You be the judge. Capital letters are important in the comprehension of the English language. Read S 79 Constitution and it says: The federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. Federal jurisdiction means the Federal judicial power must be being exercised. A court must exercise a judicial function: To do so it must have judges, or it is non compliant with s 79 Constitution. No matter how you shake and dance, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear, or get a Judge out of judges.

On the 7th July 2009, the High Court in Pape, stated that S 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) is an Act that binds.

The principles governing whether s 15A of the Acts Interpretation Act is to be applied to read down a statutory provision that in some operations would be beyond legislative power are not controversial. They are conveniently described in the joint reasons of five Justices in the Industrial Relations Act Case.

If this is so, then the Family Law Act 1975 must be read down, to exclude the appointment of Judges and the creation of Courts. This den of thieves and liars has been rampaging illegally through the lives and families of the members of the Commonwealth, for far too long. On top of that we have the Child Support Agency. This is used by unscrupulous women, who have entered Binding Financial Agreements with their former husbands, but still want revenge. It has nothing to do with justice, just revenge. Simply because a former husband has started to make money after losing his former wife, the former wife wants to keep her binding agreement and the benefits, but get the Child Support Agency to hound her former husband for more.

The Labor Party in 1986 enacted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Between 1993 and 1995 it amended the Trade Practices Act 1974 to ban the exclusion of ordinary people from the administration of justice. By Covering Clause 5 that applies to all courts: no exceptions.

Many sheeple discussing family law forget that many others in the debate are radical extremists of the worst kind, primarily involved in grooming children for abuse. Mediation in so called confidence simply means that those not even attempting to negotiate in good faith are never seen to have misbehaved at the trial stage.

Chaz I've not seen any reason to think I'm that rare. I was involved with one of the mens groups for some time after seperation, frankly there was no one else I was aware of to turn to for help. The men I met there were for the most part heart broken at a system which valued their capacity to earn far beyond the value it placed on active involvement in their childrens lives. They were tired of being portrayed as abusers, as only being interested in money while their ex's who had grabbed most of the family assets as well as an ongoing stream of income were portrayed as being above all that and only interested in the childrens welfare.

I've never seen reason to believe that either gender is intrinsically more noble or honest that the other. Individuals of both genders are capable of great good and great evil (leaving aside the third gender discussion). Parents of both genders are capable of placing their children above their own needs and parents of both genders are capable of using their children for their own ends.

The system with it's winner takes all and it's adverserial nature makes it almost essential for people to take the financial implications into account when residency decisions are being made. That's unfortunate but it's reality.

We are drifting off topic but the points being discussed relate to some of the reasons for so much conflict in family law and part of the reason it all gets so difficult.

I'd like you to consider how offensive "and who form groups such as Father4Tyranny and Fathers4Domination" is to fathers who have found fathers groups the only support they get when dealing with a system which was far more interested in their wallet than their relationship with their children. Both fathers groups and mothers groups have some who are using the system to strike out at the other side but also those who need the support and advice in an area which can be crippling.

R0bert

Robert I find it offensive that the legislation and its implementation by Courts is concerned only with parental rights, particularly what are seen as `Father’s Rights’ and gives little regard to children’s needs and wishes and rights. Children are treated by this law merely as possessions to be divided up along with the other goods and chattels of the parents. The very title of the Act, the Family Law (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act indicates it is not primarily concerned about children despite its clever wording, or the bracketed element would state (Children’s Needs, Wishes, and Rights).
In practice the father’s rights now have paramouncy and precedency over all other considerations – see recent cases where children and their mothers have been ordered back to live in the Queensland Outback and the Northern Territory merely because the fathers happened to be working in those locations. If the fathers move around Australia will the children and their mothers have to move again with them, solely to give the fathers their contact rights?. If the mothers had been MPs based in Canberra and with constituencies in Sydney and Perth, would they have been ordered by the Courts to go to live in North Queensland and Northern Territories and would thereby have been unable to carry out their Parliamentary and constituency duties.?.
The present legislation is primarily concerned with father’s rights to contact regardless of whether the father is dangerously violent and abusive, as has been seen where children have been seriously abused and even killed. Father’s rights groups are now obstructing any changes as they want this tyranny and dominance in law to continue to be in their favour. It is not equality nor justice that they seek.
The Family Law Act as currently written, per se’, is in breach of the international convention on children’s rights and in its implementation is frequently in violation of those rights. Yet the present government have the nerve to protest about human rights abuses in other countries!.
Adultism - which is one of the most common and severe forms of discrimination in our society.

Chaz you are so tied up in the mothers rights intepretation of what's happening that you are completely ignoring a big part of the picture. When I was with the mens group I knew at least one father who would have to drive 1500km to see his children because the mother had moved away and taken the children with her. Sometimes the mother would not show to the agreed contact point and be uncontactable so the father did a 3000km round trip for nothing. Not an abuser or a violent man just someone with an ex who enjoyed the power and domination that came with "owning" the children. Another who moved after an ex moved interstate with the children only to have to return because CSA continued to assess him on a capital city capacity to earn not the earning ability that went with a sea change. I saw numerous horror stories in a similar vein where men who loved their children were being torn to pieces under the pretense of childrens best interest which was really about mothers wants and interests.

Both sides have problems, I really don't know a good answer for those who have been living in remote areas where there are genuine practical difficulties for all to remain in the area. It's a very messy area but an overly genderised approach does not help. Your attacks on the mens movement are offensive and unjustified.

Have a look at the stats on who perpetrates substantiated abuse and neglect of children, single parent female lead households are significantly overrepresented for the number of children in those households (although the last time I saw the rate for single parent male lead households we only fared slightly better when the number of children in that type of household was considered).

It's not about men being abusers only interested in money and women being saints only interested in their children welfare. It's about human beings sometimes getting it right and other times getting it wrong when dealing with difficult situations.

R0bert

Robert My major concern is regarding the breaches and violations of children’s rights which are apparent in the contents of the Family Law legislation and the practices of the Courts. The `Gender Wars’ issues are of secondary and minor concern.

If the examples you have cited of men’s suffering in these matters are correct, I’m afraid can offer very little sympathy for a father who is mildly inconvenienced by driving 3000 km because of failures of mothers to implement Court decisions, or another who sought to avoid his financial responsibilities for his children, when placed against the abuses and even deaths suffered by children as a consequence of Court decisions based on the father’s rights to contact and a right to `a `meaningful relationship’ with his children. There really is no comparison.

I do study child abuse statistics in great detail and what you have quoted is a gross misrepresentation of fact.

Neglect of children was always a separate category in such statistics for many decades as there are serious questions to be raised regarding whether child `neglect’ can be categorised as abuse as in the vast majority of such cases, neglect is not a deliberate or intended act by the parent and is thereby unlike other forms of abuse, but is a direct consequence of inadequacy or mismanagement of income, largely brought about by the diversion of family income into alcohol, drugs, and gambling, or the failures of a non-resident parent to meet their financial responsibilities for their children post-separation. I’m sure I don’t have to state which of the genders was mainly responsible for such diversions or failures but mothers are usually blamed for this form of `abuse’ as the primary care-giver when the causes are the father’s failure to provide adequately.

However in the 1990s the child protection authorities realised by including neglect as a category of abuse, then this would inflate child abuse figures leading to a political panic and would thereby attract increased resources for those agencies. The debate regarding whether neglect constitutes abuse is still a matter of considerable dispute within the relevant professions.