Actor Alec Baldwin also gave an interview of interest to Diane Sawyer which aired on Australia's Sixty Minutes last Sunday night.

ChazP you are correct that states have jurisdiction over child protection. All reports of child abuse MUST be reported to state authorities. but THEN, the state authorities apply their central intake cirteria and ordinarily exclude family law system referrals becuase they don;t meet the threshold of 'risk of immediate harm' as the children are typically in the care of the alleging parent with court hearings pending. So the family law system gets advised that there is 'No Substantiation' - they have to because there is no investigation to even try to substantiate anything. Many states authorities believe the mythology that separating couples falsely allege for revenge and advantage and they figure the family law decision makers can sort it out. Even where state authoriteis substantiate abuse and recommend cessation of contact, judges can and do ignore this. One judge argued that because the investigation and finding of risk rested on a report against an alleged perpetarator who had never faced court on the claims (because the child was too young to testify), it was a breach of natural justice and not acceptable. This little charade means that everybody in la la land tells each other that children are safe and gaily hands them to abusers for slow destruction. sigh

CHAZP

FAMILY CONSULTANTS (REPORT WRITERS) AND CHILD ABUSE.
mog's recent item is very illuminating. Thanks, mog.

I had already commenced composing the following which might add little new information.

The State and Territory Principal Acts (Laws) on Child Welfare are used in conjuction with other relevant State and Territory Acts AND WITH THE COMMONWEALTH FAMILY LAW ACT 1975. Therefore the State Laws are not being breached. (The source of this information was a website headed "Australian Child Protection Legislation").

At present Family Consultants (or Report Writers) are the link between Commonwealth and States. According to the Family Court Fact Sheet headed "Family Consultants" they are obliged to report to a Child Welfare authority any observed or suspected physical or psychological abuse. mog has said what then happens.

I found the following after searching the Web.

THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO CLASSES OF FAMILY CONSULTANTS

1. Those who are officers of the Federal Magistrate's Court, engaged under the Public Service Act 1999.

2. Those appointed under Regulations made under the Family Law Act 1975 (Paragraph 11B (b).

The Family Consultant involved in my case seems to belong to yet another class : Those engaged (and paid for) by the parties, even if a party (myself) was denied any say in the selection.

I now have an official statement that the Family Court cannot deal with a complaint concerning this Family Consultant. Neither can the Family Court deal with complaints about legal practitioners.

In the first case the relevant Psychologists Registration Board should be approached, and in the second the relevant State Legal Services Commissioner. I think I already knew that, but I still wonder why it is so.

This further emphasises the need for a Federal Children's Commissioner to be appointed in the hope that this will being some much-needed co-ordination and ultimately justice within the Family Court so-called system.

My son was forced to have a legal representative for almost two years. The family court were trying to force him to visit the man who raped me - not even a relationship, a rapist! I stress - I never lived with this man, he raped me 12 years ago - and in these dark times where PAS is the golden rule for everything connected with the secret family courts, I was seen as an abuser for my undisguised loathing of the man who raped me - apparently, I was expected to play "happy families" with this man and keep my outrage to myself! (though how I can teach my son any kind of moral code if I do so is beyond me, and the judge did not seem to have much of a clue either!) My son was not even allowed to meet his lawyer - he kept asking to, but this right was denied to him.

We won the right for my son not to have to visit a rapist praise God!

Some of us are looking at the link between the secret family courts and the Kinsey Institute - I would urge you all to look into that nest of snakes - Kinsey was a disgusting man who researched pedophile activity on children, even tiny little babies were masturbated for his disgusting data, and yet the Kinsey Institute is lauded as the Golden Temple of Knowledge! The head of the Kinsey Institute is a man called John Bancroft - who also happens to be the boss of Head Start (we Brits call it Home Start)

The American Psychological Association believes that all mental health practitioners as well as law enforcement officials and the courts must take any reports of domestic violence in divorce and child custody cases seriously. An APA 1996 Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family noted the lack of data to support so-called “parental alienation syndrome,” and raised concern about the term’s use. www.apa.org/releases/passyndrome.html. `Violence in the Family' criticizes the misuse of PAS in domestic violence cases and that there is no scientific evidence of such a “syndrome.”
The Report states: “When children reject their abusive fathers, it is common for the batterer and others to blame the mother for alienating the children. They often do not understand the legitimate fears of the child. Although there are no data to support the phenomenon called parental alienation syndrome, in which mothers are blamed for interfering with their children’s attachment to their fathers, the term is still used by some evaluators and courts to discount children’s fears in hostile and psychologically abusive situations.”

“Family courts often do not consider the history of violence between the parents in making custody and visitation decisions. In this context, the nonviolent parent may be at a disadvantage . . . Psychological evaluators not trained in domestic violence may contribute to this process by ignoring or minimizing the violence and by giving inappropriate pathological labels to women’s responses to chronic victimization. Terms such as “parental alienation” may be used to blame the women for the children’s reasonable fear of or anger toward their violent father.”

The APA also discussed the mis-use of PAS in domestic violence cases “Issues and Dilemmas in Family Violence,” http://www.apa.org/pi/pii/issues/homepage.html “Family courts frequently minimize the harmful impact of children’s witnessing violence between their parents and sometimes are reluctant to believe mothers.... Psychological evaluators who minimize the importance of violence against the mother, or pathologize her responses to it, may accuse her of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving the father custody in spite of his history of violence.”

Psychiatrists and professors are lobbying to normalize and decriminalize pedophilia In the late 1980s, during the two years I spent as principal investigator for a U.S. Department of Justice study on "Images of Children, Crime and Violence" in mainstream pornography, my research team encountered a stable of paid pornography agents we dubbed "Academic Pedophile Apologists."
These Academic Pedophile Apologists – college professors, psychiatrists and other mental-health professionals – have served as advisers, writers and "expert" witnesses, telling medical, academic, public school, court and government authorities that the barbaric pedophile crimes of child sexual abuse are harmless and, some said, beneficial.

The American Psychiatric Association .. actually publicly debating a proposal for "Lifting [The] Pedophilia Taboo." Several APA presenters "proposed removing … pedophilia, exhibitionism … voyeurism … from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)."

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development is lavishing $26,000 on a Kinsey "conference on sexual arousal" to develop "guidelines for ... measurement of sexual response."
The NICHHD seems unconcerned that "measurement of sexual response" was Alfred Kinsey's exact excuse for unleashing a gang of his favorite pedophiles to "measure" orgasms on "hysterically weeping," convulsing and fainting children – who Kinsey argued, "enjoyed" the "experience."

Kinsey Institute are attempting to bury the horrifying truth about the rapes and sexual torture of 317 to possibly 2,035 infants and children by Institute founder Alfred Kinsey's sex "researchers" in the late 1940s.

Theo Sandfort, the IASR president and Scientific Program Committee chairman. Sandfort's qualifications include having been a well-known member of the editorial board of Paidika, the Journal of Paedophila.
Paidika pledged to advance "paedophile … consciousness" as "a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience.
" Paidika's regular graphic ads for NAMBLA clearly illustrate the sexual component of what they euphemistically call "man-boy-love."

In his 1991 book "Male Intergenerational Intimacy," Sandfort maintained that neither he nor the other book authors view "man-boy relationships as necessarily pathological."
Extracted condensed and paraphrased from:
Dr. Judith Reisman President of the Institute for Media Education and is the author of "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33551