THE ABSENCE OF A CHAIN OF COMMAND IN THE FAMILY COURT

One would expect the Attorney General or the Chief Justice of the Family Court to take responsibility for the actions of Family Law solicitors, barristers and Family Court appointed or approved Family Consultants.

For legal practitioners, complaints can be made only to the State Legal Services Commissioners who have no power to intervene in a Family Court decision or order a new Hearing, whatever the outcome of the investigation of the complaint.

Similarly the Family Court can't deal with complaints against its own legal practitioners.

The Family Court can (theortetically at least) deal with complaints against some BUT NOT ALL Family Consultants. For these one has to complain to the relevant State/Territory Psychologists Registration Board. These Boards have no power to intervene in a Court decision or reopen cases etc, whatever the outcome of the enquiry into the complaint.

NB. No one working within the Family Court can be sued. They have judicial immunity, which those dissatisfied with their performance do not seem to have. My most recent legal adviser pre-empted my query about this by warning me that I cannot sue the Family Consultant.

The above facts are based on personal experience.

WHY THE AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CANNOT HELP CHILDREN ENDURING FAMILY COURT ENDORSED CHILD ABUSE.

The Australian Human Rights Commission is an advisory body only and has no power to intervene in Family Court matters. I was wrongly advised by UNICEF to contact them on behalf of my grandchildren.

The Australian Human Rights Commission is mainly concerned with children in detention centres. This is ironical as my grandchildren are also in a form of detention with hostile, abusive, mentally ill parents, and restricted communication with the outside world etc.

This includes intercepted correspondence (including Registered Post items, with the blessing of Australia Post) and a parent listening to and disrupting the few Court ordered phone calls which I am allowed.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has no link with State Legal Service Commissioners or with the State/Territory Human Rights Commissioners or with any of the Psychologists Registration Boards.

I might have accidentally misled Forum members about this. I had a statement from a Psychogists' Registration Board that the Human Rights Commission would be represented on the panel hearing my complaint. This turned out to be the relevant State/ Territory Human Rights Commission, which at that stage I did not know existed.

It is not clear just whose rights (mine, the Family Consultant's or my grandchildren's) are being protected by the inclusion of a HRC representative on the panel. I hope that it is the latter.

It is a pity that these various Commissions do not identify themselves clearly as being the Australian Human Rights Commission or by including the name of the relevant State or Territiory.

The Australian Psychological Society cannot discipline its members although they all seem to adhere to the same code of practice. I was very strongly discouraged BY PHONE by someone at the above APS when I emailed asking for an address for my complaint. The incorrect phone number I was given might have been a genuine mistake, but I managed to trace the Psych Board using the Internet.

The above are also based on personal experience.

Details of the State etc Children's Commissions tomorrow.

It is my understanding that the HQCC and Psych. Board CAN and do discipline their members with regards to FC proceedings, it has happened and I would encourage others to hold the "experts" accountable for their actions and opinions,it happens in every other legal arena.....why not the FC?

THE AUSTRALIAN ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS ADVICE LINE PHONE NUMBER 1800 050 321

The above was given on a morning TV show on Tues. I missed most of it
and don't even know which channel, but a Dr John (possible psychologist) was speaking about the problems caused by shared parenting. He also said that "Courts can't legislate relationships".

He said that counselling was available through the above number.

First three sessions free, the others possibly through some sort of Medicare rebate.

I phoned the above number to ask how it would work. Not very encouraging as it seems to be staffed by the same mediators who helped to cause the problem.

The person I spoke to said that since 2007, mediators (not the Court) had made decisions regarding shared parenting. I can hardly believe she said this, but if it is queried, I'll apologize if the taped recording I was told about before speaking, shows that I misheard/misinterpreted it.

Many reading this will be experiencing problems caused by shared parenting.

I suggest that all take advantage of the first three free sessions. It might provide valuable feedback to the Attorney General himself.

I'm not eligible as I was denied even mediation because the other parties moved frequently (even changing countries) and kept their address secret. The Family Court allowed this.

AUSTRALIAN STATE AND TERRITORY CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONERS

The Hon Jenny Macklin, MP, Minister for Families etc drew my attention to the existence of these, when I asked her to establish a National Commissioner for Children.

On the Internet there is a good summary entitled "Commissioners and Guardians for Children" : a national snapshot"

I can provide the website on request through the Forum, but I don't think that at present these Commissioners will be much help to anyone worried about Family Court endorsed child abuse in the home by another parent etc.

All emphasise (correctly, I believe) the rights of children to have a say in decisions relating to them.

However, children living with abusive parents are likely to be physically and emotionally restrained from taking the first step by phoning an advice etc, even if they are allowed to know that it exists. By the time they are able, they may be irreparably damaged, homeless, drug-addicted etc.

The above State and Territory Children's Commissioners seem to have no real power at present. Their role is to monitor, advise and research etc. Worryingly, there are three references to child deaths in the article referred to.

I wonder why governments (Federal and State) find it easier to appoint new Commissioners, and call for more reports (and in Victoria even a report on a recent report) when the law giving parents total ownership of their children needs to be changed.

Also, The Family Court (as long as it is allowed to exist) should be made accountable for the bad consequences of decisions made in its name.

Valerie,

You sound like you are struggling against the wall of Family Court prejudice.

Like many grandparents, second-wives and fathers, you will find that the family court gives preference to the mother, in almost every case.

Grandparents, fathers, friends, schools, the familiar family home, the family Dr... can be cast aside by the "Family Court" as they believe the mother is more important than all of these things put together.

Across the western world there are many groups of the "Families and fatherhood movement" that are working, un-funded, to try to fix the court and it's destructive prejudices.

Frequently, groups like ours have 30% female members - usually grandparents and 2nd wives, who stand together against the prejudices that hurt children so much and keep children away from loving family.

Want to join and see what advice and shared experiences we can share? Send a blank email to:
fathers4equality-subscribe@yahoogroups.com