For those who are interested to know what fathers go through because of family law in Australia, I recommend reading “Kangaroo Court”, Family Law in Australia, by John Hirst, Quarterly Essay, Issue 17, 2005.

John Hirst is a widely respected historian and social commentator.

Website:www.quarterlyessay.com

Lies and dishonesty are the hall mark of every Court with a Capital C, presided over by a Judge with a capital J. The Judge is dishonest because they are breaking the commandment given to them in the Constitution. The Constitution only authorises "judges". All legislation creating a Judge, is illegal, and if it is illegal, a Judge is dishonest. A Court with a Capital C, is not present in the Constitution in Ch III and cannot exercise the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth.

The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth is the power of Almighty God not of the State, and the separation of Judicial Power, from Legislative Power, is only effected when the great Christian institution, adopted in Australia in 1900, of a court with a justice and jury, is convened. Otherwise the Court is a merger of Church and State where the State becomes the Judge and Church, executing its judgments through one individual public servant.

If a couple and their children are afforded the Christian option of going before Almighty God and asking Him, for His blessing, and children were given a free choice of parent, decided by a jury, then many Family Law problems would disappear.

The teachings of Christianity where Jesus says I am the truth, and the way, and no one can come to the Father except through me, found their practical application in a court. The jury as the body of Christ, discerned the truth, and gave a verdict accordingly. That verdict then went to the Father, who is represented by a Justice. The fear of God, leads to a 95% satisfactory settlement rate.

No one respects the government. Like the Old Testament God it rules by fear. If any family knew they were going into a Christian Church, where before Almighty God the parents had promised to love each other, and raise their children, they would think twice about it. A jury is a congregation; a fair just and totally incorruptible gathering completely in tune with Christian teaching. The court, if it had a jury just may have saved this precious life

Anansi:"The separation of parents when conducted civilly need not be traumatic to children at all."

I am very proud of the fact that my children were largely unaware of the struggle that went on over their future. Only yesterday, as we were driving to school, my son mentioned a schoolfriend who is suffering through his parents divorce and went on to say "I'm glad you and Mum didn't fight like that". I nearly wept.

ISTM that too many parents are too prepared to involve their children, both as pawns in their power struggle and as unwilling participants in what should be adult matters. The best interests of the child are what drives the law, yet the law is framed so as to drive greater conflict than an already charged situation possesses intrinsically. I completely agree with Roscop that Bryant's recipe of more State funding for lawyers and a greater role for the Court post-orders is only likely to add fuel to the fire.

Pericles, the axe that I grind is the fair and considerate treatment of people who have to go through the system. You're quite right that any system that tries to produce fair or "least worst" outcomes from conflict is going to produce anxiety and stress in those conflicted. ChildAdvocate has the right of it in suggesting a move toward a more considered, less adversarial approach with far less reliance on third-rate legal-aid-funded document-servers posing as professionals.

What has to be clearly understood is that men and women are very different psychologically. In my own experience of the system, I found it to be very supportive of women in their stress, but incredibly alienating of men, probably entirely unconsciously. If some men are driven past their point of rationality because of that, whether this particular case is an example or not, then it needs to be changed.

As someone said to me privately, when discussing his own experience:"If that could happen to a well-educated, well-spoken high-achiever like me, imagine what it must be like for a yobbo from Woodridge".

Men are treated as if they are the saviours of children. In my case the 'father' who had seen child 30 hours in childs first three years was asked by Magistrate, "what can I do for you?"

I cannot detail my treatment etc. here, there is plenty on the kids in distress site with examples of protective parents treatment - usually mothers.

The relentless distortion of reality by some fathers who feel they have been treated badly is a diversion from the truth. They feed the minds of people who do not have the time or experience to read reports etc.

In my case if I were ever to seek compensation in the future for the treatment of my child and myself (should the system ever right itself). I am quite sure I will be told - well you never spoke up did you? When all who operate in the system know - you will be worse off. Ask the mothers who suffer the loss of their children where protesting the abuse of children and not being 'father friendly' got them.

It is not a justice system when the abuse of children is legally enforced. It is not a justice system when you are threatened with the loss of your child if you voice your fears of abuse. It is not a justice system when the outcome is already decieded before a trial. Less than 1% of all final judgements result in a no-contact order for the father.

Antiseptic, great to hear that your child remained ignorant of the fight between you and your ex. That is how it should be.

Roscop and Justiceforkids again unequivocally support my contention that parents of either gender feel harmed, betrayed, damaged by the court system. At least the adults get a chance to whinge. The voices of children, independently (note that last word), are never heard.

As Pericles points out: we do not need more money, we do not need to expand rules, make other rules for the existing court. The words family and court do not go together.

The adversarial system just cannot provide a just outcomes for parents and certainly not for children.

Especially not when there is suspicion or knowledge of abuse or neglect-by either parent.

I get sick to my guts with the constant competition of which gender parent is favoured or more discriminated against. It is utterly, completely irrelevant. Get off this. Stop this. Children will not benefit one iota if somebody goes: 'Oh, the daddy's are hard done by, lets swing the pendulum their way' or 'the poor suffering mummies, we really should listen to them, the pendulum should swing their way, or even 'let's be really even handed and totally PC, make sure 50% of daddy's win and 50% of mummies win'.

This issue should be ONLY about the well-being of children and what favours the interest of children, not the adults' personal feelings.

If it comes to the point where parents are not able to come to a mutual agreement what is in the best interest of their child, then it must be agreed that there is some serious dysfuntionality present. Present in one parent or both. A court is the very last place to bring this kind of situation to a solution.

So far, I’ve avoided this essay thread because of the usual hijacking of OLO child abuse/divorce threads by the usual gender-agendas.

However, now that I've finally taken a look at the essay and the author’s Kids in Distress link, I must belatedly applaud both her essay and the advocacy she promotes.

So what if she has seized on a very public tragedy to state her points? Often, this is the only way that the community can be shaken out of its apathy and made aware of the ongoing failures in our system, legal or otherwise.

Abuse and/or assault of children have for too long been left to non-legal personnel or, when committed during separation and divorce, the Family Court to arbitrate. This means that children assaulted and/or abused within the family do not experience the same rights or legal representation as other adult or child victims of criminal (or severe anti-social) activity.

Instead, ‘justice’ for children within a family situation is based on a very inadequate ‘quasi-legal’system comprising … just to name a few of its many weaknesses … affidavits from supposed witnesses who are not liable to perjury if they lie, reports by counsellors who usually want to avoid a perceived ‘unfair’ recommendation (and thus, further litigation), and legal representatives untrained in child development or psychology.

Even for adults with the full right to legal representation, justice for victims is difficult at the best of times. For children within the family who rarely have these rights, justice is well-nigh impossible.