- Dirty tricks in a family court
- By Bettina Arndt
- Herald Sun
- 12/02/2007 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: admin ( 59 articles in 2007 )
FAMILY courts have always been known as places for dirty tricks but gutter tactics have reached new lows in Britain.
A father appeared in a British Family Court, representing himself in a custody dispute.
He made his argument, quoting a judgment sent to him by a well-known fathers' support group.
The opposing barrister pulled him up, claiming the case had never appeared in the law reports.
The father was made to look a fool and a conman, with the judge warning he could face up to $20,000 in court costs.
But when the source of the offending email was traced, it turned out to be the wife's barrister. He has been charged with perverting the course of justice.
Then there was the misleading 2004 document produced by a British feminist support group for victims of violence, Women's Aid Federation of England, which suggested in the previous 10 years, 29 children had been killed by their fathers as a result of court-ordered contact arrangements.
The so-called research made a huge media splash, leading to the paper being used as ammunition by lawyers arguing against child contact with men with any history of violence.
Now, appeal judge Nicholas Wall has released a report investigating the real circumstances of those 29 tragic homicides.
In 18 of the cases, the families had nothing to do with the family court, while in another eight cases the court proceedings gave no forewarning of the violence.
He found only three cases that gave rise to concern, but concluded that even here the judges had good reason to allow contact from the evidence presented.
Yes, we should be very concerned about the risks of violence to children of separated parents.
However, it is disgraceful the way the violence card is played to try to frighten politicians and the public from making proper decisions about the care of children after divorce.
In Australia last year, amendments were made to family law to support children's rights to contact with both parents after divorce.
These changes included extra protection for children from violence. Yet these welcome changes are under attack from women's groups.
They are afraid the new laws will undermine the licence given to mothers to shut fathers out of children's lives.
The cries of alarm began long before the changes made it into law.
Look at the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, which makes clear its position on the irrelevance of fathers with its insulting slogan, "Half the couple, twice the parent".
The reaction of NCSMC executive officer Elspeth McInnes was to express horror that this would mean "more children will be required to live in two households and families fleeing violence will face new risks and penalties".
She added that 100 mothers and children were "killed every year by partners and fathers around family breakdown". Sound familiar?
The Brit homicide tactic rides again.
Many of the women's groups are nervous about new Family Relationship Centres, known as FRCs, which are set up particularly to deal with children's matters.
The Government has rightly concluded that caring for children after divorce is a relationship issue, not a legal one, and that the previous adversarial system was disastrous for children.
But that legal system served the interests of the punitive mother very well, since it failed to enforce contact orders and allowed allegations of violence to be used to deny fathers contact with their children.
Remember the 1999 survey, which found 90 per cent of magistrates believed false AVOs were used as a tactic in family law cases "to deprive partners of access to children"?
Be prepared for more dirty tricks as lobby groups do their best to discredit the FRCs, aided by nervous lawyers who rightly fear that if the centres are successful, fewer divorcing families will use lawyers to fight over children.
bettinaarndt@hotmail.com
A father appeared in a British Family Court, representing himself in a custody dispute.
He made his argument, quoting a judgment sent to him by a well-known fathers' support group.
The opposing barrister pulled him up, claiming the case had never appeared in the law reports.
The father was made to look a fool and a conman, with the judge warning he could face up to $20,000 in court costs.
But when the source of the offending email was traced, it turned out to be the wife's barrister. He has been charged with perverting the course of justice.
Then there was the misleading 2004 document produced by a British feminist support group for victims of violence, Women's Aid Federation of England, which suggested in the previous 10 years, 29 children had been killed by their fathers as a result of court-ordered contact arrangements.
The so-called research made a huge media splash, leading to the paper being used as ammunition by lawyers arguing against child contact with men with any history of violence.
Now, appeal judge Nicholas Wall has released a report investigating the real circumstances of those 29 tragic homicides.
In 18 of the cases, the families had nothing to do with the family court, while in another eight cases the court proceedings gave no forewarning of the violence.
He found only three cases that gave rise to concern, but concluded that even here the judges had good reason to allow contact from the evidence presented.
Yes, we should be very concerned about the risks of violence to children of separated parents.
However, it is disgraceful the way the violence card is played to try to frighten politicians and the public from making proper decisions about the care of children after divorce.
In Australia last year, amendments were made to family law to support children's rights to contact with both parents after divorce.
These changes included extra protection for children from violence. Yet these welcome changes are under attack from women's groups.
They are afraid the new laws will undermine the licence given to mothers to shut fathers out of children's lives.
The cries of alarm began long before the changes made it into law.
Look at the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, which makes clear its position on the irrelevance of fathers with its insulting slogan, "Half the couple, twice the parent".
The reaction of NCSMC executive officer Elspeth McInnes was to express horror that this would mean "more children will be required to live in two households and families fleeing violence will face new risks and penalties".
She added that 100 mothers and children were "killed every year by partners and fathers around family breakdown". Sound familiar?
The Brit homicide tactic rides again.
Many of the women's groups are nervous about new Family Relationship Centres, known as FRCs, which are set up particularly to deal with children's matters.
The Government has rightly concluded that caring for children after divorce is a relationship issue, not a legal one, and that the previous adversarial system was disastrous for children.
But that legal system served the interests of the punitive mother very well, since it failed to enforce contact orders and allowed allegations of violence to be used to deny fathers contact with their children.
Remember the 1999 survey, which found 90 per cent of magistrates believed false AVOs were used as a tactic in family law cases "to deprive partners of access to children"?
Be prepared for more dirty tricks as lobby groups do their best to discredit the FRCs, aided by nervous lawyers who rightly fear that if the centres are successful, fewer divorcing families will use lawyers to fight over children.
bettinaarndt@hotmail.com
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here