The horrifying death of Darcey Freeman was as unusual as it was extreme. Perhaps it was one of those inexplicable acts that no amount of monitoring or legislation could've avoided.

I agree with the basic tenor of many posts here that the welfare of children is paramount, that family law must place the needs and wellbeing of children first.

If we, as a society, could prevent many such violent acts, we would be further along the path to true civilisation than we are at present. I must commend the bravery of the woman observed running and shouting at Mr Freeman, her actions probably saved the lives of Darcey's two brothers.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24986980-661,00.html

Barbara Biggs deserves congratulations. It is high time this Atheist Temple called the Family Court was called to account. It sacrifices children on the altar of the law. This little girl, Darcey Freeman, is simply the very tip of the iceberg. I was involved in a case in Sydney where a father who had a fantasy of raping a schoolgirl, had thrown his girlfriend down the steps when she told him she was pregnant, had a rich father. This rich bastard wanted access to his granddaughter, so he sponsored his son to bring a Family Law Custody case. The little girl was two, and called her natural father yucky. She was for a time forced to visit unsupervised for four hours a week.

The mother started a criminal action against the father and his solicitor for perverting the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth under s 13 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) in the District Court in New South Wales. An atheist Judge who sat without a jury, dismissed the charges, though it was indictable, and it should have been heard with a jury. She then filed similar charges in the Supreme Court and the same thing happened, but it cost the champertous grand father $100,000 to defend both actions, and the solicitor got scared. The little girl was set free when the grandfather refused to further support his violent son and it was discontinued.

In the Torney case, the mother was an alcoholic and a sex addict. A man from Cairns with a set of balls, threatened to summons the entire High Court except Justice Kirby, who said he could have a jury trial, in the Magistrates Court, in Cairns to answer charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth. The case would have left Kirby as the last man standing, and Torney entitled to a jury trial. The Family Court heard about it because Cairns told them, and they gave Torney custody in a closed hearing. It really needs fixing permanently

"However, the basic human rights of the child have been repeatedly breached by this new blanket rule. Parents’ rights to their children have taken precedence over the children’s right to be and feel safe."

Lie. The law is quite explicit. The best interests of the child is paramount under the law.

"Children’s terror is ignored by a system insisting contact with both parents is always beneficial."

Lie. The "system" says nothing of the sort. The court starts with the premise that contact with both parents is beneficial for the child. The court can, and often does, determine that contact should be limited or denied for reasons of drug abuse, violence etc.

To the Online Opinion editors: I think you're really overstepping the mark publishing something like this and the accompanying comments on the Darcey Freeman case when charges have been laid. The sub judicae rules are there for a reason, you know

To those who accuse me of presuming what happened in the Darcey Freeman case, I was very careful to draw no conclusions.
We know none of the facts.
I said what happened to her was visible but many cases are not.
As for those who call me a man hater, I am one of the few people who put much of my time and resources into promoting a model of treatment for child sex offenders (the majority men) and dispelling the public image of them as monsters and fundamentally different to ourselves. They, like all adults, are products of their childhood and need help in dealing with that to make them safe in the community.
I carefully used the word parent, not mother. Why do you fathers presume I meant you?
I would take the view that a violent mother should not be given unsupervised access, custody or shared-care also.

I agree with Leigh -posting 3 Feb. 2009. Thank you Barbara for all your work and bringing attention to the family court enforced abuse.

Why does Barbara have to speak here? Why does the media avoid exposing the child and human rights abuses of the Family Court. It seems happy to report on odd 'titillating' piece of family court news?

Why does the media 'dilute' the truth and Australians continue to live in a happy daze that all is well in this country?

The family court sends children to be raped and beaten and is connected to a dysfunctional legal system that allows criminals to walk free. Are we just a self-satisfied society where self-interest and individualism is so rampant that a conscience is too inconvenient and costly?

If one in 5 girls and one in seven boys have been sexually abused by the time they are adults, then where are all these offenders? Child abuse is at epidemic levels in our society and hardly anyone cares.

Is the suppression of the truth to do with the inability to face that some members of our society behave in truly toxic ways and need to be identified and held accountable. Are there just too many?

The media churns out pap to reassure the population that 'all is well'. As long as the majority of the population are kept in a coma. The nation is content ...one day the truth will come out and Australians will recoil in horror at the way children have been treated...or will they? If Australia ever had a moral compass not many people are looking at it.

Barbara,

<I carefully used the word parent, not mother. Why do you fathers presume I meant you>

That is not totally correct,

<sensational group of black-hooded men>
<they also represented violent, controlling fathers unfit to parent their children.>
<Imagine being raped and forced to visit your rapist every fortnight.>

There is technique used in writing where by introducing, for example, the word father or mother once then changing the rest to parent, tricks minds of the reader into equating parent with father or mother.

You fail to mention the work done for fathers by many very good people like Barry Williams and the hundreds of others who submitted submissions to the senate inquiry.

Whilst you did not draw any conclusions, you however did manage to link this tragedy, to your own abuse, the blackshirts, Parental Alienaton syndrome, rape and domestic violence.

I believe that you should be commended for your work with abusers.

However in this case it is not the Family court that is the problem. The problem is the end of a relationship and how people react to the stressors.