I strongly support the two-pronged approach to bring attention and reform to these issues. i.e. 1. The self-styled `Experts' must be challenged in Courts as to their claimed `Expert' status and whether they are acting outside of their expertise (if they have one). Charlatans have existed in the role of experts to Courts for many years but in recent years they have been exposed in the U.K. Courts. They must also be reported to their respective association's Disciplinary Bodies for malpractice and unprofessional conduct.
2. These issues have been studiously ignored by the Australian Government, the Family Courts and the legal professions despite their being widely known for at least 6 years.
These human rights abuses by the Australian government and the Family Courts should be made known to the U.N. and they should be made accountable to world opinion.
No one will want to come to Australia when these widespread human rights abuses become known and the hypocrisies of the Australian government in criticising human rights abuses in other countries becomes apparent.

The Australian Human Rights Commission as suggested by Valarie is, I feel,an EXCELLENT way to help to expose what in my own personal opinion and experience is the abuse, collusion, complicity and ineptitude both in and of the FC,as well as writing to PM Rudd, AG MCLelland, CJ Bryant etc.
Public confidence in the FC has never been there, according to all reports, and is,unsurprisingingly, rapidly deteriorating.

The HC has stated, words to the effect as I understand it,that the court system must be able to justify its confidence in those experts it purports to place its confidence in and as a flow-on, then expects the public to place its confidence in; I wonder what it would make of "experts" used to date by the FC?

If enough people speak from their hearts, to those who can legislate for change,for all our Children, we will see that shift.

History proves that time and time again.

I am new to the forum, I would just like to say this : it has been my own experience that in First Avenue House Principle Registry Holborn London there is a lot of risks being taken by high up expert witnesses. We mothers have discussed our cases of abusive ex-partners getting custody of children .
The role of the EW in directing the court in PAS is central to any case.
Dr Claire Sturge has done her fair share of conferences discussing the morals of contact to an abusive parent to a child, in 2001 - 2003 .We met her in 2004 - 2005 , she was a night-mare to deal with . In her Family Centre Gayton Road Middlesex she was frightening to deal with. She stopped us discussing domestic violence problems we had experienced.She also said I encouraged my son to tell her about the incidents.
I now warn women not to say anything about DV issues as this is so used against you in closed court.
She done a few other cases and I met another mother who lost her 3 year old child to adoption he was twin tracked, whilst some abusive partner pursued a contact order to 2 other children to a previous relationship ,which resulted in her getting no contact what so ever apart from phone calls monitored by the ex who got custody.
Dr Claire Sturge does not travel she does not believe DV existed , but asked to see the CRB check as I referred to my ex-partner haveing a criminal record for well over a decade for violent offences.
I heard recently a pattern has emerged , in a school report after my son has lived there 3 years now with my ex , this child is exhibiting inappropriate behavoiur problems.
This child has peaked at losing it out side of a class room environment with his peers.
Child C is angry is totally losing it ,is out of control.
Now why does this not surprise me ?

I could not more strongly disgree.

It is through staying quiet and not challenging these "expert" that the current situation hes been reached and most importantly,been allowed to be reached.
Child Abuse,in any form, must be reported and must be formally recorded as being being reported in all its forms, to those who are mandated by Law to act on those reports.
In that way, those in authority can never again claim that "they were not told ".
Treverrow's case set prcedents,so did the Wrigley one,so did those in the UK that Sir Roy Meadow provided "expert" evidence for.
There are, as a result, now serious moves afoot in the UK to properly train and accredit those who give "expert" evidence in the FC. European courts already do this.

Whoever said "All it takes for Evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing", was dear right.

Sunita,

'consistently well-punctuated,high- intensity and high-information delivering posts '

What, a 139 word sentence to follow your earlier 179 word sentence, to follow mogs 157 word sentence! Are you guys running a competition for the longest sentence?

No matter what you write, any sentence this long is poor punctuation, and not very readable. It's a shame as you seem so desperate for people to rally to your cause of taking all abuse allegations at face value and removing children from their parent on unfounded and uninvestigated allegations.

You can yell 'think of the children' as long and as loud as you like, but no sensible person enjoys sifting through 179 word sentences or agrees with no protection against false accusations.

Don't forget the rest of the family law system. There is the family court itself, the federal magistrates court, the family relationship centres, the independent counsellors and mediators and 'expert' report writers - all of these contribute to the outcome. The system aims to steer separating parents out of the courts, if that fails, the FMC is the default option. If you get a certificate of complexity from your lawyer you can get to the Family Court. In the Family Court the Magellan project - for cases with violence and abuse,handles 4% of children's cases - despite statistical data indicating that violence/abuse is raised in 66% of cases. The designed and produced outcome is that most victims of violence make agreements at FRCs where there is no public record or scrutiny of agreements. Many targets of abuse simply get bullied behind closed doors at FRCs where the key outcome is an agreement. Protective parents fleeing abuse/violence risk being labelled 'unfriendly' or 'unco-operative' or 'enmeshed' or 'vengeful' or 'alienating' (so many pathological labels you just have to pick one) if they resist. There is no necessity for agreements to conform to children's social and emotional developmental needs and nobody making the decisions is even aware of what those are because they have never had any education in this and it is not a Key Performance Indicator of the FRC Business Model. Yet they will determine the terms of a child's life. So you get outcomes where the six week old baby is in week about share care; toddlers flying interstate every second weekend and attending two kindergartens. So many travesties for children's well-being as long as the goal is division, allocation and distribution of children with cavalier disregard of their actual circumstances, safety and development.

(dear usual suspect,good counting!)