My Solicitor wrote back, on my behalf & told him it wasn’t necessary & demanded they stop the harassment. Apparently, a couple of more letters passed between the Solicitors. Then I got the Bill for a couple of Hundred Dollars. This was at a time when wages were only about $75 a week.

I refused to pay because this was a Scam between two Solicitors. of the three Brothers of the other Firm of Solicitors & those Three Solicitors were married to the three sisters of my Firm of Solicitors. My wife at the time didn’t have to pay anything because she was granted Legal Aid. When my Solicitor threatened to take me to court my wife said she would stand with me & explain the position to the Court. Needless to say, they didn’t take me to Court.

This is a common occurrence in Divorce Cases. The Solicitors have created an environment for the Clients to do Battle & they rake in the Profits.

This is what this enquiry is about to some extent. Lawyers gouging the System & deliberately creating animosity between the Clients.

Hasbeen: The family court has been controlled by the radical ratbag left, since its inception, with a large chunk of control now transferred to the oh so biased women’s libbers.

Oh, so right.

Foxy: A vehicle for Pauline Hanson to broadcast the range of her ignorance, fed not on facts but anecdotes
from her supporters.

What is the problem with that? The Anecdotes are real life dealt out to men by Solicitors & their female clients.

I am only one male that has been unfairly treated by the Lawyers & Court System.

I’ll add in here that Mine was the first Divorce granted under the new Legislation in 1975. I was also the first Custody Case under the new Legislation., in Australia. There were no problems with the new legislation in the beginning

The Lawyers & the Feminists have done their Damdest to undermine the Laws ever since. The Lawyers are making a mint out of people’s misery & they are causing most of it. What’s more Lawyers don’t care as long as they can keep their clients fighting, they are making money.

That’s what this inquiry is going to try to stop. I wish them well but the Lawyers will win out in the end. Too many Lawyers in Parliament.

Big Nana: One of the worst examples I saw of post marital discord was when two children were in the paediatric clinic, waiting to see the doctor. They had arrived with the mother but when the father arrived and sat in the waiting room they rushed over to hug their father. Their mother then yelled at them to get away from him as he wasn’t to have any access to them during the week, only weekends!
This is the type of manipulative behaviour some women use in court and it greatly concerns me because of the damage done to the children.

Oh yes, been through that too.

Foxy: Queensland Women's Legal Service Chief Executive Angela Lynch said:

"Yet again we have another inquiry set up with people who are not experts in domestic violence. I'm exasperated
and outraged.

Naturally the only “experts” allowed by her would be from “Women’s Shelters” Ay.

I agree with everything Howard Beal said.

AC: and the women would often rather ruin the man emotionally.

Amen.

Foxy: Also there is a pressing need to address the high cost and the huge delays in the family law system.

Isn’t this largely what this inquiry is about?

Foxy: the barriers faced by women in accessing the legal system especially in the context of family law matters.

There are no Barriers for women. Women are automatically granted Legal Aid. Men are entitled but it never or very rarely granted. As I was told, “There is not enough money for the women who need it without giving it to men.” From a Lawyer.

So whats your solution then Mr Opinion?
Maybe we could try empowering women and disempowering men;

Oh that's right we're doing it already and the stats show its not working.

- Maybe we could try blending both sexes into a single new species;

Oh that's right we've got 'gender fluid' doing it already and the stats show its not working.

Maybe we could emasculate men altogether;

Oh we're doing that already with taxpayer funded reassignment surgery;

- But the stats say its still not working.

I'm not saying what I'm saying to stick up for either side.
I'm saying it because there's a problem and we need a solution.

Foxy: How the current legal system might be changed to more adequately provide access to justice for women in
family law.

& Men. (equality) Ay.

Foxy: On average one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner.

No mention about the number of men who commit Suicide because of the Court System & Lawyers & nasty women.

HB: n addition there are 2-3 yr waiting lists for trial, 26 murder suicides a week, self-perpetuating generational child trauma and a $20BN welfare bill to taxpayers paying for single parent families, the mass criminalisation / incarceration / and pauperisation of men and all the social pathologies of mass fatherlessness consequent of a predatory family law / DV industry.

Amen

HB: Most people don’t realise that 90% of DVO’s involve no physical contact between the parties.

Oh, I just remembered. I was the first male to be given a DVO against my first wife. The Clerk of the Court wasn’t happy to give it & took it back to the Magistrate for clarification. Boy didn’t the Magistrate tear strips off him.

AC: Their answer is to take a whip to men; after they probably pushed their own men into a corner which caused them lash out at them.

Oh yeah. I was taken to task by a Marriage Guidance Councillor (Female) for not taking control of my wife. As I said to her, “You would have loved that. Ay. Then you could have said that I was taking away her “Power & made me out to be bad male.” She was not happy I caught her out.

Mr Opinion: I wonder how many men who support Pauline Hanson's position on the inquiry are doing so because they are woman bashers.

I wonder how many men who support Pauline Hanson’s position on the inquiry are doing so because they are NOT women Bashers.

I think that some of us are taking the wrong approach
in all this finger-pointing. Myself included.

I've just read what I consider a rather good article
on the family law system written by Jame Miller, who
was a partner at Tindall Gask Bentley Lawyers in Adelaide
and an accredited family law specialist. She left the
firm in May 2019 (after 19 years) to become a barrister.
Although the opinion piece was written in March 2018.
I feel that its still relevant.

The title of her article is "Australia's Family Law crisis
reaches tipping point".

Miller writes that "our family law system should be
over hauled not because it is "wrong" but because it has
become outdated and inefficient in the delivery of
timely justice. Society has outgrown it."

She points out the fact that "we have a diverse group
of people engaging with family law today. People with
disabilities, and mental health concerns, those
impacted with social and economic disadvantage, people
with substance dependencies, parties of varying cultural
backgrounds, those with language barriers."

She tells us that these evolving diversities will
warrant a progressive legal system that responds to human
needs. On top of this she says is "the increasing diversity
of families, change gender roles, same-sex relationships,
surrogacy, and grand parents as primary carers."

This diversity could never have been anticipated when
the family law system was last over hauled and today
Miller rightly points out we can't predict what future
family units may look like.

She re-assures us that future law reform is inevitable
because try as we might we are never going to arrive at
a perfect system. Sadly, as she tells us - there is no
legal solution that is wholly capable of fixing what are
in fact social problems.

Hurt, deception, betrayal, and conflict can't be healed by
a legal band-aid. As a result, there is an inherent ceiling to
the level of "customer satisfaction"that punters can
expect from the family law system.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

To overcome this our legislators according to Miller
"must be astute, sophisticated thinkers, well-informed
about the tremenduous complexities and diversity in
family law."

She says "they must be attuned to the evolution of
the family unit which judging by past experience will
continue to develop in ways we can't even contemplate
today.

Our family law system will need to change, respond to
and move with changes within our families and within
our society as a whole.

As a result, Miller warns that our reforms whatever
we decide they will be, will not be reforms to end
all reforms, but hopefully our attempts now will
turn out to be a much needed large first-step towards a
system that helps rather than hurts families.