Retiring judge Justice Collier of Australia says, “The worst are those mothers who direct false allegations of abuse against former partners. … They’re difficult to disprove. The allegation lingers there.” He says he had trouble sleeping when making decisions after sexual abuse accusations were made.
According to the story, the judge is unhappy about retiring in such times after having had a rewarding career on the bench. Apparently the judge kept a magic wand. ”I wished I could wave that magic wand and say, ‘Be nice to each other’,” Justice Collier said. It is his belief that if parents would just be nice to each other there would be no need for difficult family-court decisions.
Although we don’t agree that false accusations are anywhere near new, it’s good to see at least one judge talking about them, even if it’s only when leaving the bench. He says he even lost sleep over them. Based on the current situation of the separation of fathers and children by Family court, you have to wonder if there is any sentient being on the bench in Family Court. Of course, (I guess to be able to get some sleep) the judge blames the parents rather than the Divorce Industry in which he has played a major role. Of course there is no mention of serious punishment for the evil doers, though.
If judges would only follow the simple rules:
– impose equal parenting as the standard (always of course In the Best Interests of the Child)
– punish recalcitrant parents — that magic wand can deal a severe caning
False abuse claims — new court weapon
The Government programs to drive fathers out of their families presently cost American taxpayers $ 100 Billion per year in direct costs alone according to the National Fatherhood Initiative. These costs do not include any indirect costs such as the cost to society of fatherless children. This is the tip of the iceberg of the Government’s patrophobic neurosis. The Government aided by its minions in the Divorce Industry and the bullies of the Shelter Racket are systematically destroying fatherhood, replacing it with the indentured servitude of ex-fathers. Every rational person knows that the governments and the Nation would receive an enormous financial benefit by giving that money to fathers to allow them to raise their children (rather than using it against them) but the government cannot overcome its issues created by an unresolved Mommy complex. Indeed, simply stopping the funding for the father-hate programs and implementing family law guaranteeing equal parenting for fathers would not only save the $100 B, but would also permit the re-unification of fathers and children, and stop the social decline. Unfortunately, Ex-fathers is of the opinion that the future is bleak as these hate programs simply continue to grow and spread into all aspects of family life. Intensive therapeutic treatment is required.
The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man: The Costs of Father Absence
The Annual Public Costs of Father Absence
The federal government spends $99.8 billion dollars every year on programs – such as child support enforcement and anti-poverty efforts – to support father-absent homes …
Minnesota has state legislation for presumption of shared physical custody before the House. Let the legislators know that expect them to support Minnesota families by voting in favor of this legislation. Contacts are given below. Please call or email any or all of these legislators and tell them that you support House File 322, the presumption of shared physical custody. Show the House that their voters and the whole world is watching them. When you contact them, let them know where you live and that you support MNFamilyLawReform and Ex-fathers.
Your feedback from them is welcome here.
Appreciation to CH of MN Family Law Reform. This organization is posts at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MNFamilyLawReform/
Minnesota House Judiciary Policy and Finance Committee:
Ron Shimanski (R), Committee Chair 651-296-1534 firstname.lastname@example.org
Pat Mazorol (R), Vice Chair 651-296-7803 email@example.com
Sheldon Johnson (DFL), DFL Lead 651-296-4201 firstname.lastname@example.org
Susan Allen (DFL) 651-296-7152 email@example.com
Diane Anderson (R) 651-296-3533 firstname.lastname@example.org
Bobby Joe Champion (DFL) 651-296-8659 email@example.com
Tony Cornish (R) 651-296-4240 firstname.lastname@example.org
Glenn Gruenhagen (R) 651-296-4229 email@example.com
Debra Hilstrom (DFL) 651-296-3709 firstname.lastname@example.org
John Kriesel (R) 651-296-4342 email@example.com
Carolyn Laine (DFL) 651-296-4331 firstname.lastname@example.org
John Lesch (DFL) 651-296-4224 email@example.com
Tina Liebling (DFL) 651-296-0573 firstname.lastname@example.org
Joe Schomacker (R) 651-296-5505 email@example.com
Steve Smith (R) 651-296-9188 firstname.lastname@example.org
Chris Swedzinski (R) 651-296-5374 email@example.com
Bruce Vogel (R) 651-296-6206 firstname.lastname@example.org
Doug Wardlow (R) 651-296-4128 email@example.com
According news, Britain is about to ‘enshrine’ parents’ right to their child in the child welfare law. Oops, no, it’s actually the child’s right to both parents. Well, that’s one big difference. It means that someone can decide for the child that the child does want to exercise that right. So bring on the lawyers. That’s the first issue. Then we see that Mr Loughton, one of the select ministers working on the new law, says (according to the linked article in the Telegraph by Christopher Hope), “Quite clearly, ordinary living and working arrangements make an equal division impossible, and undesirable, in all but a small minority of cases.” So, with that flip of the lip, equal parenting is gone. Bring on the lawyers. Then, as a ‘coup de grace’ to the long maligned fathers of Britain, said minister adds, “the most important thing remains the principle that the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration and this must not be diluted.” So we must still decide precisely how child’s welfare is best achieved — bring on the lawyers. We see then that the minister throws out any sense of changing the mantra “the best interests of the child” that has destroyed fathers and families ‘en masse’ for generations, and effectively announces “Divorce Industry as usual”.
Here’s what the select ministers including Mr Loughton need to know and understand:
Parental rights: parents do have rights including equality rights just like everyone else in every other aspect of modern society;
Equal parenting: 50-50 parenting is easy to arrange in all but the most unusual cases because it does not have to be on a daily, or a weekly, or a monthly, or even on a yearly basis — it just has to work out that the parents share the child equally over time (no need to chop the child in two as proposed by King Solomon);
Welfare of the child: the community standard for the welfare of the child across the western world is protection of the child from abuse and neglect. It is a matter between the child-protection agency and any remiss parent. Child welfare has no business being discussed in family separation arrangements unless the child protection agency is engaged in the matter. Family law should encourage diversity in parenting (subject to the community standard) just as we encourage diversity throughout modern society, including our schools. Applying different standards for child welfare to parents in separation is arbitrary and unfair to both parents and to the child and it must be defeated in the best interests of a just society.