Wednesday, June 18, 2003

Family Law: Shared parenting arrangements

Has the Federal Government finally woken up about child access?

My children were four and two years of age and it's been fourteen years since I seen my children who are now adults. I don't know where they are because the government fragmented us by order of the Family Court of Australia, which should be called, the Anti-Family Court of Australia. Big yawn!!!

A DRAMATIC shift in family law could see divorced parents given automatic shared custody of their children. John Howard is considering the radical proposal, triggering concerns about disruption for children, who mainly live with mothers, and greater conflict between parents.

The Family Court made contact orders in my favour to get some information about my children once every year in the mail. After I disagreed with the lousy access granted by the court and got angry, the police moved them upstate taking out an AVO.

In direct contravention of the Courts orders no information has been received for 5 years and I don't have a clear understanding as a sole parent about how or where they are.

Howard told Coalition MPs yesterday he was "interested in the broad concept" of rebuttable joint custody where the court presumes a child should spend equal time living with each parent unless there are strong reasons against it.

Equal time what a concept I wonder how that came about???

But there has always been a strong reason behind it (lawyers and wives).

His spokeswoman said later that the Prime Minister was "mindful of the need for male role-models for children, and the desire for both parents to have continuing responsibility for their upbringing".

But is that because it is uneconomical to pay child maintenance for the children and dole payments for their parents? Most parents won't pay maintenance if they can't see their children. And the kids are running wild with no wisdom and some lost, causing the country massive inflation because of their anti social behaviour.

The move would be a dramatic shift from present arrangements after divorce, where the vast majority of children live predominantly with their mother, but stay at their father's home maybe every second weekend.

Only 16 per cent of divorced couples in Australia have the children living with each parent for more than 30 per cent of the time.

The Prime Minister has been lobbied heavily by members of his back bench, who have raised repeatedly family support and custody issues at party meetings in recent months. Liberal MPs, including Ken Ticehurst, Barry Haase, Jeannie Ferris and Margaret May, have led the charge.

Their group has stepped up its activities after men's rights groups set up a new lobby group, the Shared Parenting Council, last October. The council has members including the Men's Rights Agency, the Festival of Light, the Lone Fathers Association, and the Family Law Reform Association. Senator Ferris last night called for a public inquiry on the issue, which accounted for up to one-quarter of electorate work for MPs.

"This is one of the great sleeper issues," she said. "It seems to me it would be far better if both parents were given overall custody and responsibility for their children, and then negotiated living arrangements, rather than the situation now where one parent has the ability to prevent the other parent having ready access."

But Patrick Parkinson, a family law professor at the University of Sydney, opposed automatic joint residence for children after a divorce. "I have sympathy with the spirit of it, but it would stack things too heavily against a child having one primary care giver which may be in their best interests and you also need to consider that both parents may not be able to care equally well for a child," he said. "It can be a good arrangement, but for some kids it's not they don't have a permanent home. "It only really works when the parents can get along with each other."

Ed: Because of the frustration of trying to get appropriate access to my children I killed my wife 11 years ago. I was convicted of her manslaughter (diminished responsibility in a crisis situation) and served 7 years in jail due directly to the frustration of equal access to our two children during the Family Court Proceedings. Not a good result? So that can't be a good arrangement either. So if I'm amongst the few who could flip out over access to our children it is because of the predisposing factors that lay in my history including the Anti-Family Court. because they failed to decide anything reasonable.

Pre disposing factors

1) not knowing my own father

2) bashed by a stepfather

3) losing our first child prematurely

4) bad one size fits all and discriminative, Anti-Family Court policy

No excuse for a killing but in our case the children of the marriage became very precious, losing the first child. And that's why it made it so important for me to be with my children at the time.

I didn't know about predisposing factors at the time either. I was just angry. Let me tell you! When the value and principal is high (children) and the decision making process is not being fair and reasonable with access to them, then you have no respect.

You gamble with predisposing factors in an individual and that's what makes all of us unique. So without counseling (a Family Court trait because of the cost) and by making (mechanical) decisions and (standard decisions) that are or seem unfair to a parent, especially if you're not prepared to listen to one parent, then every second weekend could be your worst nightmare.

Subsequently the Community Protection Act 1994 introduced by the NSW Liberal Govt now defeated by the High Court of Australia and was born out of access to the children of the marriage by a father.

So they put up a wall that no father could break. Like trying to stop the waves rolling onto a beach. You can't. Never to be released from a prison because of child access? Now only the Universe could get around that with its mercy. And it will.

To uphold your policy you make a law for one man to prevent access by keeping him in jail forever? Good on you mum Tip Top's the one. If people have to share the workload at home and women have burnt their bras for equality then the Family Court is a hypocrite in terms of the correct social response, so very necessary for the fundamental group unit of society. The family!

Now if you add up all the costs and the deaths caused by this nonsense and decide that that doesn't have to happen any more? Then change the law for the correct social response between families, because it is worth it for the children and families..

Incidentally my wife’s parents split up and her father had custody because his wife, my late wife’s mother, was leaving the marriage, for something better. In those days common sense.

But my wife was also left with that 'predisposing factor', as well as others like a premature birth of a child and the death of that child, and of course in the 1990's woman's liberation. No way was she going to leave the marriage without taking the children with her, even if she was the one who was leaving the marriage for something better.

By Gregory Kable 18 June 03


Getting Justice Wrong DPP make full admissions
Another piece of political posturing had occurred in 1994 when parliament purported to pass the Community Protection Act providing for one man, Gregory Wayne Kable, to be imprisoned beyond the expiration of the sentence he was serving for the manslaughter of his estranged wife. He had killed her during an argument over access to their children in 1989.

Police to uphold law not decide mental health
A diagnosis of mental illness could be made over the phone instead of in person, and involuntary psychiatric patients could lose the right to have their case reviewed by a magistrate, under proposed changes to NSW mental health laws.

Practicably Perfect
Do you remember your first driving lesson? You were to steer as close to the curb when parking 'practicably' not perfectly or practically. Why? Because we are not as perfect as Premier Bob Carr wants to be seen. The degree of our mistakes depends on our experience and reflects on our upbringing and sometimes the lack of it.

Call to Bronwyn Bishop's Federal Crime Inquiry
I call on Bronwyn Bishop to allow me to produce first evidence about police corruption and to be able to attend Parliament House Sydney without fear of conviction.

Zero Tolerance for Families
A three-strikes plan, which uses the threat of fines and jail to (force) parents to meet their parental obligations after divorce, could be introduced under a draft proposal from the parliamentary committee charged with reviewing the Family Law Act.

80-20 Family Court rule irrational: Martian
A Martian came down from Mars and he noticed that children were the products of a father and a mother. When the family split up the children were still the products of a father and a mother.

Fatherless Society "80-20 rule Vs 50-50 rule" family law
A Federal Parliamentary inquiry has heard that more children will grow up without fathers unless changes are made to family law. The committee is considering whether separated parents should share equal custody of their children.

No-Smacking Day for Children in NSW
Justice Action believes that we get more support preventing people going to jail than we do trying to get people out of jail. Prevention is better than cure. You can help plant this seed so that 5 per cent of Australians don't go to jail and learn effective ways to solve a problem they may be having with other people.

The ruling class, capitalism and de-valuing the scholar
Ruling class "values" are different from working class "values" even more so now we are into full-blown capitalism where the wealthy multinationals influence the ruling class to the detriment of the general community. Zero Tolerance is an example.

Why the NSW Police wanted to see me last night
I worked hard all day yesterday as a volunteer at Justice Action and I arrived home at 5pm. At 6pm my mobile phone rang.

Tele Tales
Most people I know don't buy the Daily Telegraph. Why? Because of the lies and propaganda purported by them.

Australian fathers under terrorist attack-by its Politicians
Ruthless terrorists tactics are used by the state deny devoted fathers their children, and place vulnerable children at risk when they are denied their fathers protection. Five hundred thousand Australian children are denied contact with their father usually resulting from orders of the state by the Family and other Courts.

There's a new lap dog looking for a lead in Bligh
Gary Burns a known police bend over boy (giving evidence he knows nothing about) to police as a witness should be trying to get elected at the RSPCA said one of his victims Mr Gregory Kable.

The community questions ICAC's slagging and fobbing you off?
The ICAC, Commissions, Ombudsman, Police Integrity Commission (PIC), and numerous Tribunals etc, are all arms of government set up as an insurance police for the government's 3 or 4 year election terms. In short they'll be out of office by the time you may be lucky enough to have your matter heard.

When is Michael Richardson going to remove the offending Family Court affidavit from the NSW Parliament website? Criminal: Hills district MP Michael Richardson. When is he going to remove these uncorroborated lies and family court pleadings on the confidential Family Court affidavit from the NSW Parliament website?

The Law According to Gregory Wayne Kable
I was sharply separated from both my children aged just 4 years and two years and sent to prison for the manslaughter of my wife. I cared for my children when my wife worked and I believe that I still had a responsibility to them even after the crisis situation and tragedy. I wanted to reassure them now and find out how they were doing.