Thanks ROBert. Thats a bit more insight than I had. I got interested in the subject of male suicides because of Child Support Agency persecutions through an ambulance friend who knew a few men that actually were pushed beyond the limit.

RObert & Gibo, As I indicated since 1982 I have conducted a special lifeline under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® and had to deal with people contemplating suicide/murder even mass murder.
When people are most vulnerable, when the split occurs, their metal and emotional status can be horrific. It is then when somehow they are demanded by the Family court to careful, so to say, put all the dots on the i’s and if they fail they are being burned further by the Courts. But, if a lawyer makes the same errors then it is being excused!
One man had been served with divorce papers of his wife, he was in Melbourne, and his wife in Queensland, where she had filed in the Family Court of Australia, and so he filed his response in the Family Court of Australia in the Melbourne registry. The court argued that his wife’s case was uncontested as he had not filed in the same registry!
Yet in other cases the Court accept a response filed in another registry.
The truth is that it should make no difference which registry it is as it is the same Court! Plainly the judges screwed this man!

Judgements at times make absolutely no sense as to the evidence that was actually before the Court, the simple truth is that judgments are at times made before the case is even heard! So, the orders are already issues before the witnesses have given evidence!

In one incident I took this up before the High Court of Australia and it merely argued that obviously the judge must have made an error. That was it. In legal terms once a judge does this the orders are null and void! However, with a High Court of Australia conducting it as such I can understand, albeit do not approve that people end up committing suicide where their hope in gaining justice is trashed!

Regretfully, too far often the term “custody” is seen as ownership of the children. When I gained “custody” I-saw-it-as-a-privilege and to-have-the-opportunity to show what is right for the children.

Oops, a typing error above “their metal and emotional status” should be “their mental and emotional status”.

In one incident I received 5 different versions of the same court order! I complained to the Court registrar that this was unacceptable. The registrar claimed that this can happen because the judge notes the orders and they are then typed out. Then the orders are reviewed and the person who reviews it may correct the orders what the person deems to have been ordered. The registrar then may correct any errors and the judge then reviews it and finally the registrar checks it again and may change what he deems need to be changed. All versions of the orders had however the judge signature, as every person uses a signature-stamp and there is no allocation of version number to show which version is in which sequence. With the orders “each weekend” ended up by the corrections to be “each alternative weekend” regardless that transcript showed the judge had clearly stated “each weekend”!
As an after note. After this complaint, I reported to the police I had been bugled and surprise, surprise, all court documents in the attache case had been stolen, NOTHING ELSE! However they were copies as expecting this the original copies had been safely stored elsewhere. That I called FAMILYGATE!

THERE WAS THIS MAN WHO CALLED ME THAT HE HAD BEEN NOTIFIED HIS SON RUN AWAY FROM HIS MOTHER AND WAS TRAVELLING TO MELBOURNE. I TOOK THE MAN TO THE POLICE STATION TO REPORT THIS. THE POLICE MADE KNOWN THAT IF THE CHILD ARRIVED THEN AS THE FATHER HE BETTER KEEP THE CHILD OVERNIGHT FOR HIS SAFETY. I ASKED THE POLICE TO CONTACT THE MOTHER. THEY DID AND SHE WAS UNAWARE THAT THE CHILD HAD RUN AWAY. Yet, the Family Court jailed the man for “kidnapping” the child! Later the Court dropped it, because he had never done so! It is then when a man contemplates suicide, because not being able to see to get JUSTICE.
LIKEWISE, MEN TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND-GETTING-SCREWED-BY-THE-CSA! That is another story.

Mr Gerritt
So sorry for delay in reply. I have been away. The problen for her is the evidence is in Germany and its history.
Meaning they cant find where she was addmitted to hospital.
Given the huge stuff ups with her past lawyers and the fact that the new one isnt any better I think she will just have to walk away from it.
There is nothing to be gained now as what was probably a simply matter has now dragged on for three years.
Her costs now outweigh anything she might have got.
I contacted the Federal Attorney General Office just yesterday to lodge a form complaint that abused people who are on disabilty do not have the right to appoint someone to speak on their behalf.
There is no way she can do it.
Our leagel sytem is a discrace. They said either she pays for a lawyer or does it herself.
Just imagine someone like her handling something like this and speaking about her own abuse.
The so called lawyer she has now has NOT filed one aff or scrap of paper.
Shes supposed to be back in court in a few days time and the judge already warned him to make sure this time she filed.
Poor lady. Every time she writes or calls her doesnt return the call.
Law Soceity simply say sue him. Sure what with.

Robert when children mainly live with one parent it is for a reason.
It is always that person who takes more reasonsibilty both finanically and time wise.
I cant believe you would suggest that the other parent should be given money to replace seeing their child.
You dont sell your kids. Thats outragous.

People who love their kids dont mind usually travelling and often take the children for school holidays.
So long as the children are happy really should be the 'only' concern.
Most people re married DONT bother with child maintance anyway.
So most x get to see them whenever they want but do not contribute other than birthdays or xmass.
Not all-Just most.

PALEIF, "Robert when children mainly live with one parent it is for a reason. It is always that person who takes more reasonsibilty both finanically and time wise."

The reason may be that one parent was better at playing the system early on, the person who initiates a seperation is in a far better position to get prepared for the seperation and maybe grab prime care straight up before the other gets the opportunity to make the necessary arrangements. It may be that the other party tried yet again to cooperate with their (now former) partner, and did not understand the long term implications of those early arrangements.

Ocasionally it may be that the parent with the kids "takes more reasonsibilty both finanically and time wise" but more likely that it's about the split of roles at the time of seperation, mum's desire to be the stay at home or part time worker and industrial laws that discriminate on the basis of gender.

I'm suggesting compensation for one of the greatest losses a person can face not the sale of kids. Nothing can compensate for that loss but that does not stop us having compensation for great harm caused in other area's of our lives which also do not replace the loss.

"People who love their kids dont mind usually travelling and often take the children for school holidays." - if that is the case then the person who chooses to move away from the area in pursuit of that other relationship should be quite happy to travel to see their kids or take them during school holidays.

R0bert

Robert
People don’t break up because of playing a system. They break up normally because they have been unhappy for a long time and were unable to talk whatever the problems were through.

When couples have reached that sad stage its hardly a surprise most times.
Many do not want the children living in a home with such anger and sadness and do something about it.

The fact is [most young children] say under ten are better off with the mother especially toddlers.
From the ages of about seven children actually get a say who they want to live with and the court does take that in consideration although with of course other facts.

I suppose I am from the old school because I do think it’s the mans place to provide and open doors and travel if there is any to be done. If you only see your children three times or year or not at all they are your flesh and blood and your reasonsibilty and the pay somebody not to see their kids is immoral and very bad for the child. There are video links and telephones, cars planes trains and buses.

Its easier on tiny tots especially if it’s a long trip. No I do not think men should sit home of a welfare card while the mother goes to work to support 100% and pay a hundred percent.
Also I don’t agree with ANYBODY raising kids on welfare. If you cant afford to raise them school them educate them yourself then you should not have any. Nobody can live on welfare without missing out on a great deal and why should poor little kids suffer.
Most people who divorce don’t re marry for several years. What I HATE is mothers and Dads who use! The little kids to be nasty.