It is correct that within legal circles operating on the east coast, some practitioners are viewed by their peers as "damaged" and as doing disservice to families but whistle blowing in the industry is career suicide as the sols/barristers/sep reps/writers/ psychs/judges etc behave more like an incestuous and inbred, ferral clan which protects its own and rely on each other for continued highly paid work.

Some individuals have been identified by industry insiders as dubious at best, criminally negligent at worst. If people working within the industry would not trust specific others in that industry to work on matters (for reasons of ignorance and negligence), then why should the rest of the populace have to suffer those fools? Those individuals determine the fate of thousands of families in the nation. Mothers, fathers and children have the right to be angry at the level of betrayal they have experienced by overpaid idiots who are accountable to nobody. If you are unlucky, one hour of each parents time with a social worker (with as little as 3 years uni, and a private contract with a solicitor, no peer review, no standards, no mandatory specialised training and upskilling - just the ability to sign an affidavit containing their own opinion) can determine the next 18 years of your childs life. That is NOT acceptable.

We all know the reforms which would improve the situation for children; what actions would get the message to politicians who can change the sick system?

Child Advocate - that is a very robust analysis of the people with responsibility for the functioning of the Family Court system on the East Coast, and indicates that seeking fairness and justice (if such were to exist in the Family Courts as they are merely jousting sessions between lawyers) is largely a postcode lottery.

In the UK where protests against the erratic operations of the Family Courts is reaching critical mass, there have been organised groups of parents lobbying Members of Parliament to try to force changes and they are beginning to persuade some MPs that there are serious problems in the Family Courts, not least because they are held in secret and therefore the injustices and miscarriages of justice are hidden from public scrutiny and `Expert testimony' cannot be exposed as fraudulent in many cases. The formation of such Protest Groups has been a unique phenomenon and they are growing and developing their spheres of influence as the State system becomes increasingly punitive towards parents if they fail to provide what the State consider to be a high enough standard of care for the children of the State entrusted to their care. Yes I mean all children are now seen as the State's children - fascism of the Left.

According to the transcript (08/07/2004) of the ABC interview Chief Justice Diana Bryant gave, on her swearing in as, I understand it,the first female CJ ever of a Court in Australia, she said :
"...that I will do right to all manner of people according to law without fear or favour, affection or ill will, so help me God ..".

Carbonell goes on to report that the CJ as saying :
"... I think the biggest challenge is to try and earn the respect for the court from the public.I think its really distressing to me to see that a public institution like the Family Court doesn't have the respect of the public and I think there's an educational process to be gone through and I'm very keen to see that happen.
And if at the end of my tenure I could improve the understanding of the court and have the respect of the public for the court, that would be something I would be very proud of......I really would like to see the instituition have a bit more respect and understanding"..."

With respect, I submit to the CJ and the AG, Robert McLelland, that in view of the recent diciplining of the FC's own "expert" (Dr. William Wrigley) for the reports he produced for the FC and the continuing statements made by many other child-welfare experts that they point-blank refuse to give evidence in FC courtrooms,my understanding that there are more complaints being lodged world-wide regarding the use of PAS and other non-existent psychiatry against "experts" utilised by FCs, would the CJ and AG not now please take the bull by the horns and really confront these matters, so that the legacy they leave is for the most important people of all, those whose faces and voices are rarely permitted into these courtrooms, but whose futures are the subject of the court's "highly qualified experts"... our Children of course.

CJ : I look you in the eyes and sincerely ask you to look honestly at your courtrooms so that your legacy may be a positive and healing one.

Respect must be earned is the first lesson that CJ Bryant must learn.
Secondly she should have been clear as to what kind of respect she wishes. Respect for the Court as a government institution and its powers just because it has those powers?. Thats playing the `Higher Rank' game. Or respect for its humanity and obedience to the principles of natural justice and providing such justice, and for upholding the international principles of children's rights, which many Australian Courts seem not to have heard of.
If CJ Bryant wants public respect then she must put her own house in order and have a clear out of the dross and garbage. People will not respect a judicial institution and process which does not provide fairness and justice but is merely a cash cow for lawyers and inexpert `Experts' to play games with.
But then, she may just be paying lip-service to a woolly ambition she has no intention of achieving or does not know the way of achieving.

Another part of the tragedy for children with abusing parents is that the Family Court is not the court where most children's issues involving violence and abuse are heard. Most go to the federal magistrates court where the children are summarily distributed to their timetables of parental attendance. The failings of the Family Court system need to be understood in the context that many cases never even get there. FRC practitioners see it was a 'win' to keep cases out of court, and parties need legal representation and a 'complexity certificate' to get the case into the Family Court. Domestic violence tends not to be seen as complex (indeed its ordinary old woman-bashing) and there is certainly no comprehension of the significance of exposure to violence and abuse in terms of children's brain development at any point in the system - which like this thread - attracts the tired old strident women-haters with their 'women lie and alienate' chorus when issues of abuse are discussed. classic distraction technique. Pity about the kids.

mog:"the tired old strident women-haters"

And here was I thinking the subject was supposed to be the kids. It's the man-haters such as yourself that are the ones most prone to use false allegations of abuse to advantage themselves. Thanks for making that clear. Shame about the kids indeed.

Sunita, I read your comment from Her Honour, Ms Bryant, with interest. I was very sceptical of her appointment, although it was hard to see how she could be less judicious than her predecessor, the egregious Nicholson, who was happy to disregard any evidence at all if it didn't fit with his prejudices. However, since then I'm forced to the conclusion that she's been an ornament to the bench. She's overseen a significant change of her own design from Nicholson's debased court, which was basically a factory for welfare dependency, designed to strip assets and children from fathers for the benefit of mothers and is now a much more respected institution. She's also overseen significant legislative changes and the implementation of the FMC, which has significantly changed her own Court's function.
I realise you've had a long and painful experience at the hands of the Court and I sympathise with you, but from where I sit I'd be much more confident of a fair hearing if I turned up in Ms Bryant's court than I ever was in Nicholson's.

On the subject of child abuse allegations, what do you suggest could be done differently? Do you really think that there is a vast legal conspiracy determined to hand children to abusers? If so, surely the entire Court should be abolished. Is that what you are seeking