Oh yes, it's all about those nasty black-hooded men, never a mention that 50% of all child homicide is committed by the mother.

Sadly, this sort of hate-filled diatribe is a standard piece of propaganda used by bitter women who see the children as their meal-ticket and the bandwagon-riders who use those women as an excuse to try to justify their own endeavours to secure a free ride.

I do wish these people weren't so dishonest, though.

Even the Premier of Vic asked the question.

What was it that pushed this man to this point?

Barbara then hypotheses that this little girl was subjected to either child abuse or domestic violence.

How do we know what the details are?

Is Barbara in possession of affidavates of this case?

Barbara wishes to paint all dads with the same brush, incredibly when a mother commits murder, she is offered lots of support and sympathy. There was a recent case where a mother had also thrown her child off that bridge.

Feminists like Barbara would like people to beleive that PAS is a crackpot science. This position is misleading as the American Pyschological Association.

<Rhea K. Farberman, Executive Director of Public and Member Communications of the American Psychological Association, retorted that these feminist these claims are "incorrect" and "inaccurate," and that the APA "does not have an official position on parental alienation syndrome--pro or con.">

It's been years since I studied family law but I remember that even then the system seemed stacked against kids. No fault divorce is a great advance on the old way of doing things - e.g. having to "prove" infidelity - but we still have a long way to go in delivering a system that puts the kids first.

And not just when it comes to divorce.

Gathering evidence from kids is fraught with difficulties and when mixed with the bitterness and acrimony that usually exists between the parents it makes me wonder how we can put a stop to the kind of horrors regularly meted out on innocents by grown ups.

Little Darcey, a mere 4 year old, all that potential, snuffed out in a fit of pique by someone who allegedly loved her enough to demand custody.

Great system we've got there...

Thank-you Barbara Biggs for speaking out, both as a human being and importantly, as a journalist, about the murder of Darcey by one of her parents, and for encouraging other journalists to also do so.

The real issue remains, in my view,the calibre of judicial decisions and "expert" evidence, which is accepted by the Family Court in Child Abuse cases.

Tony Koch, senior journalist, of "The Australian" has published several articles on the Family Court, and its alleged "experts" which are illuminating in this reagrd.

Jane Shields of ABC Radio National also presented a "Background Briefing" on PAS.

There is, as far as I am aware, no requirement for "experts" appointed by the FC to have any specialist training at all in Child Abuse and Child Sexual Abuse.

The fact that the President of the APS, who I believe is Professor Bob Momtgomery has also now publicly commented on the calibre of counsellors accepted by the FC is further evidence in this regard.

Darcey and her family, deserve no less than a full and open investigation into her murder ; perhaps a suitably qualified expert in this matter might have picked up the signs of disturbance in Arthur Freeman and alerted those in authority early enough.

Living in Melbourne the media treated us to pictures of Mr Freeman's rented apartment [channel 7] , descriptions of the interior leaving the viewer with no doubt as to his inability to create a pleasant environment for his children to grow up in. This is a man in a well paid job, living in Hawthorn - a wealthy established suburb, whose parents have property at Airey's Inlet [Herald Sun] - a nice holiday spot, whose kids are enrolled at the local Catholic school [Channel 10]. The only reason the boys weren't tossed off the bridge was because a woman bystander stopped him [Herald Sun].

Like many people I wondered why a suicide watch was mounted on the father but that is kinder than sending him down to the general prison at Barwon and leaving glue and matches in the TV room.

The protecting parent faces a great deal of angst trying to protect vulnerable children from irresponsible non-custodial parent demanding access. Whether it's the father or the mother and they are not fit to supervise their child[ren] through drink, drugs, incapacity or nasty nature, children are not listened to until they are 10 to 12 years old and by then the child can be very damaged.

The police and child protection do not like to interfere in cases in the Family Court, and the media was in contempt of court for publishing details of the case.

You have to ask whether further improvements can be made to the family court processes.

One very tragic instance coming from a system which thousands pass through without such tragedy, and the commentariat starts clicking its teeth and looking for someone or something to blame, playing on people's natural horror and emotions.

There is only one person to blame for this poor child's awful death: the father who murdered her.

No matter how imcompetent the family court is, it is no excuse for murdering an innocent child. Any parent who can do this for any reason at all is a monster who should be put down like a mad dog.

What is wrong with people like Barbara who use such a tragedy to drive home their own agenda. All of a sudden Darcy's father is a violent man, supposedly suffering from parental alienation. Where is Darcy getting these facts from, because they certainly are not in media articles anywhere, all we know is Darcy was in her fathers care and the parents were separated.

Where were your similar opinions Barbara when the young mother in Perth attempted to kill herself and her young son just over 2 years ago. The little boy died yet the mother survived, with the excuse of Post Natal Depression, and the judge on naming a sentence of time served, used the words "where justice ends, compasion begins".

The most recent AIC research shows that 11 mothers killed their children last year, 5 step fathers killed a child and only 5 biological fathers killed their children. The online report uses the term "male family member" but a simple email to the report writers will confirm this.

Of the four cases last year where the perpetrator committed suicide after the homicide, 2 were mothers and 2 were fathers. These numbers are extremely small if you consider there are over 1 million children on the CSA books.

I find your opinion at the least SICK, almost verging on perverted with a taste of hatred for men.

What must this man have been going through, that something as simple as a traffic jam, could have been the trigger that pushed him over the edge, it must have been very similar to Post Natal Depression on an emotional level. I think its very strange that it was only the female child, why not all 3, were there some allegations about the father involving the female child? Your allegedly the journalist here, how about some unbiased research into this case, put aside your own personal child abuse you may have suffered.

I happened to be in Melbourne on that day, and listened with horror to the first-hand stories.

I still haven't been able to process it fully. I'm not sure I ever will.

But a couple of observations, if I may.

There appears to be an automatic assumption that "we" as "society" should somehow be able to "do something" to prevent random tragedies from occurring.

Many reports, I am sure, will be commissioned, and written on the Darcey Freeman tragedy.

There will undoubtedly be recommendations made, by a number of well-meaning bodies. And it is inevitable that many of these will conflict, given the possibility of almost infinitely extreme positions to be taken, and defended.

Quite possibly, in the fullness of time, some adjustments will be made to the way in which the law, and its administrative support systems, manages marital conflict. Which is fine, as long as it does not rely upon tragedies such as this one, as evidence for this or that action.

Because...

Can anyone here actually contemplate, in their wildest imaginings, what was going through that man's mind when he did what he did?

I doubt it.

If we cannot do that, then we will be powerless to formulate any kind of response, legislative or administrative, that will protect anyone from such horrific acts in the future.

Quite simply, events like this are so distant from normal contemplation, that they can only be treated as massive, standalone, personal acts of total madness.

The question "what pushed this man to this point" does not help.

Because the same circumstances that "pushed this man to this point", when faced by 99.9999% of the rest of the population, would not have had the same result.

It's called generalization from the particular, a trait that tends to lead us away from, not towards, a genuine solution.

350 words, what a crock Barbara's article was well over 100 words

How do explain the extremely high (compared to population research) numbers of allegations of domestic violence or sexual abuse that are raised in FCA?

I see your words here as endangering children who may be in that risk category, it will stop men seeking help from support groups, like Dads In Distress, www.dadsindistress.asn.au/ Lifeline Mensline etc.

Leigh, I tend to disagree, if someone makes allegations of abuse that are untruthful in family court (quite often on legal advise that wont be admitted by lawyers) surely that person or group must hold some of the responsibility when a child dies at the hands of the parent. By your standard even PND should not be an acceptable excuse.

Barbara, Parental alienation has been recognised by no less than the Bryant CJ and its used by fathers and mothers in FLC cases.

Ross M,

It is we, the posters, not the contributors, who are restricted to 350 words. But, we can make two 350 word posts immediately, then none for 24 hours.

I accept your point about both parents taking some blame. And as a bloke, I do thing men often get a raw deal. But in this case, there can never be any excuse for what this father did - in my opion, that is.

The real question is how do we protect children from abuse? These decisions are made by officials who can only make a judgement on the evidence before them. They may not always be endowed with the wisdom of Solomon.

Rather than turn this into a gender war, what are some solutions that might make the system better for children and parents. What measures will weed out the chaff (liars or abusers).

We all know abusers are out there, but how do you prove that abuse has occurred without being labelled a liar? And how do you defend yourself should a charge of abuse be levelled at you when you are innocent?

It is no wonder that rationality and reason are often the first casualties in a relationship breakdown and this in the rarest of circumstances can have tragic consequences.

Situations like the Darcy case, may occur regardless of whether a parent was abusive. Maybe the incident was the first time the father had 'lost it'. We know none of the details of this particular incident and should wait for the findings before casting any judgement other than to say it was a tragedy that should not have happened.

The solution lies in negotiated custodial and visitational agreements reached after assisted sessions with Family Court Counsellors.

At all times, the Counsellors need to remind the parties to the negotiations that the interests of the child will be the deciding factor.

The children should also be interviewed in non-intimidatory surroundings as to their preferences.

I have experienced the system in action. I was awarded sole custody of our 5yr old son after my estranged wife moved out with an interloper.and then after a couple of months filed for custody.

I made every effort to reach an agreement during counselling sessions but my wife resisted reaching a reasoned agreement putting the interests of our child uppermost, because there was no obligation on her to seriously participate. She was of the belief that because the interloper was financial enough to engage a QC, she was bound to obtain sole custody on her terms.

The horrific act that killed little Darcy could well occur again if the Family Court does not demand parents reach working arrangements acceptable to both parties without the adversarial presence of lawyers.

The irony in my case was I had to press my wife to take up her options for access.

The horrifying death of Darcey Freeman was as unusual as it was extreme. Perhaps it was one of those inexplicable acts that no amount of monitoring or legislation could've avoided.

I agree with the basic tenor of many posts here that the welfare of children is paramount, that family law must place the needs and wellbeing of children first.

If we, as a society, could prevent many such violent acts, we would be further along the path to true civilisation than we are at present. I must commend the bravery of the woman observed running and shouting at Mr Freeman, her actions probably saved the lives of Darcey's two brothers.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24986980-661,00.html

Barbara Biggs deserves congratulations. It is high time this Atheist Temple called the Family Court was called to account. It sacrifices children on the altar of the law. This little girl, Darcey Freeman, is simply the very tip of the iceberg. I was involved in a case in Sydney where a father who had a fantasy of raping a schoolgirl, had thrown his girlfriend down the steps when she told him she was pregnant, had a rich father. This rich bastard wanted access to his granddaughter, so he sponsored his son to bring a Family Law Custody case. The little girl was two, and called her natural father yucky. She was for a time forced to visit unsupervised for four hours a week.

The mother started a criminal action against the father and his solicitor for perverting the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth under s 13 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) in the District Court in New South Wales. An atheist Judge who sat without a jury, dismissed the charges, though it was indictable, and it should have been heard with a jury. She then filed similar charges in the Supreme Court and the same thing happened, but it cost the champertous grand father $100,000 to defend both actions, and the solicitor got scared. The little girl was set free when the grandfather refused to further support his violent son and it was discontinued.

In the Torney case, the mother was an alcoholic and a sex addict. A man from Cairns with a set of balls, threatened to summons the entire High Court except Justice Kirby, who said he could have a jury trial, in the Magistrates Court, in Cairns to answer charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth. The case would have left Kirby as the last man standing, and Torney entitled to a jury trial. The Family Court heard about it because Cairns told them, and they gave Torney custody in a closed hearing. It really needs fixing permanently

"However, the basic human rights of the child have been repeatedly breached by this new blanket rule. Parents’ rights to their children have taken precedence over the children’s right to be and feel safe."

Lie. The law is quite explicit. The best interests of the child is paramount under the law.

"Children’s terror is ignored by a system insisting contact with both parents is always beneficial."

Lie. The "system" says nothing of the sort. The court starts with the premise that contact with both parents is beneficial for the child. The court can, and often does, determine that contact should be limited or denied for reasons of drug abuse, violence etc.

To the Online Opinion editors: I think you're really overstepping the mark publishing something like this and the accompanying comments on the Darcey Freeman case when charges have been laid. The sub judicae rules are there for a reason, you know

To those who accuse me of presuming what happened in the Darcey Freeman case, I was very careful to draw no conclusions.
We know none of the facts.
I said what happened to her was visible but many cases are not.
As for those who call me a man hater, I am one of the few people who put much of my time and resources into promoting a model of treatment for child sex offenders (the majority men) and dispelling the public image of them as monsters and fundamentally different to ourselves. They, like all adults, are products of their childhood and need help in dealing with that to make them safe in the community.
I carefully used the word parent, not mother. Why do you fathers presume I meant you?
I would take the view that a violent mother should not be given unsupervised access, custody or shared-care also.

I agree with Leigh -posting 3 Feb. 2009. Thank you Barbara for all your work and bringing attention to the family court enforced abuse.

Why does Barbara have to speak here? Why does the media avoid exposing the child and human rights abuses of the Family Court. It seems happy to report on odd 'titillating' piece of family court news?

Why does the media 'dilute' the truth and Australians continue to live in a happy daze that all is well in this country?

The family court sends children to be raped and beaten and is connected to a dysfunctional legal system that allows criminals to walk free. Are we just a self-satisfied society where self-interest and individualism is so rampant that a conscience is too inconvenient and costly?

If one in 5 girls and one in seven boys have been sexually abused by the time they are adults, then where are all these offenders? Child abuse is at epidemic levels in our society and hardly anyone cares.

Is the suppression of the truth to do with the inability to face that some members of our society behave in truly toxic ways and need to be identified and held accountable. Are there just too many?

The media churns out pap to reassure the population that 'all is well'. As long as the majority of the population are kept in a coma. The nation is content ...one day the truth will come out and Australians will recoil in horror at the way children have been treated...or will they? If Australia ever had a moral compass not many people are looking at it.

Barbara,

<I carefully used the word parent, not mother. Why do you fathers presume I meant you>

That is not totally correct,

<sensational group of black-hooded men>
<they also represented violent, controlling fathers unfit to parent their children.>
<Imagine being raped and forced to visit your rapist every fortnight.>

There is technique used in writing where by introducing, for example, the word father or mother once then changing the rest to parent, tricks minds of the reader into equating parent with father or mother.

You fail to mention the work done for fathers by many very good people like Barry Williams and the hundreds of others who submitted submissions to the senate inquiry.

Whilst you did not draw any conclusions, you however did manage to link this tragedy, to your own abuse, the blackshirts, Parental Alienaton syndrome, rape and domestic violence.

I believe that you should be commended for your work with abusers.

However in this case it is not the Family court that is the problem. The problem is the end of a relationship and how people react to the stressors.

I don't agree with the people who say we should not be discussing this. Familial breakdown is a major social issue today and it leads to terrible outcomes in the worst cases. However, the vast majority of families that fail do so without any risk whatever that this sort of thing could happen. Yet my experience is that the lazy third-rate lawyers who seem to feature so much in Family Court matters quite deliberately use the existence of such extreme possibilities to bolster the distrust that is already a part of such proceedings. It is my view that this approach leads to significant alienation of fathers, which is apparently at the root of many of these sorts of tragedies, just as PND is regarded as a significant factor in many maternal filicides.

Can anyone here imagine how soul-destroying it is to be told, "There is no supporting evidence, but we can't take the chance that the mother's allegations may be correct" as a justification for making interim orders that say (effectively) "this man is a danger to his children and can't be trusted alone with them"?

The next element in the mix is the letter from the CSA telling him that as he is not caring for his children, he must pay more to the person whose unsubstantiated word put him in the position in the first place. If he objects he gets "don't you care about your children?".

The next piece of the jigsaw is his "contact" in a "contact centre", assuming he can find one with a timeslot free. That will be after some months on a waiting list and having attended at least one pre-appointment interview. There will be a significant fee for him to pay out of whatever the CSA has left him and his "contact" is entirely at the whim of the people running the centre. He may arrive and be told "sorry, not today", after not seeing his kids for months.

At what point do you think you might snap and do something regrettable?

It's all about context, antiseptic, at least as far as I am concerned.

Of course we should be discussing the role of the Family Court in marriage breakdown. Of course we should consider the children.

But this article has been tagged "Darcey Freeman: high emotions that lead to tragedies."

In my view, there is a substantial distance between the state of mind of Darcey's murderer, and the scope of any government bureaucracy-driven support programmes.

The author has attempted to bring the two together into one of her hobby-horse isues. Which I feel is entirely inappropriate.

As I said before, this is an act that I am still unable to digest fully. To use it deliberately as a lead-in to a discussion on "lazy third-rate lawyers" seems altogether distasteful.

As indeed does your end-note:

>>At what point do you think you might snap and do something regrettable?<<

Is this intended as some kind of threat? The system doesn't work for me, so I'm going to throw my kid off a bridge? I don't think so.

Extreme cases make for bad law.

The same principle applies to gratuitously feeding off someone else's tragedy to push your own barrow. There is no clear cause-and-effect operating here. To pretend that there is, or that there might be, is simply taking advantage of other people's pain.

pericles:"Is this intended as some kind of threat? The system doesn't work for me, so I'm going to throw my kid off a bridge?"

Did you actually read what I wrote before letting that jerking knee start its dance?

How about answering the question I posed: given the situation I described, how well do you reckon YOU'D do? It's a question that many men going through a family breakdown have to answer with their actions.

What surprises me is that so few take the drastic step of killing themselves - "only" 2000 or so a year men suicide and a much smaller number kill their families.

What I am fearful of is that FCA/FMC judges, registrars and magistrates may be so focussed on these extreme events and the publicity they generate that they may become even more draconian in making their Orders. The precautionary principle is all well and good, but those invoking it need to be able to grasp the difference between "hazard" and "risk". It is not good enough to say "we can't take the chance" and not examine the chance of the subject of the orders coming to harm, or even evaluating the actual risk of the hazard "we can't take the chance" on occurring. While the child's interests may be paramount under the law, every adult was once a child too.

The fact that a man has fulfilled his function by reproducing shouldn't make him expendable. ISTM that too much of the Family Law as it is practised is based on that assumption, and that is directly responsible for outcomes such as this one.

As for context, the author raised the issue of the FCA, so it is a clear part of the discussion.

In 1972, a government promised to do something for the forty thousand couples who wanted to get officially unhitched. The Family Court was created to assist. It was a lawyers solution to an un-Christian interpretation of the Holy Bible by a very influential Church. If the lawyers had been Christians, instead of atheists, they would have known that the Supreme Court in each State, exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, had the power, with a jury to dissolve any marriage, and equitably sort out the rights of the children.

The present system is an atheist abomination. It is an insult to Christianity, it is an abuse of public trust, and it destroys men and women and kids body and soul. . Remember the fathers who in despair, have gassed themselves and their kids, driven into dams, and otherwise acted as insane people. We are told as many women as men do the same thing. Yes the Family Law Act 1975 says that the welfare of the kids is paramount. Ha Ha de Haardy ha. The welfare of the family lawyers is paramount.

When the fundamental contract of life, a contract that two people will marry and have children, and raise them together can be shattered with extreme violence by a State Public Official, on a no fault basis, it is no wonder we have a dysfunctional society.

The Bible says: Whom God has joined together let no man put asunder, but it also says, where two on earth agree, it shall be done for them by my Father which art in heaven. If no agreement was reached, it was taken to Church. The basis of the Magna Carta, the Great Charter of Christianity, is that with God all things are possible; court was church. With clever lawyers in Australia the Family Law Act 1975 would have been unnecessary.

A Court without a jury, is not a court. A Judge is one person, so cannot be Christian. Juries in the Family Court are a constitutional must if we are to save our kids. A court is God, not a Judge

Read this in the smh letters today...

'Contrary to popular mythology, young children are equally likely to die at the hands of either parent. If the child is under 12 months, women are overwhelmingly the perpetrators.

In recognition of the role emotional status plays, special defences in mitigation are available under the laws governing infanticide. These defences are available only to women.'

Is this true? If so, why?

'The concept that women who kill are sad, but men are bad, serves neither the cause of justice nor the protection of children.'

After suffering one of the worst viral cases of journalistic diarrhoea this millennium, Babs Biggs takes the coveted " Emmy " for - gross exaggeration, egotistical self-promotion, emotional trauma overdrive etc, the likes olo has never before seen...and I've read some classics.

BB by comparison, put's Sunday Herald Newspaper ( and Oz') most despised and reviled journo, Andrew Bolt into the Minor League.

Using the very tragic circumstances involving the Freeman family as her hobby-horse, she gnashes her way through myriad American web sites,spurious bibliographic sources, to serve us with an article many would consign to the thrash bin of oblivion.

So much for journalism, sans USA !

That one child's death used by a psychopath as a revenge mechanism to hurt his ex spouse is an event, rarely makes headlines. This shocking episode reverberated throughout the World, embellished by reporters who sensationalised, eg ' jazzed up ' and masqueraded the incident to appear extraordinary.

The Media - TV, current affairs etc used the issue to arouse Public anger, sympathy, and all the other mixed emotions, includung self-promotion as an affronted social issue. Falling ratings, image loss, and a whole gamut of commercial issues e.g flagging advertising revenue, market share, share holder confidence etc. the reasons are endless.

Intriguingly, how did BB arrive at 1200 news sources, and not 5000 ?

To further generate credibility, she criticises the FCA for it's modus operandi, with phoney hypotheses only she is privy to. Countless successful case-managed episodes are routinely processed and completed each day with families happy with the outcome. No drama, no hassles - real or imagined. Weekly, annually.

I have yet to see a group of " black-hooded men " interfering with Court proceedings in a Family Court in Australia. Magistrates / Juvenile / Country/ family courts are policed with Bailiff's and numerous official attendents. Halloween masked imposters would be short-shifted pronto. BB's reference to ' Parental Alienation Syndrome ' and her litigious confrontation between warring parties is a figment of imagination. It's a US invention, pure and simple.

She makes light of her incesant demands on the ABC,

and Commercial Stations program Managers to air her grievances. Fortunately, there are reputable accredited managers and supporting staff who take a very dim view of ' overbearing ' individuals who ingratiate themselves in public. We have numerous recognised institutions and Org's e.g Bravehearts, Lifeline, Social services Hotlines etc for people in crisis and dire straits.

It seems TV stations are inundated with characters with an axe to grind, pushing their peculiar agenda on emotive wheel barrows, possibly to gain attention and notoriety, and a quick buck. The media has sunk to unfathomable depths of craven commercialism paying for ' scoops '. Another imported phenomena.

Hetty Johnson. President of Bravehearts. A true advocate for children everywhere. A tireless campaigner for oppressed women's rights, deprived and exploited children; pursurer of paedophiles, deviants and other odd-ball jetsam and flotsam. The Feds only recently subsidised her organisation which hitherto depended on charitable donations. She was instrumental in unmasking, bringing to justice several high profile Politicians, school principles, clergy, perverts and paedophiles.She has no illusions about gender perpetrators, acknowleding many women are as much to blame for violence, mayhem on defenceless children.

Everyday,mothers leave their children in parked cars, in the heat of the day, while shopping. Without moralising some of these kids have succumbed from the heat and dehydration ? Murder !

The plight of those wretched Indigenous children taken into Christian homes, seperated from families, never to see their love ones again. The thousands of British children brought here to escape the Blitz, mercilessly raped, tortured and deprived by Christian clergy and Brotherhood. The shocking treatment of thousands of aussie kids suffering at Christian Colleges like St Bernados, Boy's Town, Boy's Grammar etc. None of the clergy who committed gross indecencies on young alter boys and girls in Churches around the Nation are ever prosecuted. Some are shifted, other retired on gratuitous pensions, some continue to practice their immoral lifestyle with impunity.

Without arriving at the crux of the Freeman case, we do a diservice to families everywhere by hasty knee-jerk, emotive reactions which are neither helpful or spiritually enriching.

C'est la vive.

Darcy's mother had expressed concern over the father's capacity to care for his children for the past 2 years accordingly to the family's statement released by Victoria Police http://www.theage.com.au/national/statement-from-darcey-freemans-family-20090205-7y3y.html?page=1

Yes, Darcy's family claim to have been harassing him via allegations of violence for some two years apparently. According to the report, the authorities were not convinced.

I wonder how much responsibilty that harassment may bear for the terrible final outcome?

If the Family Court was not filled with dishonest lawyers, it would not have separated a child or children of such tender years, from their mother. This is law as Principle 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which these dishonest murderous bastards, could find if they looked, as schedule 3 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 . Children are subject to the prohibited action of traffic, being regarded as mere chattels by the Family Court. ( Principle 9)

Further to that intrinsic dishonesty in the point two five of one percent of the privileged class, is the denial by them, in all their Courts, of the principles in Schedule 2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As slavemasters, the Family Court Judges, believe children should be seen but never heard. They are after all their bread and butter. Without children to allocate hither and yon, they would have no leverage over the parents and would probably be told where to get off.

This case demonstrates the complete failure of the Family Court to heed and apply Article 23 of the Covenant-Provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children. Lawyers have not admitted basic Statutory interpretation skills for forty years.
(1) The Constitution is paramount.
(2) Federal Laws overrule State laws.
(3) A Schedule is part of an Act. ( s 13 Acts Interpretation Act 1901)
(4) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is Law.

So they cannot be successfully sued for failure to apply Statute Law, lawyers had the Parliament in New South Wales repeal the right to do so in 1970. They then started to make themselves very wealthy. There is no direct federal right to sue for breach of Statute. It is indirect, declared in 1914, as Section 43 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth, and is indictable. It is time the KR government enacted a direct right to sue for breach of Statute, with a jury

Unless and until it is acknowledged that our adversarial court system is not the venue, under any circumstances, to determine custody cases-where children are to live and which parent is to be the main care-giver, children, and also their parents, will continue to suffer.

Children are not chattel. Children are very young human beings and as such cannot be 'owned' by anybody, not by either of their parents.

Whether Darcy would have survived her father's anger and despair even if there was a different system in place is debatable, so her death may be a catalyst for discussion, but to prevent only deaths as the reason for change is limiting the discussion only to extreme expression of dysfunctional behaviour.

It should simply always be taken as a given that if parents cannot seperate the well-being of their children from personal anger towards the other parent and need to resort to court there is some serious dysfunctional behaviour taking place.

The courts are not the place to resolve this. One parent 'wins', the other 'loses' and really, in spite of the rethoric, the children are the biggest losers-pretty much always. They get no meaningful say in the proceedings.

Go to court to divide up chattel-the furniture and other assets-if you are stupid enough to throw away good money.

Go to the police to report criminal activity.

There remains this bizarre dichotomy, to this surely more enlightened day, that criminal behaviour within the family somehow needs special treatment, to criminal behaviour outside the family. A person needs a blue card to engage in any activity with other children, but somehow is exempt in relation to their own.

The family court is being used by many people with a personal aggrievement and vendetta against another to maintain, sometimes years, of financial and emotional bullying. To the detriment of all, but especially children who have no choice in participating in their parents poor choice of partner and poor life skills.

Today the little girls uncle speaks on behalf of the family at www.ninemsn.com.au

He says"..the judical system has failed our family and will continue to fail other families..." until someone in authority does something.

Antiseptic that you seek to blame this obviously loving and honourable family...

I don't "blame" the family, nor do we know how "loving" they are or were during the family breakdown. I do know from my own experience that being constantly accused of something you've not done can have a very negative effect on the state of mind of the one accused. At the lowest point, one can even think "I may as well do the thing I'm accused of, since I'm being punished anyway". No, it's not rational, but that's the whole point. You, in your self-righteousness, assume that the mother's allegations were true, never examining any other possibility. It is also my own experience that allegations are treated very seriously by the police. If they weren't interested, as the family claim, then the allegations must have had little substance.

You have sought to shut down the discussion by implying that I am somehow callous, yet what if I'm right? It means that you, in your self-imposed role as "champion of the children" are condoning and encouraging behaviour that leads directly to the harming of children.

The real tragedy is that well-meaning, if misguided people make such allegations and something like this happens it is immediately leapt on by the vested interests to claim "all men are bastards", without any examination of the possible causal relationship between the making of the allegations and the final outcome.

The fact that you are unable to grasp the concept of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" may have a great deal to do with your own attitudes to cases like this. Frankly, an ideological approach such as yours is the last thing needed in these sorts of cases, where there has been such a catastrophic failure of rationality.

I can only hope that those charged with invetigating this can put the ideology aside and do their jobs to the best of their ability. We will have enough coattail-swingers doing their best to try to hijack the reults whatever they are. If the investigation is flawed, that will only add to the confusion.

The tragic case of Darcey Freeman is unfortunately the tip of an iceberg which every now and then becomes public enough for everyone to see. Journalists come out of the woodwork with their thinly veiled agendas which cover everything from gaining advertising revenue to using their positions to promote personal resentment for their own mistreatment as a child.

If their true concern was the well being of all children then they would be more even handed and realistic about what can be expected from government intervention in family relationships. The reality is that there are many more children suffering even worse torment in families where the parents still live together. Many families which look normal and happy from the outside can be living hell for children on the inside. Imagine being raped and have to live with your rapist every night. This happens but because it happens in secret and is not sensational it does not seem to warrant journalistic intervention. Why don’t journalists get outraged about this and use their power to do something about it?

Using sexual abuse and domestic violence as examples of behaviour that children need to be protected from is very suspicious since it is a fact that men are more often the perpetrators of these types of abuse than women. Are those types of abuse the only types of abuse? There are many types of child abuse and many types are the particular specialty of women. There are many very broken and dysfunctional human beings who come from families where they were never beaten or sexually abused.

When journalists are outraged they have a power which many of us do not have. They can use that power to fight for the rights of all children or they can use that power as a soapbox for their own unresolved resentment

Antiseptic I have no interest in replying to all your pts. You have little credibility all you write exposes you more and more.

I'm a little puzzled by your response, Antiseptic.

>>How about answering the question I posed: given the situation I described, how well do you reckon YOU'D do? It's a question that many men going through a family breakdown have to answer with their actions.<<

I thought I had made my position crystal clear.

99.9999% of people, faced with the same situation, would not throw a four-year-old girl, especially their own daughter, off a bridge with a view to killing her.

It is obvious that you have a personal axe to grind here, as does the author of the piece. It just happens to be a different axe.

My concern is the use of such an extreme case as a basis for any discussions on the very broad and deep topic of family breakdown. We don't know anything of the background circumstances, or who was doing what to whom. We have been inundated with speculation, jumped-to conclusions and press "story-packaging". To draw any conclusions from such flimsy material is unsafe.

By the same token, nor should press releases by grieving relatives should be used as "evidence". They are hardly unbiased observers, after all, and their hints and innuendo over what happened in the past will only point one way. That is to be expected, it is natural, and nobody can blame them. for it.

But again, difficult cases make for bad law. Extreme behaviour likewise makes a bad example from which to formulate policy of any kind.

Exactly Pericles.

Your point that both the author and Antiseptic have personal axes to grind is of course correct.

But both have particular experiences that are valid points to take into account.

Everytime a thread on the Family Court appears on OLO it underscores my belief, from personal experiences (husband's with ex), and posters that the adversarial court system is singularly destructive to both parents and children. I have absolutely nothing good to say about this system inspite of the fact that my husband 'won' eventually.

The whole process is extraordinarily damaging to children. The separation of parents when conducted civilly need not be traumatic to children at all. On the contrary, when a relationship really has broken down it should benefit children.

I think the FCA is the most hideous institution that enables, is complicit in endorsing and supporting, dysfunctional behaviour with the veneer of respectability and concern. Dysfunctional behaviour escalates, it can even infect the other party. It has no place whatsoever in determining parenting ability or well being of children. The law is not qualified to make judgments on that.

The person with the best lawyer 'wins', because that is how our legal system is set up to function. A child's only hope is that the parent without a personal vendetta is the one who wins and that this parent has boundless stamina (and money for lawyers) to withstand possible constant and continual legal onslaughts. Because custodial arrangements can be challenged and 'adjusted' via the Family Court ad nauseum over years. If one parent at any stage refuses to continue to meet a legal challenge than they 'lose'.

Pericles,

I have consulted friends in the mental health area.

Everyone of us has a breaking point, a point where we will go mad or become psychotic.

Sure it is extremely difficult to comprehend what happened. I speculate that he intended to take his own life as well.

A report in the newspaper that he had not spoken since being admitted to the psychiatric unit, suggests a possible catatonic state.

Fair points, Anansi.

But if the problem, is, as you say

>>...that the adversarial court system is singularly destructive to both parents and children<<

...my concern remains.

The tenor of the article, and a number of posts, suggests that the courts be given additional rules and regulations, in some as yet unspecified form. My point - and it is the only point that I am trying to make here - is that using a case as horrific as this in order to frame those additional rules and regulations, will not improve the situation one iota.

It must also be borne in mind that our memories of this event will almost certainly be those placed in our heads by the media. We already have a "picture" of what took place, and any number of theories, speculations, rumours and innuendo provided to us in the form of "news".

You only have to recall the press treatment of the Lindy Chamberlain trial to understand how unreliable this is.

JamesH kindly underscores my concern.

>>A report in the newspaper that he had not spoken since being admitted to the psychiatric unit, suggests a possible catatonic state.<<

Yet another "fact" with which to build our memories, and upon which - if those concerned voices have their way - will be based future legislation.

Once again, I am not pretending that the current system is perfect. Any system that tries to introduce fairness in the dealings of two people who have grown apart is doomed to fail in a good percentage of cases. After all, the supply of people with the wisdom of Solomon who are willing to work for such a low salary is distinctly limited.

But to cynically use this tragedy to further ones own - somewhat less critical - agenda, is to my mind both tasteless and dangerous.

It is not the adversarial system that is to blame, its the departure from Christian principles that once governed that system. I have seen the difference between a Justice sitting with a jury, and a Justice sitting as a God. With the jury present, there was a reverence and awe for the procedure, that is absent in the Family Court and every other that sits without a jury. When Australia started to disintegrate in the 1970’s the first thing to go was courts. Since then everything has gone haywire.

Some say that children are not chattels. The Family Court is a chattels Court. Everyone who goes there is a chattel. A chattel owned lock stock and barrel by the State; likewise the Federal Court of Australia and High Court. There is no humanity in a Judge. Firstly he is a continual sinner in the eyes of the Lord. He is taking the place of Almighty God and not playing by God’s rules, but by his own collective sinners Rules.

Yes there is high emotion, one of which is anger, others are hatred, envy, and there is no independent arbitrator. There are only people with a vested interest in keeping a job so they can pay a mortgage, and that goes for the very highest paid to the lowest. Family Law is an abomination. I studied it under an atheist. His favorite words were rodentine, describing some of the men involved, and struthious, meaning make like an ostrich. Rodentine and struthious describe all Family Court Judges. Rodentine because they have ratted on Almighty God, and struthious because they cannot see it.

Lets not let this little girl die in vain. My heart was broken when I heard of the tragedy, I have grandkids, and so far the Family Court has not had an opportunity to destroy their lives. If a family knew that they would have to go to court, stand in front of Almighty God would children die so often? Would people try a little harder to keep their bargain? The problem is atheism, and its followers, Judges all.

I'm incredulous about Dyana Bryants reaction to the Darcey Freeman case.

Notice how Ms Bryant spins the discussion from "what did your system do wrong in the Darcey Freeman matter" to "her service requires more funding for more court and court related workers and more legal aid for more trainee lawyers to push more parents through the adversarial system faster". These two things are completely unrelated. Diana has demonstrated her loyalty to those in her profession and to her failing department by attempting to argue that increasing the number of overpaid professional liars in the dysfunctional system will improve it. What a shallow, self-serving and inappropriate response to a matter of such grave importance.

Please encourage your friends/members to write to her (and the AG) and remind them both that we need to dump the adversarial system and create a completely new and inquisitorial model, not pump more money into the one which has already failed us. Her discussion is consistent with expanding taxpayer funded financial support for those seeking a career in law and the current model of family court and its related services and has nothing to do with ensuring justice and safety for children. I should hope that Australians are not stupid enough to accept these kinds of pitiful excuses (essentially, "oops, we don't have enough money to get the job done properly just now so its not our fault if kids die when we ordered them into contact with questionable people") or irrational assertions (ie that more money pumped into the same sick system so more lawyers and judges can get trained up in the art of enhancing their own bank accounts while destroying what little good will separating couples had left towards each other will produce better outcomes for families).

to be continued...

continued:

In DB's scenario, matters may be fastracked through the sick system so that more judges and lawyers can get rich by telling lies and covering up unfit parenting, more court related services can be added to her expanding portfolio (and her pay can increase with the added responsibility) so separating families can suffer Government sanctioned injustice in larger numbers than ever before and kids can die sooner. All this under the secrecy usually enforced under Section 121 of the Act so very few people actually know how many kids have already died or been permanently injured due to involvement with the legal fraternity (who like to bandy around that glorious phrase "in the children's best interests"). Gee, thats a great thing to look forward to. Thanks Di.

It seemed for a moment there would be some light out of this terrible tragedy for the families that follow Darcey but watch the cover-up in action and it's depressing.

A 'review' that most likely soothes the ruffled feathers of the public. A Chief Justice without a conscience and her cohorts. I've read they are saying that the Family did not raise concerns with the court.

Jumping to conclusions as Pericles says but...could it be that like many (myself included) they were told to not bring safety concerns to court. That there is not enough 'evidence' and that if they did a worse result(as in unsafe) for the children would be made by the court.

Do you think this family has enough evidence now? Following courts current logic surviving children should be made to see their father to maintain the all important relationship. Their fathers actions will forever affect their lives but the legal systems lack of concern for prevention, 'red flags' (in another article on this forum) and waiting for damage to be overwhelmingly obvious should be held to account.

The Christian brother is right when he describes all participants as chattels

>>>THE FAMILY COURT IS A COURT OF INJUSTICE<<<

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2484354.htm

ABC > The World Today
6 February 2009

Transcript Excerpt

This is a transcript from The World Today. The program is broadcast around
Australia at 12:10pm on ABC Local Radio.

You can also listen to the story in REAL AUDIO and WINDOWS MEDIA and MP3
formats.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/twt/200902/20090206-twt-08-judge-speaks.mp3

Family law problems out in the open

Reporter: Simon Lauder

BRENDAN TREMBATH: The top judge of the Family Court of Australia has taken the extraordinary step of going on air to discuss the court in response to a family tragedy.

…

Today the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant has also taken up
the challenge appearing on ABC local radio in Melbourne. She says the court
will cooperate with the review of the case but that won't involve
explaining any of its decisions.

DIANA BRYANT: I'll go no further than saying two things.

One is that the orders were made by consent. That is they were not made by
a decision of a judicial officer. Having said that, a judge can and often
does refuse to make orders by consent if those orders do not appear to be
in the interests of the child.

The second thing I would say in this case is that having reviewed all of
the relevant material both administrative and what happened in court, the
parties did not present to the judicial officer concerned as part of their
case that this child was at risk of harm in the father's care.

SIMON LAUDER: In agreeing to discuss the case, Chief Justice Bryant makes
it clear there are many stressful events when families break up and the
court process is just one of them.

DIANA BRYANT: Everybody naturally wants to say well what was the last
involvement and if the last involvement was an order of the court then
people naturally want to say well it must be the court's fault but that is
not necessarily the case. I mean it isn't the case.

There are so many factors that cause people to be distressed.

For those who are interested to know what fathers go through because of family law in Australia, I recommend reading “Kangaroo Court”, Family Law in Australia, by John Hirst, Quarterly Essay, Issue 17, 2005.

John Hirst is a widely respected historian and social commentator.

Website:www.quarterlyessay.com

Lies and dishonesty are the hall mark of every Court with a Capital C, presided over by a Judge with a capital J. The Judge is dishonest because they are breaking the commandment given to them in the Constitution. The Constitution only authorises "judges". All legislation creating a Judge, is illegal, and if it is illegal, a Judge is dishonest. A Court with a Capital C, is not present in the Constitution in Ch III and cannot exercise the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth.

The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth is the power of Almighty God not of the State, and the separation of Judicial Power, from Legislative Power, is only effected when the great Christian institution, adopted in Australia in 1900, of a court with a justice and jury, is convened. Otherwise the Court is a merger of Church and State where the State becomes the Judge and Church, executing its judgments through one individual public servant.

If a couple and their children are afforded the Christian option of going before Almighty God and asking Him, for His blessing, and children were given a free choice of parent, decided by a jury, then many Family Law problems would disappear.

The teachings of Christianity where Jesus says I am the truth, and the way, and no one can come to the Father except through me, found their practical application in a court. The jury as the body of Christ, discerned the truth, and gave a verdict accordingly. That verdict then went to the Father, who is represented by a Justice. The fear of God, leads to a 95% satisfactory settlement rate.

No one respects the government. Like the Old Testament God it rules by fear. If any family knew they were going into a Christian Church, where before Almighty God the parents had promised to love each other, and raise their children, they would think twice about it. A jury is a congregation; a fair just and totally incorruptible gathering completely in tune with Christian teaching. The court, if it had a jury just may have saved this precious life

Anansi:"The separation of parents when conducted civilly need not be traumatic to children at all."

I am very proud of the fact that my children were largely unaware of the struggle that went on over their future. Only yesterday, as we were driving to school, my son mentioned a schoolfriend who is suffering through his parents divorce and went on to say "I'm glad you and Mum didn't fight like that". I nearly wept.

ISTM that too many parents are too prepared to involve their children, both as pawns in their power struggle and as unwilling participants in what should be adult matters. The best interests of the child are what drives the law, yet the law is framed so as to drive greater conflict than an already charged situation possesses intrinsically. I completely agree with Roscop that Bryant's recipe of more State funding for lawyers and a greater role for the Court post-orders is only likely to add fuel to the fire.

Pericles, the axe that I grind is the fair and considerate treatment of people who have to go through the system. You're quite right that any system that tries to produce fair or "least worst" outcomes from conflict is going to produce anxiety and stress in those conflicted. ChildAdvocate has the right of it in suggesting a move toward a more considered, less adversarial approach with far less reliance on third-rate legal-aid-funded document-servers posing as professionals.

What has to be clearly understood is that men and women are very different psychologically. In my own experience of the system, I found it to be very supportive of women in their stress, but incredibly alienating of men, probably entirely unconsciously. If some men are driven past their point of rationality because of that, whether this particular case is an example or not, then it needs to be changed.

As someone said to me privately, when discussing his own experience:"If that could happen to a well-educated, well-spoken high-achiever like me, imagine what it must be like for a yobbo from Woodridge".

Men are treated as if they are the saviours of children. In my case the 'father' who had seen child 30 hours in childs first three years was asked by Magistrate, "what can I do for you?"

I cannot detail my treatment etc. here, there is plenty on the kids in distress site with examples of protective parents treatment - usually mothers.

The relentless distortion of reality by some fathers who feel they have been treated badly is a diversion from the truth. They feed the minds of people who do not have the time or experience to read reports etc.

In my case if I were ever to seek compensation in the future for the treatment of my child and myself (should the system ever right itself). I am quite sure I will be told - well you never spoke up did you? When all who operate in the system know - you will be worse off. Ask the mothers who suffer the loss of their children where protesting the abuse of children and not being 'father friendly' got them.

It is not a justice system when the abuse of children is legally enforced. It is not a justice system when you are threatened with the loss of your child if you voice your fears of abuse. It is not a justice system when the outcome is already decieded before a trial. Less than 1% of all final judgements result in a no-contact order for the father.

Antiseptic, great to hear that your child remained ignorant of the fight between you and your ex. That is how it should be.

Roscop and Justiceforkids again unequivocally support my contention that parents of either gender feel harmed, betrayed, damaged by the court system. At least the adults get a chance to whinge. The voices of children, independently (note that last word), are never heard.

As Pericles points out: we do not need more money, we do not need to expand rules, make other rules for the existing court. The words family and court do not go together.

The adversarial system just cannot provide a just outcomes for parents and certainly not for children.

Especially not when there is suspicion or knowledge of abuse or neglect-by either parent.

I get sick to my guts with the constant competition of which gender parent is favoured or more discriminated against. It is utterly, completely irrelevant. Get off this. Stop this. Children will not benefit one iota if somebody goes: 'Oh, the daddy's are hard done by, lets swing the pendulum their way' or 'the poor suffering mummies, we really should listen to them, the pendulum should swing their way, or even 'let's be really even handed and totally PC, make sure 50% of daddy's win and 50% of mummies win'.

This issue should be ONLY about the well-being of children and what favours the interest of children, not the adults' personal feelings.

If it comes to the point where parents are not able to come to a mutual agreement what is in the best interest of their child, then it must be agreed that there is some serious dysfuntionality present. Present in one parent or both. A court is the very last place to bring this kind of situation to a solution.

So far, I’ve avoided this essay thread because of the usual hijacking of OLO child abuse/divorce threads by the usual gender-agendas.

However, now that I've finally taken a look at the essay and the author’s Kids in Distress link, I must belatedly applaud both her essay and the advocacy she promotes.

So what if she has seized on a very public tragedy to state her points? Often, this is the only way that the community can be shaken out of its apathy and made aware of the ongoing failures in our system, legal or otherwise.

Abuse and/or assault of children have for too long been left to non-legal personnel or, when committed during separation and divorce, the Family Court to arbitrate. This means that children assaulted and/or abused within the family do not experience the same rights or legal representation as other adult or child victims of criminal (or severe anti-social) activity.

Instead, ‘justice’ for children within a family situation is based on a very inadequate ‘quasi-legal’system comprising … just to name a few of its many weaknesses … affidavits from supposed witnesses who are not liable to perjury if they lie, reports by counsellors who usually want to avoid a perceived ‘unfair’ recommendation (and thus, further litigation), and legal representatives untrained in child development or psychology.

Even for adults with the full right to legal representation, justice for victims is difficult at the best of times. For children within the family who rarely have these rights, justice is well-nigh impossible.

For once I agree with SJF.

Justice for Kids, you say “Men are treated as if they are the saviours of children.” I thought mothers held that status which seems to be affirmed by yourself when you talk about “examples of protective parents treatment – usually mothers.”

You also say “Less than 1% of all final judgements result in a no-contact order for the father.” SO WHAT?

Very few fathers take custody disputes to a final hearing. Against a resistant mother it can lead a father to financial ruin and what’s the point in achieving a pyrrhic victory if your depleted recourses doesn’t allow you to have meaningful access to your child/ren? It is an exercise only for the very well healed. Besides, from all reports the FC doesn’t enforce its own orders anyway.

It appears clear to me that BOTH mothers AND fathers are shafted by the current system, and many make the mistake of aiming their arguments against the other gender as if all the lawyers, "experts" and judges supported only the other gender.

WAKE UP PEOPLE.

Both genders are being shafted equally by the various lawyers, judges and experts who handle your cases. I hear about more cases where the 'experts' get it wrong than when they got it right. Yet parents are told not to complain about those lying under-experienced, biased, personal agenda seeking, overpaid 'experts' "because the judge will see you as a whinger and rule against you".

Alternately you are told that if you reveal your concern about the effect of the actions of the other parent on your child but they have no criminal conviction for those actions, you will be labeled unfriendly and will have less time so you have to just put up with the antics of the other parent and say nothing while your kids are damaged. So the wrongs and injustices perpetrated on families by the system is allowed to go on and on and on. Children lose out every time.

This is a system designed to conceal the truth and mete out punishment, not establish the truth and work within that context. Everyday, normal sane rational people of each gender who mistakenly thought that the system would reveal the truth and reward the honest decent person have that illusion shattered.

Doctors have confided in me that the stress of FC proceedings send many of their patients OF BOTH GENDERS into depression requiring medication and long term support.

This sick adversarial system damages parents and leaves them hostile and shattered and broke, while the lawyers (many of whom benefit by ensuring proceedings are protracted) remain both insulated from the results of and enriched by the experience.

to be continued...

continued...

There are other far cheaper and successful models of family law available to us, utilising specialists in family dynamics, DV, child welfare and separation counceling NOT adversarial lawyers and their equally adversarial social workers and mediators. Why are we not banding together as parents and demanding a just, truth seeking, inquisitorial system. A progressive society has the need for LESS liars oops I mean lawyers, not more.

Working together and demanding the dismantling of the sick, destructive system and replacement with a truth seeking and healing one would be a far better way of utilising our energies, methinks.

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Antiseptic. I appreciate it.

Child Advocate, Justice for Kids (and others)

My indirect, but very close, experience with the truly harrowing divorces of two of my closest (female) friends in recent years has shown me that many family lawyers are as frustrated by the system as their clients are. Yes, the honest ones do acknowledge that they make money out of human misery (or at least their firms and the Law Courts do) but anyone's sense of professionalism would get worn down by constantly having years of hard work ignored by final judgements that put expediency before justice.

In the Courier Mail today February 11, 2009 is the sad story of a mother who tried to kill her children. The report stated that the woman, who cannot be named, was upset by a marriage break-up and a sudden change in schooling arrangements for the girls, aged 11 and 6.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25038756-1248,00.html

Excepting that these little mites were lucky enough to live, there is a strong similarity with the Darcey Freeman case.

There is a critical difference too. In the case of the mother there will be outpourings of sympathy because we are socialised into believing that it is 'impossible' for a woman, much less a mother, to harm children.

It is precisely because it is unthinkable that a woman could harm a child that many women who suspect (or know) they are risks to their children do not come forward for assistance and treatment. How can a mother make an admission to others (eg her friends) or medical staff that she is harming or neglecting her child and risk the possibility of strong censure and being sent to Coventry by her friends and family? Such distrust could last a lifetime. How many women are sentenced to live in constant fear and pain because they cannot come forward?

As I re-read the (mean) spirited attacks and defences by some of the gender warriors on OLO it strikes me that some of them must be entirely blinkered to the damage that they do in reducing everything to an issue of gender.

I think the gender issues get raised because quite often they are at the heart of the article by the original author. Some authors seize the moment to push their own barrow about issues which have nothing to do with the current news item. It is not what they say but the way they say it which belies their true agenda. If they were more honest and even in their language then we would be more inclined to listen to their arguments. They sometimes try to appear fair but you cannot cover up attitudes of bitterness, resentment and revenge – they just come to the surface unconsciously.

Various OLO posters take sides depending on whether or not they identify with or against the hidden agenda and this distorts the debate that could take place about real social issues even if that was not the intent of the original author. Some posters see through the language of the original author and subsequent comments to rightly criticize the use of a public forum for the pursuit of personal grievances. This is a good thing because it keeps the forum on track to achieve its real purpose which is to try and contribute to the solving of social problems.

It is usually easy to pick what the motivation of any author or poster really is and if it is the wrong motivation then they should expect to be criticized not for their opinions but for their behaviour.

Cornflower:"the woman, who cannot be named, was upset by a marriage break-up and a sudden change in schooling arrangements"

Barbara? Are you there Barbara? Do you see what the gender of this person is?

Sadly, parents of both genders are capable of terrible acts when their breaking point is exceeded.

While the specific issue mentioned seems relatively trivial, the fact that it was "sudden" indicates a serious breakdown in communication between the parents. If it was a change from private to state school, then it probably also indicates financial issues.

If that is enough to drive a mother to this sort of action, imagine how much harder it is for a loving father, who has all of those same issues to face and very probaly also has a spurious claim of violence or child molesting or whatever else the leec..lawyer acting for the mother decides to have a go at. No wonder some of those cases become self-fulfilling prophecy.

What I find quite disgraceful is that this woman was given bail. After all, this was an attempted murder and a self-acknowledged intent to commit arson. I somehow doubt that if the person involved had been the father, rather than the mother, that he would have been so fortunate as to be allowed out of custody. That situation applies because dimwitted knee-jerkers like Barbara have created such an enormous fuss and published so much deliberate misinformation. The even dimmer bulbs in politics naturally listen to the loudest voice and the strident tones of the fishwives like Barbara are hard to ignore, especially when amplified through the uncritical, "grrls can do anything" pages of the women's magazines.

Cornflower

Re the Courier Mail article, I think you're trying to create a gender double standard that isn't there.

Firstly, the article is a poor choice of example as it is very sketchy with the facts and continuity is hard to follow.

For example, if the mother knew the police would be at her home after the McDonalds visit, then she must have 'come forward' either by notifying them herself or by telling someone else who then notified them. (Also, if her 'partner' lives in Sydney, who is looking after the kids? Is the partner the children's father??)

Secondly, even with the confused reporting, the magistrate's decision appears to be fair. He granted bail on condition the woman undergo further psychiatric treatment, that she is to have no contact with her children and she is not allowed to return to Queensland until her next court hearing. I can't see that any magistrate would have acted differently if the defendent were a father.

And for heaven's sake, do you honestly think that a woman (or a man) would try to poison, suffocate and incinerate their kids simply over a marriage break-up and choice of schools? She is clearly disturbed and, unlike many disturbed people, she seems to be taking responsibility for what she has done.

I think the real 'double standard' is in the way the media handled both stories. One was publicly spectacular and the other was not. Had this woman taken her kids to the Storey Bridge and tried to throw them over the side in front of thousands of motorists and onlookers, then the media coverage would have been much the same as the Darcy Freeman case.

"I think the real 'double standard' is in the way the media handled both stories. One was publicly spectacular and the other was not." SJF

I agree with you on this,(shock, horror, James H agreeing with SJF)

The media is not a reliable source for information. Fullstop.

Depending on how the media wishes to respond to a story, they will either beat it up or play it down.

SJF

Sure, either report can provide fodder for speculative gossip, but I am not interested in that. Apart from the usual brief stuff from the police there is no evidence to go on in either case. That is why the OLO article is problematical.

As regards the gender of the perpetrator, I think my concern was clear enough:

"...we are socialised into believing that it is 'impossible' for a woman, much less a mother, to harm children.

It is precisely because it is unthinkable that a woman could harm a child that many women who suspect (or know) they are risks to their children do not come forward for assistance and treatment."

Fact is, the more we dump on men and fathers the harder we make it for women and mothers because they have to live up to an impossible ideal. Our first concern should be the children and getting people to come forward and proactively if possible. Hard to do if mums are supposed to emulate Mary Magdalen.

I honestly think, Cornflower, that you could turn a discussion about Jack the Ripper into a treatise on embattled male integrity.

Women at risk to their children ARE coming forward and seeking help. The chances are, however, that the help they seek is no longer there … because some idiot bureaucrat has cut the funding.

If society is supposed to have trouble believing that women can be violent towards children, then most women certainly don’t. That is why there is so much women’s advocacy to recognise and support mothers under stress – from post-natal depression, domestic violence, financial dependence, limited work options, a history of being abused in childhood, poor communication skills, substance abuse and traditional expectations that women must be the primary caregivers for their children … to name a few.

Unfortunately, the women’s advocacy groups that provide these support services have to fight just to stay alive – not just against government indifference, but against attitudes like yours that assume that any gains for women are automatic losses for men.

SJF

Jack the Ripper?! Ka-Ching! That is close enough to Godwin's Law for points to be paid.

Seriously, if you want to slog it out with someone, choose choose someone else because I have no interest at all in the gender war.

The motherhood myth and mother stereotypes do exist and contribute to the idealization of motherhood. This has upsides and downsides, but mainly downsides because mothers are held accountable by society for the nurture, growth, care and safety of their children. You shouldn't doubt that because many women complain about how they are expected to be super-human and are ridden by guilt if they cannot be perfect.

So too do medical and helping professionals fall into the trap of idealising mothers and expecting them to 'naturally' be able to cope with anything. This is why doctors can easily miss signs of more serious mental problems or difficulties in coping, in what they perceive to be the 'normal' anxious and harried mother.

Now to labour another point which you seem to be having difficulty accepting, the stereotypes which define a group can cause individual members to limit their behaviour accordingly. For example, it is well known that some mothers are inhibited from attending parenting skills training because they are expected to 'naturally' possess those skills. Similarly a woman who is contemplating harm to her children would be even more strongly inhibited by our prevailing cultural bias (ie the cultural stereotype that mothers are naturally nurturing and supportive) from seeking attention. You confident expectation that women would (should?) just come forward merely adds to the myth and is completely insensitive.

It follows that we should be questioning and certainly not adding to, the motherhood myth and the outrageous expectations society has of women and mothers. I repeat, we cannot trash one gender without building higher expectations with respect to the other gender, if only by comparison.

I cannot imagine why you would believe that any of this is "a treatise on embattled male integrity" and I have no idea why you would pen that silly concluding sentence.

Cornflower

'... it is well known that some mothers are inhibited from attending parenting skills training because they are expected to 'naturally' possess those skills.'

This is one of the most remarkable comments I have ever read, not just on OLO ... but anywhere. This is the complete opposite of every gender and/or motherhood reality I have ever observed or experienced. Parenting skills training is overwhelmingly dominated by women - BECAUSE of the high social expectations put on mothers. The occasional male is usually there at the insistence of 'the' wife.

I think you are trying to create a myth in order to overthrow it. The problem for mothers under stress is not an inhibition to come forward to seek help, but an unwillingness on the part of the wider society to give mothers the help they ask for.

'Seriously, if you want to slog it out with someone, choose choose someone else because I have no interest at all in the gender war.'

Your posting history says otherwise. In fact, I would go so far as to say you are obsessed with the gender war - and in particular, from a strong anti-feminist/pro-male bias.

That's fine ... but it would help if you admitted to it.

I do agree with you on one thing. It's best not to 'slog out' a point when there is little to no chance of finding a common ground. Let's agree to disagree.