Thank you Sunita Shaunak for drawing attention to this most absolute travesty of justice for abused children and their protective parent within the Family Court of Australia.

I am the mother of a child who is enduring court enforced abuse. Abuse that could and should have been prevented in the first place.

There is absolutely no form of redress for parents like me and I just have to be thankful my child has not been removed from me and given to the abuser.

In Australia 2008, Judges and Magistrates are, I think knowingly, forcing children to be sexually and physically abused. This horrendous, ugly secret must be exposed to the general public.

It is truly the ugliest shame in Austalia that highly paid professionals are complicit in the abuse of children.

Court enforced abuse of children is a betrayal of the people of Australia who believe the Family Court represents and cares for the safety and well being of children.

It does not, read the judgements and see how mothers who dare to fear their child is being abused get treated and face a barriage of 'psychiatric' assessments. Finally..read how the judge orders a reversal of residence because: "I find on balance it is more likely that the wife has fabricated the sexual abuse allegations" - reversal of custody - Langley and Bramble, 2008, FamCA 437

Lawyers acting for protective parents are forced to 'cover' up chidrens disclosures and talk the parent out of bringing fears to courts notice. It is counter productive to raise issues of abuse in the court without evidence that is completly overwhelming (eg for sexual abuse - DNA). It is highly unlikely she or he will achieve protection for the child, in fact the opposite can and does occur.

The current state of 'justice' in the Family Court is a complete betrayal of the human rights of children.

I look forward to the time when the court experts and all those who have assisted in children being abused for years on end are held accountable for the suffering they have created.

This article again reveals the awful truth that the family law system is unable to respond effectively to the abuse of children. The Family Law Council told the Howard government this in 2002 and it promptly intensified the culture which prioritises child division and distribution between parents ahead of their human rights to safety.
The AIFS Research report of 2007 into allegations of abuse in the family court identified that the majority of children's cases featured allegations and that the most common response of the court to such allegations was no response. The study found that there was no significant difference in decisions made in cases involving abuse and those which did not. The fashionable imagination in the family law la la land, which includes the courts and forced mediation, is that women lie about abuse, children lie about abuse on the coaching of their mothers and men's violence and abuse is either because he is being unbearably provoked by the wicked woman or he is grieving for the children she took away. The 'cure' is to give the abuser the children and make her stop trying to protect them or get them help. The family report writers normally exclude any verifiable extraneous records of abuse and injury and write the required abuse denying drivel, which they have been paid for, which the court then treats as a 'truth'. Report writers who step out of la la land don't get repeat business. The magic vanishing veil which makes domestic violence and child abuse go away is applied, and the conduct which child protection workers named before separation as so serious that they would remove the children if she didn't leave, becomes some form of mutual conflict game for which the woman is responsible, after separation. The family law la la land structurally reproduces intergenerational violence and abuse in families by making children survive childhoods of abuse, even when a protective parent tries to achieve safety. Thanks for exposing these human rights violations again.

I do not wish to distract from the terrible experience of parents and abused children at the hands of the Family Court.

However, I find the notion of "the rights of the child" to have no solid grounding in theory or practice, apart from the right we all have not to be criminally harmed.

But "the rights of a child" must include a grounded context, because of the relationship of dependency with a parent. Both child and parent have a right to be heard!

It seems to me a mistake by experts to talk of "the rights of a child" without including the notion of the dependency of the child on a parent. There are two parties involved, often three if you include both parents.

I had an experience in another jurisdiction (VCAT), which demonstrates the extent of deterioration of our judicial system. It was part of a vexatious conspiracy and divorce case, where - although no factual evidence was bought against me (only allegations), and although I was able to provide contradictory medical and psychological evidence - and so won the case, I was still ordered to pay the costs for my own defence!

In brief, anyone (if they have the money) can make another person suffer through vexatious allegations under VCAT.

Justice for kids,

Your situation seems pretty bad, but what would you say are the motives for Judges to 'knowingly, forcing children to be sexually and physically abused'?

Probably all evidence should be heard by the Judge, and it seems this is not happening if six doctors are pretty sure of abuse and one 'expert' is not. It seems (from this article) we have turned full circle from having an accusation of abuse be all that is needed to deny a child any contact with one of his/her parents, to the new situation of parents fearing all sorts of repurcussions from an accusation.

Some middle ground is needed. I wonder how you feel about all the parents who have created this situation by the false accusation tactics that brought about this new regime?

mog,

'The AIFS Research report of 2007 into allegations of abuse in the family court identified that the majority of children's cases featured allegations '

I'd say that's pretty overwhelming evidence there are false accuations flying around. If the majority feature accusations of abuse. Or do you think the majority of people with children who end up in the family court have at least one abusive parent? The male perhaps? The majority of male parents are abusive? What do you think?

'The fashionable imagination in the family law la la land, which includes the courts and forced mediation, is that women lie about abuse'
Is it so much more a stretch in imagination that some women lie about abuse, than the imagination you express above that the majority of families have an abusive parent.

'becomes some form of mutual conflict game for which the woman is responsible, after separation. '
Or perhaps the conflict is removed now that the parents aren't living in the same house? Do you not think that if the judge is confident that the situation both parents were in was the main factor in the environment of abuse, that now they are seperated, the children are not at risk and on weighing it up it's best for the children to have both parents in their lives?

Your words are very emotive and maybe for good reason based on your life experience, but I think you lack balance.

The claim "that PAS did not exist and has never existed" is either someone focussed on rhetoric or playing word games. Possibly their is some meaning where that claim is true but in terms that most understand it - one parent deliberatly sabotaging the other parents relationship with a child it is very real. It's a useful technique for someone with an eye to getting at an ex, grabbing almost everything during a property settlement, getting a basis to take a sea change, wanting exclusive control of decisions about the children or chasing the various benefits which supplement income.

How, ensure your child overhears half of a conversation which makes the other parent sound like they are being harsh. Cry a lot in front of the kids. Tell them when they are upset about anything the other parent has done how unfair that is how you are trying to protect them from that. Promise them a better life if only you can get the other parent to stop intefering and don't mention the downsides to what you are proposing. Give the child what they want with few boundaries or consequences and make sure they know that their wants are all important. Exagerate anything which might have bothered the child and turn it into fear - a raised voice becomes the other parent shouting at the child. Conspicuously have the locks changed, make sure the child knows that you live in fear of the other parent.

PAS hurts children and both mothers and fathers, whichever parent is most focussed on their childs wellbeing is at risk if the other parent is not mindfull of the consequences to their child of the damage done.

To ignore concerns raised by a parent about the behaviour of the other is dangerous, to assume that those concerns are never self serving is as dangerous. The ability to abuse children or willingness to use them for personal gain or benefit is not defined by gender.

Usual Suspect well said.

R0bert