The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Child abuse in the Family Court > Comments

Child abuse in the Family Court : Comments

By Sunita Shaunak, published 29/7/2008

The prevailing view of 'highly qualified experts' used by the Family Court is that many protective parents lie about their child's abuse.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 30
  7. 31
  8. 32
  9. Page 33
  10. 34
  11. All
BUSTER : With regards to your post of 10th. December 2008 and in particular, your last comment, I am of the personal opinion that, the professional disciplining of DR. WILLIAM WRIGLEY, psychologist and as I understand it and am informed,widely-used, Family Court alleged "expert",for his use of Parental Alienation Syndrome in the case TONY KOCH of "The Australian" newspaper has reported on,clearly demonstrates the true level of appalling and less than competent "expert" evidence widely accepted by the FCA and its judges.

TONY KOCH in his article of 29th. July 2005 ("Family Court: putting children last"),reports on the deep and validated concerns of eminent and respected child-welfare experts on the competence of the "experts" accepted and used by the FC and the functioning of the FCA.

It remains my view that the over-whelming majority of judges and lawyers in the FC choose to remain unknowledgeable about the true psychiatry of child abuse and other related issues.
See, for example, DR. CAROLINE TAYLOR'S book :"COURT FACILITATED ABUSE".

It is, in my own personal opinion, only a matter of time before the system and those who collude with it are exposed.
Posted by SUNITA, Saturday, 13 December 2008 1:50:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Buster: I totally agree with your statement: "The Australian Public should be warned that neither the experts nor Judges really know what they are doing".

It was the most helpless feeling in my life sitting in the back seat and listening as the 'court expert' and court members discussed the future of my child. With their collective IQ no doubt very high it was extremely defeating to hear what utter nonsense they spoke.

With my 'nothing special intelligence' I wept...seemingly from stress, but because my child was in these peoples hands and it was idiotic nonsense.

For instance: the family expert was talking about the subtleties of contact long distance and the terrible effect on relocation etcetera, meanwhile my child and I have been forced by the court to live in a state of homelessness...the father a hopping mad 'nut job' (as someone previously described in a posting) very keen to 'see' child not for love but to molest child further etcetera, etcetera.

While the public, media, government might wish to turn a blind eye to all of this, they pay in their taxes for the malicious and vexatious to use the court to access children to abuse. The tax payer then foots the bill for the fall out - counselling, criminal behaviour. You can bet the public and government are in for some whopping compensation claims not too far in the future and the taxpayer will pay again for the complete moral bankruptcy of the present.

Not care about children - probably. Care about money? now we're listening
Posted by Justice for kids, Saturday, 13 December 2008 1:53:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MATTHEW FYNES-CLINTON in the Courier-Mail, recently reported on the serious and publicly-expressed concerns of ex-Family Court judge Tim Carmody in Australia, on the acceptabilty of "Shared Parenting Responsibility" after divorce.

SHARED PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY has been advocated by a number of "experts" who give evidence regularly in the FCA, including, I am led to believe, psychologist PHILIP TRUDINGER,of Brisbane, who as I understand it, has delivered paper(s) on this and has been a vocal advocate of same.

I beleive that recent research by Jeni McIntosh and ex-Family court judge Richard Chisholm in Australia, has also raised serious concerns about the advisability of Shared Parental Responsibilty.

One would be excused for wondering what credible, peer-reviewed and peer-published research FC "experts" actually base their professional opinions on ?
Posted by SUNITA, Saturday, 13 December 2008 2:03:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Justice for kids I agree with you these experts need to be destroyed for want of a better word. The families that are being destroyed daily by the reports which are just junk 1 of mine was £1,300 it was inconclusive there were 3 experts for court .
This is legal child abuse to attempt to cause so much harm to children.People are talking and people are getting wise to them . Do not take part in the tests.

I have told my aunt to tell my cousin who is a psychologist: if you get offered silly money to do a report DON"T DO IT simply because you will get your reputation trashed and people will know what you are about to do before you even try it . Data -bases are going up with what expert done who for how much.
The internet is a powerful thing and this is how it is going to be a guide to who the experts really are who they work with in terms of solicitor's firms .People are naming and shaming and exposing the system for what it really is . I will do a series of 2 minutes video on YT . I will focus on the MMP1-2 soon as I can.
Together we will WIN. If the link does not open type in: Liverpoollou6 Corruption in Closed Courts
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?id=525644600&pid=1187668&cp=1360881329&cps=6abc5a6823
Posted by Lyndamac, Saturday, 13 December 2008 5:02:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Justice for kids: Lawyers and Family Court experts may have a high IQ at the age of 18, when they enter universities to study for their profession, but IQ tests don't include assessment for common sense, morality, compassion, empathy or many other qualities.
Posted by Valarie, Sunday, 14 December 2008 2:42:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Child protection and welfare are now the sole responsibility of State authotities. This was spelled out to me by that senior legal person I referred to in a recent posting.

This is because the Australian Family Law Act 1975, Section 60CC, re determining the best interests of the child, is bring ignored or deliberately contravened by the Family Court and its practitioners.

If have been correctly informed, each State now has (or will shortly have) its own Human Rights Commissioner and its own Children's Commissioner.

Why then does the Family Court exist? It could be done away with and its functions dealt with more effectively by the Supreme Courts of individual States, as was the case at least in Victoria before 1975.

There is no apparent "chain of command" in the Family Court arrangement. I hestitate to refer to it as a system.

Such a chain is necessary for effective administration, and for ensuring the accountability of those who work (very lucratively) within the Family Court arrangement.

More on this tomorrow.
Posted by Valarie, Sunday, 14 December 2008 3:07:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 30
  7. 31
  8. 32
  9. Page 33
  10. 34
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy