received by yet another victim of the Australian Family
Law Court: received on the 7th July 2003
It has been a well known fact that
Australian fathers have been victims of the Family
Law Court for decades.
is not only a crime against fathers, but also
their children, and Australian Society.
the tradition of Mediaman, we expose
the truth, regardless of how unpopular that may
be with some individuals and politicians.
bellow letter, in uncensored form, was received
by Mediaman, from Giles, who is looking
for justice. Only some spelling corrections have
name is Giles. I'm writing to you to ask for assistance
in a human rights matter.
subject matter is the current discrimination fathers
face in the Family Court .
sounding 'over the top' children are still losing
their rights, as too are fathers, grand parents
of the children and in my son's case his great
grand mother as well.
situation fathers face is very much the equal
of the sexist attitudes women have faced for many
years. The situation is equal to racial discrimination
that black people have faced and had to fight
against for a good many years. It could be argued
that fathers shouldn't have equal rights to father
this point fathers are being condemned before
task of parenting a child is made much more difficult
and has greater detrimental effects on children
when a father is expected to be able to pick up
his child on every second weekend, and expected
to know how the child has developed over that
time particularly when the child is very young
or at school.
am writing to ask for media coverage on court
cases that show in a positive light that fathers
do care and current legislation is detrimental
to the children of this country.
children are kept in places like Woomera on the
premises that the children are better of with
their parents but at the same time not allowing
children outside detention centers to be with
their fathers without imposing a prison like access
who are dis-enfranchised from their parental role
with their children suffer very badly from grief
, resentment and frustration .In many cases a
father can't even entertain the thought of going
to court and fighting for their and the child's
rights as the government gives women $10,000 to
fight against the father at the beginning.
this point I would also say its not only the right
of child and father but the responsibility of
the father to be there for the child rather than
'getting out of ' any responsibility for educating
the child and the costs involved with that.
my situation -and its not everyone's situation
- I was lied to and used as a sperm donor. Myself
and my family have been systematically removed
from the relationship and completely shut out
of knowing the well being of my child while in
the womb , the birth and the first few months
of my son's life.
and a half years on from the birth, the mother
is still fighting me.
am 50% of my son yet I get 2.5 hours a fortnight
access to him , I travel 250kms round trip to
see him and the lawyers and government seem to
think that I have the best deal I'm going to get
because of his age (without me he wouldn't be
alive to begin with).
lawyers' probity is are compromised by not wanting
to give up the power they have including the huge
amounts of money that are accumulated by the revolving
door to their offices ;meanwhile the governments
seem to be indifferent to the perception that
they are contributing to the fatherless state
of some children and the suicides that occur,
not to mention that they are throwing away huge
amounts of tax payers money on useless child support
systems that cause even more stress to both parents.
system puts the government between child and parent
and represents a travesty of justice to the parents
who want to be their children .The system that
should be in place is, in my belief that ,after
the first twelve months of life a child should
have equal time with both parents and should only
be diverted if one of the parents doesn't want
the 50% access agreement or such contact in inimical
to the child's interests.
should be hyphenated unless agreed to otherwise
in mediation. If a child spends 50% time with
each parent then child support becomes less necessary
as does the pension on the level that is currently
paid as both parents have the ability to work
at least part time. The cost of clothing the child
is split and the resentment of both parents dissipates
somewhat as the right to be with ones child is
not lost completely as happens now.
support only becomes an issue if one of the parents
doesn't want the standard 50% contact. The child
will benefit from the joy a parent has when purchasing
toys etc for the child rather than the resentment
occasioned by the heartache associated with having
to go through the court cases and the stress on
the child as it watches it parents destroy each
other and, if nothing else, cause massive upheaval
in a child's life because the court discriminates
against the father.
the system doesn't work the child loses out. Mothers
are constantly losing out as well where fathers
don't do the right thing by their child.
is my opinion that the death rates of parents
are directly related to a legal situation that
should be made fair for the majority then reviewed
from that point to accommodate the minority and
the different amounts of involvement that parenting
obligations should be set evenly between both
parents to begin with. Extensive short access
should be accessible to fathers until the first
birthday of a child's life (this is to accommodate
the importance of breast feeding and sleeps) after
that time, a father should have 50% access, including
when the child goes to school. The courts wouldn't
be clogged as much. Mums and Dads wouldn't have
the crippling expenses that the lawyers and courts
exact on both parties. Mediation wouldn't be about
fighting for power, it would be about giving up
time to go to work and if both parents were part
time workers rather than women having to stay
home and dads being thought of as just money earners
would rather the reward of giving to my child
than paying the living costs of a woman whom betrayed
me and stole something I consider sacred- LIFE
the government only thinks about money then the
above system would decrease the child support
inconsistencies , work loads would be halved,
parent pensions would diminish, murders and domestic
violence would decrease, and the majority of children's
lives wouldn't be so badly effected ie; mental
abuse would be less and probably cases of adolescent
crimes etc would decrease, children wouldn't need
to live with the other parent at age twelve because
they would already have the best of both worlds.
are always downers but I am sure that the positives
far out-way the negatives.
note: I am certain too many of us have heard of
this kind of situation before.
ask, how many of us know of a case like Giles'?
Unfortunately, likely most of us have.
late father had problems with the Australian Family
Court also. This is not coincidence.
are inherent problems in the Family Law Court
of Australia, and when "the system"
doesn't work, and people take things into their
own hands, some morons wonder why!
most people want in life is a fair shake, and
the Family Law Court doesn't apparently know much
you know of a situation like Giles, please try
to give them support. God knows they could do
with it - they don't seem to get much help from
Australia's "legal system".
you know of any resources that may be able to
assist father like Giles, please send them to
read it here first on Mediaman. Now
lets see who else gives this a run.
Fathers Association of Australia
Commonwealth Government Information
After Divorce: Support Groups and website links
Rights Agency - Family Law
Rights: Court Case Links
on the air: 2GLF 89.3FM
from a random selection of websites and newspaper
protest training sessions for family court "guardians",
by Ed Oliver
court driving fathers to suicide (Scoop NZ)
Baskerville, PhD: Writings on divorce regime,
family court corruption and the Governments war
the Family Court and extremism: The black shirts
arrive (ABC Australia - Life Matters - Radio National)
bear the brunt of gender bias in family courts,
by Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks
in Law, Catharine Lumby examines the myths surrounding
divorce, joint custody and the Family Court -
The Bulletin, 2nd July 2003
can hold a trophy for a championship above your
head, but if you have a failed relationship and
your male you cant see your child except when
you've been subjected to endless court cases and
only if its every second weekend even if your
DON BRADMAN "
can go to war for your country and be awarded
a medal but don't think you can have your children
at the ceremony unless its your weekend of access"
can be a top level fund raiser for charities,
but you cant have 50% access rights to your children
at all and if the mother doesn't want you to have
weekend access every second weekend, because she's
bitter about you spending all that time raising
money you have to go through years of grief in
can even work with children as a job but if your
male don't think for a second you have rights
to your own children"
'x' might even have a full time job but don't
think you can have access during the week, that
responsibility is given to child care even if
your child is in there for twelve hours the father
has no rights"
may even own your own home even after a breakdown
in a relationship , if your male you still don't
have a right to have 50% access"
can be a top level poli but if your male in the
eye of somebody else in government you not worth
anything to your own child".