care, welfare and development, including such matters as friendships and social activities, church attendance and religious activity, education, extra-curricular activities (such music, language and swimming) health and wellbeing and the like, and have the opportunity to maintain an active involvement and ongoing role in caring for Mary, particularly in regard to her diagnosed condition of Asperger's Syndrome, or other such diagnoses as from time-to-time may be under consideration and in view;
f. That both Vanessa and Daniel encourage and facilitate Mary's contact with the non-residential parent via telephone calls, written correspondence and the like on a regular basis, and that each parent may initiate reasonable such contact with Mary;
g. That both Vanessa and Daniel be informed of, and have the opportunity to attend and participate in, the Program Support meetings conducted at Mary's school;
h. That the non-residential parent be entitled to be the primary provider of childcare for Mary, and be primarily offered the first option to care for her, when the residential parent requires care for her at any time, particularly in respect to occasions requiring overnight stays;
i. That both Vanessa and Daniel will keep each other informed (via the diary specified earlier in this document) of significant events occurring in Mary's life, in particular family, social, academic, health and medical, church, musical, sporting and the like;
j. That Mary continue to attend, with each parent, a Christian church on Sunday morning and, if either parent is unable or unwilling to continue doing so, either in the short or the long term, then that non-attending parent will make arrangements for Mary to attend a Christian church with the other parent on the Sunday morning when Mary is residing with the non-attending parent;
k. That changes of Christian belief and Christian church attendance, involving Mary, only occur after joint parental consultation and agreement, in writing, between both parents;
l. That no major medical procedures or operations be undertaken in relation to Mary without joint parental consent, unless in the case of an emergency requiring immediate treatment (within 3 hours), as advised by a legally qualified medical practitioner, and that all reasonable efforts be made to contact the other parent;
m. That Mary be permitted to attend the funerals of her close relatives, such as her grandparents (including her great grandmother), parents, uncles, aunts and cousins as a matter of course, and of her wider family, such has her parents' uncles, aunts and cousins by agreement between both parents;
n. That Mary continue to attend the River Valley Primary School until the completion of Year 6 at the end of 2001, with any variation occurring only after Daniel and Vanessa have jointly discussed, agreed and affirmed their written consent to the change;
o. That neither Daniel nor Vanessa relocate residence, in as far as this affects where Mary will reside and attend school, outside the Sydney metropolitan area or a distance of greater than thirty kilometres or thirty minutes travelling time in typical weekday non-peakhour traffic - whichever is the lesser, without providing the other parent with three months prior notice, unless the moving parent undertake and fulfil all transport for the purposes of residency and contact of Mary to the non-moving parent, so that neither Mary nor the non-moving parent are disadvantaged, unless otherwise agreed to and affirmed by the written consent of both parents;
p. That each parent inform the other, by providing the details, of changes of address and telephone number within 48 hours of such changes that affect where Mary resides and can be met for and returned from contact visits and contacted by mail and telephone;
q. That no significant costs or fees be entered into that would be the responsibility of the other parent, either in part or in whole, without the written consent of the other parent;
r. That Mary's full name shall not be changed, either by common usage or legally, without Mary's agreement and the written consent of both Daniel and Vanessa, or until the attainment of Mary's eighteenth birthday;
s. That Mary not be adopted by another person associated with either parent, nor anyone else, while both parents are living;
t. That neither Daniel nor Vanessa take Mary out of the State of New South Wales without prior consultation and the consent of the other parent;
u. That neither Vanessa nor Daniel seek to obtain a passport for Mary, nor take her out of Australia, without prior consultation and the written agreement of the other parent;
v. That both Daniel and Vanessa have equal entitlement to and share all originals and copies of Mary's achievement, educational, medical and other similar certificates, reports, school photographs and the like, with copies being made for the other parent where the original is held and, if any dispute arises relating to the location and ownership of such items, that a third person (such as a solicitor or trusted mutual person) hold them in trust for Mary until she is twenty one years of age, whilst allowing necessary access to both parents;
w. That both Vanessa and Daniel agree to speak respectfully of one another with Mary, to encourage her to understand that both her parents love her and to not discuss parental relationship issues with her, without the prior agreement of both parents, and that if there are such issues, both parents attend joint counselling with the aim of resolving the issues in Mary's best interests, either with a mutually agreed counsellor or otherwise as directed by the Family Court of Australia;
x. That in the event that issues arise concerning either parent's lifestyle, parenting style or other parent-related factors which may be detrimental to Mary's best interests that, after initial joint discussion, both parents attend joint counselling with the aim of resolving the issues in Mary's best interests, either with a mutually agreed counsellor or otherwise as directed by the Family Court of Australia; and
y. That specific issues be exercised equally, flexibly and with goodwill overall, and on such other issues and on such other terms as agreed between both parents.
4. Financial Issues
a. That Mary's day-to-day expenses for clothing and footwear, primary school education, (including Before and After School Childcare, with these childcare costs subject to review and negotiated and agreed change should the circumstances of either party change), extracurricular tuition (such as piano and swimming lessons), medical, dental and counselling, social activities (such as outings, parties and presents) and the like be shared equally by both Daniel and Vanessa and paid for jointly, with consideration made for any child support paid by either parent (as outlined in paragraph (b) below), and that such expenditure be discussed and agreed beforehand, as much as is practicable, or such other similar arrangements, as discussed and agreed in writing, as from time-to-time shall come into existence and operate for Mary's provision and welfare;
b. That where child support is paid by either Vanessa or Daniel, on Mary's behalf, either through the Child Support Agency or otherwise, and received from the Department of Social Security or otherwise, these monies shall, in proportion, be first used to pay the day-to-day expenses outlined in paragraph (a) above, and then any other expenses incurred for Mary's provision and welfare;
c. That, whilst Mary is eligible for a Child Disability Allowance, both Daniel and Vanessa have access to the Department of Social Security Health Care card issued on Mary's behalf, for the purpose of medical matters (eg. consultations, prescriptions, etc.) and to the funds, where required, for issues relating to Mary's health and welfare (eg. specialist appointments, counselling, etc.), and that equal sharing of any similar allowances or benefits occur as and when they are operable; and
d. That financial issues be considered and exercised with Mary's best interests in mind, and with equity, flexibility and goodwill overall, and on such other matters and on such other terms as agreed between both parents.
That liberty be granted to either party to apply for variation to this parenting plan order.
DATED THIS DAY OF 1997
Signed:
__________________________ __________________________
Father - Daniel Jones Mother - Vanessa Jones
Signature of Witness Signature of Witness
__________________________ __________________________
Printed Name of Witness Printed Name of Witnes


http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004-07/family_law/submissions/sub72.pdf

What the SPCA is really saying about the Child Support Agency

Peter Marsh State Director SPCA Qld said :

"The damage caused by the CSA Part6A review processes since 1997 has forced me and my children to suffer the effects of losing a home, losing the rented premises of ten years that my children knew, my career, my dignity, my health and my future prospects of self support and finally all contact between my children and myself. The CSA has been and still is the largest obstacle between myself and my children and the largest impediment to the future of my children and myself." Subsequent to these events, and what I can only presume to be out of spite xxxxxx wrote to me falsely portraying that I has resigned from the RAP meetings. Suffice to say, I was never invited back and the most senior of officials had orchestrated my removal as a community representative and stakeholder in the operation of Child Support in this country. These factors are an identifier of the endemic culture of the CSA and throw weight to the proposition that the CSA should be xxxxxxand should be xxxxxxxxxx removed from office and the CSA dismantled. "Catherine Argall and Shiela Bird of the CSA should be sacked from the public service and prevented from holding a position in the public service again."

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Coral Slattery says Child Sexual Abuse Allegations are RARE!

Coral Slattery (Nemos Mum on Familylawwebguide) and Executive of Shared Parenting Council of Australia, SRL Executive and Executive of Family Law Reform Association says that it is rare for men now to be accused of sexually molesting their children in Family Law matters.


"Dear Michael

I’m sorry to be so late in answering your last email regarding comments made by Michael Green, Q.C.

Michael Green played an integral part in the Family Law reforms which were recently introduced into Australia and endorsed by our association. These innovative reforms have made it possible to move away from litigation and the court system with the introduction of 64 Family Relationship Centres throughout Australia, whose main focus is to encourage the use of early intervention through free counselling and mediation. From my understanding, less than 5% of cases now end up in the Family Court.

Might I add that we’ve now had the opportunity of looking back over three decades to see the damage done to children when parents are consumed by their own situation. Many of the children who have experienced family breakdown have grown up living in poverty because of the exorbitant costs associated with litigation and have been totally alienated from one half of their extended family, not to mention the social costs. This is why it is imperative that we do all we can to keep couples out of the Family Court where a judge will make a decision, rather than an agreement between the parents. We recognise the fact that changing the culture of marriage breakdown won’t happen overnight; in fact, it may take a decade for separating couples to realise that the welfare of their children is their first priority.

I note that you mentioned the case of Hal Ginges, a solicitor in Katoomba. Hal spoke at one of our meetings about 10 years ago on child sexual abuse allegations and we are fully aware of his case. We hold monthly meetings and I can say it is rare these days that we have anyone attending who has been accused of child sexual abuse. A few years ago it seemed to be the “norm” following marriage breakdown, but the courts have now tightened up on those allegations.

I hope that my comments are helpful to you in understanding what we’re trying to achieve. These are my own personal views, but would be endorsed by the majority of our members. Things are changing here in Australia and we’re optimistic about the future for family law reform. Our aim is to keep separating couples out of the Family Court and into counselling and mediation. However, it would be na├»ve of us not to recognise the fact that “one size does not fit all” and inevitably there will always be cases which have to go to the Family Court.

Take care

Coral

Coral SLATTERY

Honorary Secretary

FAMILY LAW REFORM ASSOC. NSW Inc.

Telephone 02- 9542 2459

e-mail: secretary@familylaw reform.org. au

Facsimile 02- 9521 3790

Website: www.familylawreform .org.au

P.O. Box 807, SUTHERLAND NSW 1499

"


Sunday, April 19, 2009

WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, WARNING

FAMILYLAWWEBGUIDE WANT YOU TO JOIN THE SRL CLUB BECAUSE THEY WANT YOUR DETAILS. THEY WILL PUSH YOU AND TRY TO FORCE YOU INTO JOINING AND WILL REFUSE TO POST A REPLY TO YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION UNTIL YOU JOIN. ASK YOURSELF WHY...ASK YOURSELF WHY DO I HAVE TO GIVE MY REAL NAME, PHONE NUMBERS TO BE VERIFIED WITH A PHONE CALL AND DETAILS OF MY CASE TO TOTAL STRANGERS WHO HAVE NO QUALIFICATIONS WHATSOEVER AND VERY LITTLE, IF ANY SUCCESS IN COURT ACTIONS. WARNING BELLS SHOULD BE RINGING IN YOUR HEAD.

HEED THE WARNINGS OF OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN THERE AND DO NOT JOIN THE SRL WHATEVER YOU DO. THEY ONLY WANT TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY QUALIFICATIONS IN LAW, ONLY THEIR OWN UNSUCCESSFUL COURT ACTION AND THEY WILL PASS ON YOUR DETAILS AS THEY HAVE DONE TO OTHER MEMBERS.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

SPCA publish and condone cheating to avoid Child Support

The Shared Parenting Council members including Michael Green, Wayne Butler and Barry Williams have the following advice published on their website, familylawwebguide where they advise payers of Child Support to use "foul means" to resist responding to a Change Of Assessment for Child Support payable to support their children.



Posted 13 April, 2009, 08:48 PM
#24004
Silver Member

Rank image

I put all my requests etc to them in writing and they try hard to do everything by phone. My advice to anyone reading here is do business by mobile phone and PO box number. Only concede what you wnat them to know and challenge every decision because there is usually a more advantageous position they want admit to. And never instigate a COA, and if one has been started on you resist it by whatever fair or foul means you can find. And keep your CSA paymnets up to date if you can - because when you win on a point, a refund cheque is a badge of honour.
Back to the top

We wonder what role the SRL played in this DeadBeat Dad case?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCAfam/2009/34.html

Child Support Registrar & Gillies [2009] FMCAfam 34 (21 January 2009)

Last Updated: 6 February 2009

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR & GILLIES

CHILD SUPPORT – Summary dismissal – enforcement of Orders for payment of child support debt – declaration of debt owed and orders made in 2006 for Respondent to make payment – failed to comply – Respondent seeks summary dismissal on basis of res judicata – Order 33 rule 3(9) – open to child support registrar to seek to enforce payment of unpaid order.


Attorney General (NSW) v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481
Blair v Curran [1939] HCA 23; (1939) 62 CLR 464
Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1995] FCA 1299; (1995) 130 ALR 129
Chamberlain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1988] HCA 21; (1988) 164 CLR 502
Deputy Child Support Registrar v Harrison (1995) 128 FLR 349
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45; (1981) 147 CLR 589

Applicant:
CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Respondent:
MR GILLIES

File number:
SYC 1978 of 2008

Judgment of:
Sexton FM

Hearing date:
16 September 2008

Date of last submission:
16 September 2008

Delivered at:
Sydney

Delivered on:
21 January 2009

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:
Australian Government Solicitors

Respondent:
In person

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

(1) The Application in a Case, dated 10 May 2008, filed by the Respondent be dismissed.
(2) The proceedings initiated by the Form 46 summons and Form 45B summons be listed for hearing before me at 10.00a.m. on 29 April 2009 for no longer than half a day.
(3) The Respondent produce to the Exhibits section of this Registry no later than 7 days prior to hearing all documents listed in the Schedule to the Form 45B Enforcement Summons dated 8 April 2008.
(4) The Child Support Registrar be granted leave to inspect the documents referred to in (3) and to photocopy those documents.
(5) Any application for costs of these proceedings be adjourned for hearing before me at 10.00a.m. on 29 April 2009.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Child Support Registrar & Gillies is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

Monday, April 13, 2009

Looking at the ROOTS of Fathers Rights Groups.

This is an archived page from Familylawwebguide that shows who belongs to who in the so called "Portal" when you can see that it is the same members that are a part of every group, despite trying to maintain that they are all independent.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070902131551/www.familylawwebguide.com.au/site/index.php?page=groups&type=misc

If you click on each group it will give you a list of the members of that group. For instance the Community Group CRC kids that they steadfastly maintain has NOTHING to do with Shared Parenting Council has as it's list of members:

Head

Director (this is Ed Dabrowski also SPCA)

Secondary

Secretary_SPCA This is Wayne Butler also SPCA, DOTA, SRL etc
meep This is Paul Mee
Director This is Ed Dabrowski also SPCA
oneadadc This is Graeme Campbell also SPCA, SRL
dad4life This is Lindsay Jackel, also SPCA, DOTA, SRL etc
lfapolad This is Jim Carter also SPCA also Lone Fathers also SRL etc


And if you go through and have a look at all the different groups you will see the same old names. SPCA, CRC, Family Law Reform, DOTA , DIDS they're all the same people in bed with each other. The same guys that have been pitching the same old fathers rights crap for years and still not getting anywhere. They have NO CREDIBILITY and that is why they have to keep changing faces and hiding their identities because without deceit they are nothing but old bitter and twisted guys who never got over their wives leaving them.
Anyone wanting to know who a user name is just contact us but we are publishing a list shortly so keep watching this space.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Who is FlickyDicky aka Extremeforce11 aka blissfulignorance

Someone named FlickyDicky sent us a message in February urging us to contact them via this blog and then they deleted their comments but we have copies of them as follows:


flickydicky has left a new comment on your post "WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, WARNING":

DO NOT publish this comment It is for your own eyes only

i think you need to contact me


extremeforce11@optusnet.com.au

If this message goes public i will deny ALL knowledge of this message but.....

it seems you were right

;-)



Posted by flickydicky to Exposing the Untold Truths of Family Law WebGuide at February 22, 2009 8:18 PM



flickydicky has left a new comment on your post "WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, WARNING":

contact me



Posted by flickydicky to Exposing the Untold Truths of Family Law WebGuide at February 22, 2009 8:21 PM



So we did as instructed and contacted them as per the following email exchange.

-----Original Message-----
From: Whois Trickydicky [mailto:whoistrickydicky@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2009 5:12 PM
To: extremeforce11@optusnet.com.au
Subject: ?

You asked us to contact you?


________________________________

From: blissfulignorance999 <extremeforce11@optusnet.com.au>
To: Whois Trickydicky <whoistrickydicky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 5:02:20 PM
Subject: RE: ?

I did
I need a few days but I could have some VERY good information for you
Keep this email addy open
;-0


-----Original Message-----
From: Whois Trickydicky [mailto:whoistrickydicky@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2009 5:57 PM
To: blissfulignorance999
Subject: Re: ?

What is your username on FLWG?
Thanks


From: blissfulignorance999
To: Whois Trickydicky
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 5:22:53 PM
Subject: RE: ?

I cannot reveal that, you will just have to take what I tell you and use it
as you want
thanks

________________________________

From: blissfulignorance999 <extremeforce11@optusnet.com.au>
To: Whois Trickydicky <whoistrickydicky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 3:26:16 PM
Subject: RE: ?

Why cant I see the blog anymore?


-----Original Message-----
From: Whois Trickydicky [mailto:whoistrickydicky@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, 28 February 2009 10:10 PM
To: blissfulignorance999
Subject: Re: ?


We changed the settings to private viewing only.


From: blissfulignorance999 <extremeforce11@optusnet.com.au>
To: Whois Trickydicky <whoistrickydicky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2009 12:19:22 AM
Subject: RE: ?

Does that not defeat the object of letting people find out what you wanted
to know?

I still do not know if I can trust anyone to share what I know
I am not ignoring you
Just being careful

I know them ALL

Go check on what happened at Sutherland local court last week



And after that we haven't heard back from them and then we found out from a source that TrickyFlicky aka Blissfulignorance99 aka extremeforce11 is an ebay scammer who lives in Sydney and has been ripping people off on Ebay for the past year selling computer games and baby goods. According to Ebay they get kicked off and then sets up new identities.
"
BEAWARE OF FRAUDSTER
kiwichicknz_123 View Listings | Report 06-03-09 16:10 EST
I just wanted to make people aware that the member called blissfulignorance999 used to be registared as betaglucen09 and he ripped off lots of people by taking money and not sending items. He was removed by Ebay and has now reregistared as blissfulignorance999. I would suggest it is not safe to purchase from this person.
4 replies"


Trickyflicky still visits our blog regularly but it seems the inclination to spill the secrets of Familylawwebguide have passed.

We believe TrickFlicky was a person sent in by the Shared Parenting Councils' Michael Green and Wayne Butler to try to see who we are.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

False Child Sexual Abuse Allegations

As Richard Gardner said:

The vast majority (”probably over 95%”) of all sex abuse allegations are valid.”

Gardner, R.A. (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics (pp. 7, 140).




Then you have a judges comments to the AIFs review of the Magellan classification for Family Law cases saying:

The Court can’t ever say that [there was no harm or risk of harm], of course. The best you can say is that, on the evidence, we can’t make a finding that there has been abuse, or even unacceptable risk in some cases. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It just can’t be proved to any decent level of satisfaction.”
Judge


By far, there are rare cases of deliberate falsity. It’s a gutsy thing to do, and I think few people have that sort of personality: to go on oath, in the witness box. It’s a pretty gruelling process. You don’t do it unless you really think you’ve got a grievance, because the odds are you are going to get caught out. You’ve got people cross-examining you, you’ve got Independent Children’s Lawyers checking it out, you’ve got a Judge—who’s usually fairly experienced—making assessments. You’re running a real risk.
I also think that a lot of people are deterred from making a false allegation because of the mere fact: How could they have been so wrong in partnering somebody who could do that? ..’”
Judge

".....whether Judges are always taking into account that a lack of evidence from a statutory child protection department does not mean that abuse has not occurred. A departmental outcome of ‘unsubstantiated’ does not mean that abuse did not occur and that the notifier’s allegation was false, but rather, that evidence was not sufficient to be able to substantiate the allegation; or that the notification did not fall within the statutory grounds for intervention in that state/territory."


"Although participants admitted that deliberate false allegations happen, this was not seen as the major issue. Instead, they thought that the usual situation was either (a) a parent misidentifying signals from the child, (i.e., making the allegation based on a genuine belief, which turned out to be false—or at least, not supported by the evidence); or (b) that abuse had in fact occurred, but that through the department’s investigations and the Court’s processes, a safe environment had been created, so that the child/young person is now no longer at risk."

“I keep talking gender-specific, but that’s just the nature of Magellan. It’s the man usually who abused the child. But we’ve got to remember of course that there are a number of allegations made against mothers. Because Magellan also encompasses physical abuse, and that is occasionally perpetrated by the mother. Or the partner. Or the partner might be responsible for the fears of sexual abuse. When I talk about gender-specific, I’m talking about the majority. I’m not intending to convey that that is always the case.”
Judge"

So the conclusion supported by official statistics is that very few false allegations are made, and in any Magellan case, there cannot be a finding that the father was innocent of the allegations only that the claims are not substantiated which does not mean that he is innocent of the allegation, only that there was not enough evidence to prove the allegation. The court does not have the jurisdiction to apportion blame, only to assess the risk to the child/children.

Monday, April 6, 2009

More Deceit by FLWG, here we name the SRL main players

The site is not a portal for various communities, CRC, SRL, DOTA, DIDS, LFAA, Mothers4Equality are all the same people.

The SRL's treat themselves like the elite of Familylawwebguide. Do you want to know who the main players are? We are sure you all do so here they are:

Who Are The Main PLayers in SRL?


SRL Resources

Head

Michael Green (Agog, Sisyphus)

Primary Members

Paul Saurine (Thad50) Also DIDS
Peter Saxon (Clown, Viking, Conan, Getherealfacts, Sneakydevil) Also DIDS, SPCA, F4E
TheDOCtor

Secondary Members

David Glenmere
Micke Michalek (Monteverdi)
Ian Tuit (Ian Tuit)
Wayne Butler (Oneringrules, Sec SPCA) also DOTA, CRC. SPCA
Jim Carter (lfapolad) also LFAA, SPCA, CRC
Lindsay Jackel (Matrix, Dad4life) also DOTA, SPCA, CRC
Graeme Campbell (oneadadc)
Coral Slattery (Nemos Mum) also SPCA

It is very concerning to see Michael Green head up the Self Represented Litigants Club because he is not allowed to practise law without a current certificate which he doesn't have (easy to check this one) so therefore he is breaking the law.


It has been said by various people who have vigourously tried to deny that the SRL are a part of the Shared Parenting Council and were set up long before familylawwebguide was set up but this list available from an online cached version of the site clearly says that the SRL main players are ONLY members of SPCA. There is only one group controlling the lot and that is SPCA. All of the names are of militant mens rights campaigners and not one of these people are aligned with mothers, women or families. They fight for mens rights. Peter Saxon you are a liar. Anyone be very wary about giving your details to any of the SRL, we have evidence where they used that information inapropriately and the matter is currently under investigation. You have been warned.

What Lindsay Really Thinks About Women

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/forum/pg/topicview/misc/3803/index.php&start=0&keep_session=856118787#first_unread

Lindsay Jackel aka Matrix aka Dad4Life cannot hide his hate for all women because his wife left him to become a lesbian. This has fuelled a lifetimes worth of hate for all women that cannot be stopped.

We really pity his daughter and believe the courts should have restricted his contact with her because his views amount to psychological abuse.

It's good to see him being honest on familylawwebguide for a change although as key member of Shared Parenting Council of Australia, they would have to be concerned that their views on women are becoming obvious to not only the public but also to the Australian government.

Sunday, April 5, 2009

FLWG sure is attracting some Wicked Stepmothers

Tex1 posted yesterday to the familylawwebguide forums:


General Member

Rank image

"Hi - I am new to these forums. A quick introduction: I am the fiance to a Dad desperately trying to gain equal shared care of his 3 children aged 5, 7 & 8. The consent orders up until the end of 2008 were every second weekend and half of school holidays as well as additional times agreed upon by both parents (signed in Feb. 2006). The children's mother usually 'allowed' us to have care of the children based on her schedule as long as she was seen as the residential parent - it was all rather flexible and we got to spend lots of time with the children which was great. Come July 2008, their mother decides to tighten the screws and limit us to basically every second weekend and half of school holidays - unless it purely suit her and even then she wanted to 'swap' with one of our weekends or their would be unrest.

Currently, the interim order is every second weekend and half of school holidays - the skids are very upset by this. This was brought about because my fiance kept them after they made serious disclosures which we needed to have investigated before we felt confident the children were safe. There wasn't any malice meant by it, just protection of the children. This now also has to be proven in the court to avoid a contravention. We are confident it will be dismissed due to the nature of the disclosures.

Back to topic.. we have an upcoming Family Court date and we are seeking 50/50 equal shared care. We have had approx. 35% for the past 3yrs (however we've only been able to get the mother to admit this from Sept. 2008 - we have calendars from before that though). The travel distance from our home to the chidlren's school (they are all at school as of this year) is 40mins (according to whereis.com). The mother lives about 2mins drive away from the children's school. My fiance's ex-wife is stating this would be detrimental to every aspect of their lives if this was to occur - due to the distance. We have family support to assist with transportation of the children to and from school whenever they need it. So if we had an arrangement week with mother/week with father then we would be able to easily manage. She refuses to accept our transport arrangements unless it is the father only doing the driving - and, as he works shifts, this would never be reasonably possible. We used to live nearly 2hrs away and the children used to pick them up and take them back at least once a fortnight. We moved 40mins away to see the children more - I travelled 90mins to work each day to enable this. We feel the tightening of the screws happened when the CSA acknowledged we actually had the children overnight (which was always the case but never admitted by the mother).

The children are very used to travelling - since they were 2, 3 & 4 - travelling an hour o spend time with their Dad. We have proof but the mother is swearing that this was never the case. I have financial statements/photographs/ticket stubs/holiday tickets, etc. that could easily prove they were with us at different points. Can these be used?

So my big questions are these:

* Will the court see the 40mins travel for 5, 6 & 8 y.o children as reasonable?

* Can the mother, without any reason or danger to the children, disallow the children to be dropped off/picked up by a close, safe, responsible and familiar relative?

* What documents can we provide to the courts to support our case? And when? And how? (We have a solicitor but we have already thrown a lot of money away on him due to aspects of our case that we already knew about or could have quite easily found out - we still don't have the confidence to self-represent though).

Please help - we are desperate. We know things won't be settled out of court - we have desperately tried and tried. We want to be prepared in every way.

Please respond. We need urgent advice. "

Now that all sounds good (if you ignore the fact that they reported the mother but not out of malice mind you), except if you read the real story that Tex1 was so kind as to provide details on various step parenting forums on the net.

Some quotes from Tex1:

"Thanks - anything to get rid of BM. She is disgusting and we truly believe she has a psychological disorder."

"BF and I have attended 2 meetings with BM and her partner in the last fortnight to try to settle out of court. Before that we have had several meetings with solicitors to try for mediation. No luck - she treated me terribly because I called DoCS (with BF) about disclosures made by the skids. It is all very hard - and, yes, I still believe she has played a big part in happenings of an inappropriate nature - even if she wasn't hands on (which we may never know as she and the children were briefly interviewed). DoCS let the skids down and now we are temporarily worse off than ever before."

"BM is trying to bribe BF into meeting with her (and sometimes the skids) once a month before she will agree out-of-court to 50/50 custody. We don't want to do this but then we don't want to lose the chance of an agreement of care being reached. We think she is bluffing and will sign off anyway - but 3 little kids depend on that bluff! She said the skids need to see their Mum and Dad happy and together, and that they 'need' family meetings."

BM said she is concerned about the travel because it will be hard on us (BF and I) financially."

"No - she wants unrestricted acces to BF all of the time. She wants to call him about non-urgent issues when an email will suffice.

BF is happy to 'fake' pleasantness to BM at changeover, on the phone, etc. It has been happening the whole time. "

"He did this as the children made disclosures to us and DoCS of a serious nature, mentioning bm directly. Bm was barely investigated and talked her way out of it with no consequences - I won't mention here but it would make you ill if you knew. So, DH kept the skids with us until we could take what we still believe were protective measures.

We were stressed and unprepared when she took us to court - and she had every piece of paperwork possible to let the courts know she was 'mother-of the year' material. We looked stupid"

"We are even considering applying for greater than 50% custody of the skids as bm is damaging the skids relationship with DH. "

"meanwhile she has used me to babysit a zillion times"

:BM is constantly emailing us about how much the SD5 and SS7 have difficulties with me"

"My SS8 has been depressed for sometime now."

"I am due to marry BF in about 5 months yet we continue to battle against each other about BM's controlling ways."

"BM used to interfere with our lives here however we have made it quite clear we don't want anything from her in our house. She is dirty and manipulative. I organise the skids to have something for BF and BF organises them when it is my birthday.... no more intereferance from BM - we despise her. "

"he knows he can't do 50/50 without me as he is a shift worker and I am teacher so I am around more and take care of skids a lot by myself. Doesn't seem to stop him from being inconsiderate. When I say that it is outrageous that he would speak to me like he does at times he says things like "Here we go - the martyr" or "You knew what you were getting into when we met"... he's even called me jealous and selfish (since taken back but still damaging)."

"BM is sick - selfish and has caused much much more distress than ever had to occur from a divorce. She has played the skids against their father, etc. She is disgusting."

"She wants constant communication - we want NONE. She is a freak and we're embarrassed to be seen anywhere with her. She is always dirty and underdressed or dressed in rags.... and I am not saying that to be spiteful.... she chooses it to be "alternate". She's also had some abusive episodes.... too touchy feely with BF and sometimes even me! YUK! I'm developing OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) because of her (constantly washing my hands!)."

"Tough love is a must at times, otherwise it will be set up for huge even more dramatic problems in the teen years! Nip it in the bud asap, in my opinion."


The mother is obviously trying to talk to your fiance and work things out with the kids and has offered 50/50 parenting and wants change overs to be friendly but it is YOU that has the problems. You called DOCS on her. Your NSW policeman fiance needs to man up and tell you to back off. You don't care about the kids at all, you just care about yourself and your own petty jealousies. Get over it. Maybe you and Leeahn can form a close and loving liason and bitch about the stepchildren constantly when you're not being a schoolteacher.
Maybe Tex1 the problem lies with you and your jealousy and spiteful nature. You are a bully. Maybe you need a bit of your own"tough love" to show you what for? In the words of Pink Floyd, leave those kids alone!!!


A note to familylawwebguide.com.au, the women that you are attracting are not helping your cause at all. Leeahn, Tex1 et al really are spiteful witches intent on hurting children and taking mothers to court purely to fuel a hate war. These stepmothers are posting utter bullshit to the mens forums and not telling the truth and that surely can't be good for the Mens Movement can it?

Some more really Good Quotes from Sicko Richard Gardner




On fathers who molest their children.
Essentially Gardner believed that ALL men are pedophiles it is just that some can restrain themselves.

"He has to be helped to appreciate that, even today, it [pedophilia] is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people. He has to appreciate that in our Western society especially, we take a very punitive and moralistic attitude toward such inclinations. He has had a certain amount of back (sic) luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (p. 593)

He has had bad luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia. However, these are not reasons to condemn himself.

Gardner, R.A. (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (p. 119)


Therapy with the father should not be spent focusing on the primary problem (I.e., sexual molestation). Instead, therapy should be spent "talking about other things" as the goal of therapy is "to help people forget about their problems"

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (pp. 585-592)




On Mothers who discover that the father has sexually abused their child.

"Perhaps she can be helped to appreciate that in the history of the world his behavior has probably been more common than the restrained behavior of those who do not sexually abuse their children."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (pp. 585

Just For Ross Mitchell

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39159434@N08/

We found this site with some photos:



Hi Ross, Seeing as you keep hanging out here and searching on your name constantly we thought we'd post this for you so to avoid your disappointment.
Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell,

PS Have you done something about the mullet yet? You might have more luck in the adult personals if you chop that nasty piece of grey hair off the back. We women will let you know a secret, it's downright creepy and considered very unattractive.

"The Glorious Mullet"

Mullets are the best haircut ever.
Would I think about cutting mine into one? Never.
Such an incredible style nothing can top.
Whenever I see one have to completely stop.
I stare in awe and a gaze of sorrow.
I say "Hey, is that a wig I can borrow?"
The Man just laughs at me, thinks his hair is great.
But under my breath I say, "He'll never get a date!
Not with that haircut at least, no way, no how!"
Why, I've seen better haircuts on a cow.
Mullets, however, for them I've always had a nack,
Because they're business in the front and party in the back!
-- AJ Sheehan

Peter Saxon