Aussie Backlash Against Equally-Shared Parenting to Promote Move-Aways?
November 7th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.Australia is well-known to be backtracking on its equally-shared parenting legislation. It's only been three years since the Howard Government enacted the presumption of shared parenting and, according to studies I've reported on before, few courts have actually established equal parenting arrangements in divorce cases. Still, that's been too much for the forces who are bound and determined to keep children apart from their fathers.
The main thrust of the anti-dad crowd is that, allowing children time with their fathers increases the likelihood of child abuse. The fact that a welter of data show the opposite to be true - that mothers are more likely to harm children than are fathers and that boyfriends are far more likely to do so - matters not a whit to equal parenting opponents. They've got their story and they're stickin' to it.
Now, reading between the lines of this article, there may be another front in the attack on father-child relationships - move- aways (The Australian, 10/29/09). The piece reports on a mother, who's separated from her husband, and who wants to move from Sydney to Queensland to be with her boyfriend whom she met online. Her estranged husband has a close relationship with their three-year-old daughter though, and a court has refused the mother permission to move the child away from her father.
Federal magistrate Janet Terry found the child had a "meaningful relationship" with both parents in Sydney, where she was able to "see her father regularly". If the mother was allowed to move, that contact would "inevitably diminish".
It would make the father a "holiday parent" who couldn't have any involvement with his daughter on school days. Ms Terry said: "The father is a good parent who is keen to be involved with (the child) on a regular basis. It would be a significant loss for (her) if she moved."
The court said there was no guarantee the new relationship would work out. The woman has never lived with the man, and has visited him only once.
"In my view, the child's interests will be best served by dismissing the mother's application to relocate from Sydney, to enable the girl to spend regular time with her father in Sydney," Ms Terry said.
In short, the court upheld the child's and father's rights to a relationship at the expense of the mother's ability to relocate and maintain primary custody. The article makes a definite connection between this win for fathers' rights, the new laws and the idea that changing those laws will allow custodial mothers greater freedom to relocate and deprive their exes of contact with their children.
The decision is a win for fathers who say that old custody laws too often enabled mothers to relocate after divorce, rupturing relationships between children and their dads. Two academic studies have shown that relocation has become more difficult under the shared parenting laws introduced by the Howard government in 2006.
Those laws are now under review.
It goes on to say that, prior to the presumption of equally-shared parenting, a mother's desire to relocate was given "great weight" by courts. The obvious answer to the argument that equally-shared parenting laws conflict with women's right to travel is that they do no such thing. Clearly, if a mother wants to move, and doing so would mean the child can't see his/her father, the mother may relinquish custody. After all, she's the one who wants to move and deprive the child of one parent. Why should the father be the one to give up his relationship with his child to accomodate his ex's wishes. Simple fairness dictates that, if she's the one who wants to move, she's the one who should bear the consequences of that decision.
Whether the Australian backlash against the rights of fathers and children will actually allow mothers to deny those rights by the simple expedient of moving hundreds of miles away, remains to be seen. If the article is any indication, it may well do just that.
"));
19 queries. 0.331 seconds.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
In Australia there the National radio station the ABC presenter Jane Sheilds presented a program that PAS was discredited.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2007/1847340.htm
Sadly we have a Prime Minister (Labor) that Arnold Schwarzenegger description of girly men in politics would seem to fit very well.
Former Prime Minister John Howard (Liberal) was very practised in the art of deception.
Fortunately there are some very active fathers rights advocates, so we will have to wait and see, but sadly the media is very female friendly and promote high profile but extremely rare occurances that support mothers rights activists.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:18 am
TV in the bin, do not buy newspapers, cancel your cable subscription, do not listen to the radio, MRA podcasts are better, the only way men can win this is to destroy big media - buy throwing them out out of our lives.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:17 am
If she moves to Qld and the relationship with this new man breaks down, does anyone seriously believe that she'll move back to Sydney? If she wantes to move away, she needs a reason and the two best reasons are a new job or a new man. The internet has made it easier to meet people leaving in different parts of the country, and therefore helps provide a reason, even if, as in this case, she has only met him once.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:55 am
What’s so outrageous is the mere idea that enforcing a father’s right to his children somehow equates to a “likelihood of child abuse”. The Australian court should be commended for upholding what is overwhelmingly obvious; that a father’s relationship is as much important as a mother’s.
What is troubling is that it appears the court based some of it’s justification on the mother not having an established relationship with the new found love of her life. It shouldn’t matter if the new relationship is short-term or long-term. Denying a father of his right to his child doesn’t change with the passage of time.
Another issue here is the criminal Elizabeth Morgan’s case where Australia refused to return Hilary Morgan to her father. This case is still celebrated to this day by radical women’s groups and serves as a model for other abductors. In fact in was this case that the pervert Holly Collins sites as her inspiration.
We should speak very loudly in favor of the US courts that’ve stood up for father’s rights and against this form of child abuse. From the award of $3 million to Michael Shannon after his ex-wife abducted his 2 sons to Egypt, to the court which upheld Mr. Morgan’s rights to the judges in MN who recognized Collins instability and false accusations of child abuse by her ex-husband. Although both Collins and Khalifas (Shannon’s ex) face automatic jail time from criminal charges if they step foot in the US is of little comfort to these fathers, it is a win in the courts and of public opinion. As with most accusations of child abuse, these cases completely fall apart under an objective investigation. Glenn’s article, The Controversial Holly Collins Custody Case—What Really Happened, http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3265 is an excellent example. This story received more than 200 comments, by far more than most, and go on the further deconstruct her entire fabrication.
The Supreme Court now recognizes that a parent's relationship with his/her child is a constitutionally protected right, although not expressly set forth in the constitution, drawn from the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In order to succeed under this theory, the defendant's wrongful conduct must be intentional and the plaintiff must suffer compensable damages.
These Dads deserve all the support and attention our movement can muster given the long arm of the women’s groups who actively claim child abuse to further their destructive cause. Unbelievably many of these women receive pro bono or even worse public defenders under the guise of being “victims”. All of us need to (very publicly) call these women what they are as they continue their crusade to paint all of us as abusers and dead beats…manipulative, vindictive, frauds and yes child abusers.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:53 am
I like the title of the article
"Mum blocked from being with net lover ".
Of course it should be
"Mum Blocked from denying child its right to time with her involved Father."
Naturally to the writer its "All about Mother" - what happened to the "best interest of the child" when titling this article.?. Its mentioned that the pseudo-mother would be happier if she could move. I say - WHO CARES?
Of course the real title is completely inaccurate. She could leave the child with Dad and move away by herself or her new lover could move to be near her.
Extreme Bias - Disgusting.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:12 am
[...] GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive » Aussie Backlash Against Equally … [...]
November 8th, 2009 at 10:55 am
[...] GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive » Aussie Backlash Against Equally … [...]
November 8th, 2009 at 10:56 am
[...] GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive » Aussie Backlash Against Equally … [...]
November 8th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
My question is why would any Mother want to destroy Father and Child relationship? She is not thinking of the childs best interests she is being selfish and that mindset is just not right. I think any Mom that wants to destroy the Father and child relationship should lose custody all together because of her desregard of her childs feelings.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
[...] GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive » Aussie Backlash Against Equally … [...]
November 8th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Yes, they destroy the father child relationship, and the father is ordered to PAY her for this! And, just to add insult to injury, the father is responsible for all ACCESS costs incurred to see his children (at least in Canada). sickening really.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
As some of you may already know, I have begun to create a series of "magazines" centered around men's issues, the first issue of which was entitled "The Counter Feminist Issue". The second issue is being (slowly) put together right now, the theme of which is Marriage, Divorce, and Child Custody.
The purpose of this magazine is NOT commercial, but rather a quick and easy resource to point to when questioned about our issues. The sheer enormity of what faces us is working against us, and while the web is an excellent resource, it doesn't take the place of a quick, prepackaged (no searching) magazine.
With this in mind, I am putting out a call to anyone who fancies taking a crack at tackling some of these issues in an article. Anything from the prospect of marriage to the average guy, through Family Court injustice, through child custody hell, including false assignation of paternity...hell, there's a whole book in those subjects alone..
The point is, I want issue- and solution-driven articles, that outline clearly the actual mechanics of the process. I hope to show through the entirelty of the magazine that all these "punishments" that many women seem to be OK with men suffering are seriously going to affect them, and it doesn't matter if they're "like that" or not. I want to show the injustice, and the effects of such.
I have been asked if this is an ego thing, the answer is no. Is this a commercial thing? Hopefully, but right now it serves a purely informational purpose. Also, I am not asking for new work, just anything you may have that's germaine, or anything you know of that struck you as a good article.
If you would be so kind as to email these links and articles to my Gmail account, mrm.magazine (a) gmail.com
This is not to be a feminist bashing magazine (fun as that is), I want to keep it purpose driven, but the odd crack is no big deal. :)
I know this is "spam", but I'm hoping given the cause that it'll be ok to post...
November 8th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
[...] GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive » Aussie Backlash Against Equally … [...]
November 9th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Sounds like it's half working there at least :)