Fair points, Anansi.

But if the problem, is, as you say

>>...that the adversarial court system is singularly destructive to both parents and children<<

...my concern remains.

The tenor of the article, and a number of posts, suggests that the courts be given additional rules and regulations, in some as yet unspecified form. My point - and it is the only point that I am trying to make here - is that using a case as horrific as this in order to frame those additional rules and regulations, will not improve the situation one iota.

It must also be borne in mind that our memories of this event will almost certainly be those placed in our heads by the media. We already have a "picture" of what took place, and any number of theories, speculations, rumours and innuendo provided to us in the form of "news".

You only have to recall the press treatment of the Lindy Chamberlain trial to understand how unreliable this is.

JamesH kindly underscores my concern.

>>A report in the newspaper that he had not spoken since being admitted to the psychiatric unit, suggests a possible catatonic state.<<

Yet another "fact" with which to build our memories, and upon which - if those concerned voices have their way - will be based future legislation.

Once again, I am not pretending that the current system is perfect. Any system that tries to introduce fairness in the dealings of two people who have grown apart is doomed to fail in a good percentage of cases. After all, the supply of people with the wisdom of Solomon who are willing to work for such a low salary is distinctly limited.

But to cynically use this tragedy to further ones own - somewhat less critical - agenda, is to my mind both tasteless and dangerous.

It is not the adversarial system that is to blame, its the departure from Christian principles that once governed that system. I have seen the difference between a Justice sitting with a jury, and a Justice sitting as a God. With the jury present, there was a reverence and awe for the procedure, that is absent in the Family Court and every other that sits without a jury. When Australia started to disintegrate in the 1970’s the first thing to go was courts. Since then everything has gone haywire.

Some say that children are not chattels. The Family Court is a chattels Court. Everyone who goes there is a chattel. A chattel owned lock stock and barrel by the State; likewise the Federal Court of Australia and High Court. There is no humanity in a Judge. Firstly he is a continual sinner in the eyes of the Lord. He is taking the place of Almighty God and not playing by God’s rules, but by his own collective sinners Rules.

Yes there is high emotion, one of which is anger, others are hatred, envy, and there is no independent arbitrator. There are only people with a vested interest in keeping a job so they can pay a mortgage, and that goes for the very highest paid to the lowest. Family Law is an abomination. I studied it under an atheist. His favorite words were rodentine, describing some of the men involved, and struthious, meaning make like an ostrich. Rodentine and struthious describe all Family Court Judges. Rodentine because they have ratted on Almighty God, and struthious because they cannot see it.

Lets not let this little girl die in vain. My heart was broken when I heard of the tragedy, I have grandkids, and so far the Family Court has not had an opportunity to destroy their lives. If a family knew that they would have to go to court, stand in front of Almighty God would children die so often? Would people try a little harder to keep their bargain? The problem is atheism, and its followers, Judges all.

I'm incredulous about Dyana Bryants reaction to the Darcey Freeman case.

Notice how Ms Bryant spins the discussion from "what did your system do wrong in the Darcey Freeman matter" to "her service requires more funding for more court and court related workers and more legal aid for more trainee lawyers to push more parents through the adversarial system faster". These two things are completely unrelated. Diana has demonstrated her loyalty to those in her profession and to her failing department by attempting to argue that increasing the number of overpaid professional liars in the dysfunctional system will improve it. What a shallow, self-serving and inappropriate response to a matter of such grave importance.

Please encourage your friends/members to write to her (and the AG) and remind them both that we need to dump the adversarial system and create a completely new and inquisitorial model, not pump more money into the one which has already failed us. Her discussion is consistent with expanding taxpayer funded financial support for those seeking a career in law and the current model of family court and its related services and has nothing to do with ensuring justice and safety for children. I should hope that Australians are not stupid enough to accept these kinds of pitiful excuses (essentially, "oops, we don't have enough money to get the job done properly just now so its not our fault if kids die when we ordered them into contact with questionable people") or irrational assertions (ie that more money pumped into the same sick system so more lawyers and judges can get trained up in the art of enhancing their own bank accounts while destroying what little good will separating couples had left towards each other will produce better outcomes for families).

to be continued...

continued:

In DB's scenario, matters may be fastracked through the sick system so that more judges and lawyers can get rich by telling lies and covering up unfit parenting, more court related services can be added to her expanding portfolio (and her pay can increase with the added responsibility) so separating families can suffer Government sanctioned injustice in larger numbers than ever before and kids can die sooner. All this under the secrecy usually enforced under Section 121 of the Act so very few people actually know how many kids have already died or been permanently injured due to involvement with the legal fraternity (who like to bandy around that glorious phrase "in the children's best interests"). Gee, thats a great thing to look forward to. Thanks Di.

It seemed for a moment there would be some light out of this terrible tragedy for the families that follow Darcey but watch the cover-up in action and it's depressing.

A 'review' that most likely soothes the ruffled feathers of the public. A Chief Justice without a conscience and her cohorts. I've read they are saying that the Family did not raise concerns with the court.

Jumping to conclusions as Pericles says but...could it be that like many (myself included) they were told to not bring safety concerns to court. That there is not enough 'evidence' and that if they did a worse result(as in unsafe) for the children would be made by the court.

Do you think this family has enough evidence now? Following courts current logic surviving children should be made to see their father to maintain the all important relationship. Their fathers actions will forever affect their lives but the legal systems lack of concern for prevention, 'red flags' (in another article on this forum) and waiting for damage to be overwhelmingly obvious should be held to account.

The Christian brother is right when he describes all participants as chattels

>>>THE FAMILY COURT IS A COURT OF INJUSTICE<<<

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2484354.htm

ABC > The World Today
6 February 2009

Transcript Excerpt

This is a transcript from The World Today. The program is broadcast around
Australia at 12:10pm on ABC Local Radio.

You can also listen to the story in REAL AUDIO and WINDOWS MEDIA and MP3
formats.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/twt/200902/20090206-twt-08-judge-speaks.mp3

Family law problems out in the open

Reporter: Simon Lauder

BRENDAN TREMBATH: The top judge of the Family Court of Australia has taken the extraordinary step of going on air to discuss the court in response to a family tragedy.

…

Today the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant has also taken up
the challenge appearing on ABC local radio in Melbourne. She says the court
will cooperate with the review of the case but that won't involve
explaining any of its decisions.

DIANA BRYANT: I'll go no further than saying two things.

One is that the orders were made by consent. That is they were not made by
a decision of a judicial officer. Having said that, a judge can and often
does refuse to make orders by consent if those orders do not appear to be
in the interests of the child.

The second thing I would say in this case is that having reviewed all of
the relevant material both administrative and what happened in court, the
parties did not present to the judicial officer concerned as part of their
case that this child was at risk of harm in the father's care.

SIMON LAUDER: In agreeing to discuss the case, Chief Justice Bryant makes
it clear there are many stressful events when families break up and the
court process is just one of them.

DIANA BRYANT: Everybody naturally wants to say well what was the last
involvement and if the last involvement was an order of the court then
people naturally want to say well it must be the court's fault but that is
not necessarily the case. I mean it isn't the case.

There are so many factors that cause people to be distressed.