What happens when Fathers take kids to sport!

Aggressive footy parents could face ban

AAP July 21, 2009, 8:37 am

• Send
  • Email
  • IM
• Share
  • Delicious
  • Twitter
  • Myspace
  • Digg
  • Stumble Upon
  • Facebook
• Print

The head of the NSW Rugby League says aggressive parents may need to be banned from junior matches, after one man seriously injured in a sideline fight was taken to hospital.

Gary Harling, 47, remains in hospital with serious head injuries after the bashing at a junior rugby league match in western Sydney on Saturday.

Police were called to a sports oval at Glenwood just after midday, after the fight broke in the oval car park after an under-12s match.

Mr Harling had interjected to stop an argument involving three fathers from the Blacktown City team and a female supporter of his son's side, St Patrick's.

He was then set upon by the men, sparking a clash that reportedly involved up to 30 parents.

His wife says he was punched to the ground by one man and then held up by two other men and repeatedly punched.

The bashing highlights an ongoing problem at junior rugby league games, which now has some administrators considering a sideline ban for parents.

Sydney's Daily Telegraph newspaper says the Central Coast Junior Rugby League is considering barring parents from its games next season.

Spectator bans have been backed by NSW Rugby League general manager Geoff Carr, who says the attack on Mr Harling is "unacceptable".

"If it comes to that we will (ban parents), but we're hopeful that the parents will get the message," Mr Carr told Macquarie Radio on Tuesday.

"What occurred on the weekend is unacceptable, so we've got to make sure that parents take responsibility for their own actions.

"They've got to be aware that there will be strong consequences if they don't."

Mr Harling remains in a serious condition in hospital with severe facial swelling and broken eye sockets.

The Daily Telegraph reports that doctors will have to rebuild his face.

His medical prognosis remains unclear and a decision on what surgery he will require will not be made before Friday, his wife said on Monday.

Police arrested a 34-year-old man at the scene on Saturday, but released him without charge after questioning.

Barry Williams describes Children Rights as "Rot"

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/custody-laws-should-put-children-first/1568077.aspx?storypage=1


Custody laws 'should put children first'
BY SALLY PRYOR AND NOEL TOWELL
15/07/2009 12:00:00 AM
Child protection experts say it's time Australia's child custody laws
put children's rights before those of squabbling parents.

The Federal Government is reviewing the controversial Howard-era
shared parenting laws which forces courts to consider joint custody,
and frantic lobbying by interest groups has already begun.

Chairman of the Government's peak family law advisory body, the Family
Law Council, Professor John Wade, said shared-parenting rules risked
creating a generation of ''ping-pong children'' being shuttled between
warring parents and needed to be changed.

The laws are subject to an automatic review carried out by the
Institute of Family Studies this year, and battle lines are being
drawn between the increasingly influential parents' lobby groups.

Some parents groups have welcomed the news of the possible changes,
but fathers' rights campaigners, who lobbied for shared parenting for
more than 25 years, have vowed to fight for the retention of the laws.

Under the current laws, the court's default position in relation to
custody is an equal and shared parenting arrangement if it is deemed
in the best interest of the child.

Child defence expert witness Charles Pragnell says children are often
being placed in dangerous situations by courts forced to consider
shared parenting, and gave the recent example of a Melbourne court
ordering that an 18-month-old spend alternating weeks with each
parent.

''That will have a tremendously traumatic effect on that child, and
cause severe and long-lasting emotional harm,'' he said.

''Children of that age and older need a sense of belonging,
consistency and security.''

He referred to several high-profile cases where courts had placed
children in danger with tragic consequences, such as four-year-old
Darcy Freeman, who died after her father threw her off Melbourne's
West Gate Bridge in January.

''The law is concerned about parents' rights, and gives very little
account or regard for children's rights, even those children's rights
under the UN Convention to which Australia was a signatory in 1991,
but hasn't done very much about,'' Mr Pragnell said.
''Children's rights in this country are appalling compared to the UK
and European countries.''

A spokeswoman for the National Council of Shared Parenting agreed that
the current family laws gave priority to the parents, rather than
their children.

She said when one or the other parent was forced into a custody
arrangement, this often created unsafe or unhappy environments for
their children. ''How do children get protected in all this? Their
rights are being forgotten and not heard,'' she said.

''It's an awful situation, and it's made awful by the fact that it's
so preventable.''

But Lone Fathers' Association President Barry Williams vowed that the
fathers' movement would lobby hard to retain shared parenting.

''We've called for an appointment with [Attorney-General] Robert
McClelland, and I'll be taking quite a few people from quite a few
different organisations,'' Mr Williams said.

''We're going to try to convince him not to take any notice of this
rot that's being put out by people with vested interests.

''In cases that we deal with, the children are quite happy and they
like the shared parenting arrangements.

''We had 30 years of the old system when hundreds of thousands of
children never saw their fathers.''

But one Canberra family lawyer, who did not want to be named, said one
of the most frustrating aspects of the law was seeing a parent,
usually a father, who had previously had little role in caring for his
children and had showed no interest in their wellbeing, suddenly
demanding shared custody.

She said the motivation was usually increased child support payments.

Hell no!!!

SILENCE OF THE ASS

July 14, 2009 by mamaliberty

CONFUSION

NEXT THING YOU KNOW MEN WILL WANT YEARLY PAP SMEARS AND MAMMOGRAMS……….yeah right.

I try not to get into the habit of giving any of the father rights idiots anymore attention, but then I think about all the people that need to be educated on the blatant misogyny that Glenn Sacks and his minions bathe in.

In a recent post on Glenn Sacks rag “Mens Daily News” he confesses that,

“I posed as a male victim of domestic violence and called every domestic violence shelter in all of Los Angeles and San Diego counties.”

Isn’t it illegal to prank call?

According to Sacks,

“Not a single one would accept me or offer assistance, with the exception of Valley Oasis. Most flatly refused any assistance at all, but a couple did offer me space in a homeless shelter.” Apparently Sacks cares not for the women that may be stalked there and an ex may pretend he’s abused to gain entrance? All those calls must have put all residents and staff on high alert, how awful to be stressed more.

Mr. Sacks must be confused about a lot of things, mainly his gender. Sacks goes on to say when he asks them “Am I supposed to take my children to a homeless shelter?”

If you TRULY are a abused man allegedly with children and you are escaping an abuser a homeless shelter seems like the safest place to be.

But this is the typical trash from a man that makes you wonder how he treats other women in his life, wife, mother, sister or child?

The world according to these father rights activists is that feminism destroyed their lives.

They want you to believe that men are abused equally if not MORE than women but yet they do NOTHING to get their OWN shelters for the throngs of men who get their ass whipped by their women. Women and men saw a need and they built shelters for women with their children a safe haven from abusers.

The intention was clear, if your men group needs to have some place to go after they get raped by their wives after a night of boozing it up….build a male sexual abuse shelter!

If one of your brethren gets his face shoved into the carpet because he didn’t do ALL the dishes…by all means build that man a place to live.

IF he gets a baby bottle “tossed” at his face (while he’s holding a baby) then I say build a SHELTER! Instead of blaming shelters and everyone else for your problems do something about it!

END YOUR CONFUSION

The Truth about "Parental Alienation Syndrome"

Parental

Alienation

Syndrome

and

Parental

Alienation

Joan S. Meier, Esq., George Washington University Law School

1

A mother who raises the issue of domestic violence or child sexual abuse during

child custody litigation may find herself accused of

parental alienation syndrome

or

parental alienation. These accusations often lead family courts to focus on the

mother’s motives and unwillingness to co-parent, discount what she says about

abuse, and, all too often, order the children into custody or unsupervised visitation

with their abusive father.

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

“PAS” was defined by psychiatrist Richard Gardner

2 as a mental health disorder

in which mothers use child (primarily sexual) abuse allegations to punish their

ex-husbands and win custody for themselves. He theorized that these mothers

brainwash their children into believing that their father had abused them and

enlist them in a ”campaign of denigration” against the father, in which the children

contribute their own fabricated stories. Gardner’s proposed remedy was extreme -

denying all mother-child contact and “de-programming” the child to change their

belief that they had been abused.

Gardner had no objective data to support his theory and extensive empirical

research directly contradicts it. Studies show that child sexual abuse claims are

actually made in a very small percentage of custody cases, and only 12% or fewer

are intentionally false.

3 Even researchers who see alienation as a real problem

concur that there is no scientific basis for describing it as a mental health

syndrome

in the child.

4 But because family courts place such a priority on fostering children’s

relationships with their noncustodial parents, alienation claims have more power

than they deserve in defeating claims of abuse. To counter that trend, the National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has warned that:

[t]he discredited “diagnosis” of “PAS” (or allegation of “parental alienation”), quite

apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume

that the children’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be

“alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the

behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children’s

responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or

discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children’s other parent.

5

Parental Alienation (PA)

The discrediting of PAS has not ended allegations of alienation in custody litigation.

But while children in divorcing families are sometimes estranged from one parent,

there is no evidence that parental poisoning of the child’s mind – as opposed

to the disfavored parent’s own conduct –

causes this estrangement. Even Janet

Johnston, a leading proponent of PA, found that, despite alienating behaviors

by almost all the divorcing parents she studied, only 6% of the children were

“extremely rejecting” and only 20% were “consistently negative” toward the other

parent. And many of those had specific reasons for their hostility, including abuse

or neglect.

6

It may be no coincidence that, along with courts’ increased focus on alienation, joint custody is regularly awarded

despite a history of abuse, primary caregivers alleging abuse often lose custody, and a growing number have been

judicially cut off from virtually all contact with their children.

7 One study found that abusive fathers received more

visitation than non-abusers.

8 In response to these trends, the NYS legislature adopted Chapter 538 of the Laws of

2008, which amends §240 of the Domestic Relations Law, requiring courts to consider abuse allegations and to not

punish parents who bring such allegations in good faith.

1 The author, Joan Meier, excerpted this essay from her longer paper.

See Meier, J. (2009). Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: Research Reviews. Harrisburg, PA, http://www.vawnet.org

2 Gardner, R.A. (1992).

The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide For Mental Health & Legal Professionals, Cresskill, N.J.: Creative Therapeutics, 226-227.

3 Trocme, N. & Bala, N. (2005). False allegations of abuse & neglect when parents separate

, Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(12), 1333-1345; Thoennes, N. & Tjaden, P.G. (1990). The extent, nature, & validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody/visitation disputes, Child

Abuse & Neglect

, 14, 151-163.

4 Emery, R.E., Otto R.K. & O’Donohue, W. T. (2005). A critical assessment of child custody evaluations: limited science and a flawed system,

Pychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(1), 1-29; Gould, J.W. (2006). Conducting Scientifically Crafted

C

hild Custody Evaluations (2nd ed.), Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

5 Dalton, C., Drozd, L., &Wong, F. (2004, rev. 2006). Navigating Custody and Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide

, National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges & State Justice Institute.

6 Johnston, J.R., Walters, M.G., & Olesen, N.W. (2005). Is it alienating parenting, role reversal or child abuse? A study of children’s rejection of a parent in child custody disputes.

J. Child Custody, 5, 191-218.

7 Lesher, M., & Neustein, A. (2005).

From Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers Are Running from the Family Courts – and What Can Be Done About It. Northeastern University Press.

8 Rosen, L. & O’Sullivan, C.S. (2005). Outcomes of custody & visitation petitions when fathers are restrained by protection orders

, Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1054-1075.

http://www.opdv.state.ny.us/public_awareness/bulletins/summer2009/summer2009_bulletin.pdf

ABC Abbott's divorce proposal 'ludicrous'

What an idiot!!!

Abbott's divorce proposal 'ludicrous'

ABC July 14, 2009, 1:00 pm

Former Western Australia Labor premier Peter Dowding has hit out at Liberal frontbencher Tony Abbott's plan to make divorce harder, saying Mr Abbott wants to retreat to "blame game" divorce.

Under Mr Abbott's marriage plan, heterosexual couples can sign up to a fault-based model, like the former Matrimonial Causes Act

The act, dropped in 1975, required aggrieved spouses to prove offences like adultery, habitual drunkenness or cruelty to be granted a divorce.

The Opposition families spokesman is touting the return to fault-based divorce as a way to shore up traditional values, but Mr Dowding, a barrister and family law specialist, sees plenty of flaws with Mr Abbott's idea.

"The point about Tony Abbott's argument is that he wants to retreat to a blame game so you can actually blame someone in a divorce situation," Mr Dowding told ABC News Online.

"It's completely ludicrous to talk about making divorce harder at a time when people can separate easily. If you can separate easily, the question of making divorce harder or less hard is irrelevant.

"It's like Alice in Wonderland. It's like stepping through a looking glass into la-la land where Tony Abbott happily sits with his morality judging people while no-one's life gets harder or easier."

Mr Dowding, who stepped down as WA premier in 1990, says making divorce harder will just keep people in meaningless marriages.

"People are going to separate and if they do separate and they can't get a divorce, they live apart from their spouse, never being able to remarry, but able to enter into de facto relationships, which have the same legal relationship as marriage, so all it does is demean the institution of marriage," he said.

Abbott's plans

Mr Abbott's plan would see heterosexual couples offered an alternative to the current law allowing divorce after a 12-month separation.

"The point I make in the book is that a society that is moving towards some kind of recognition of gay unions, for instance, is surely capable of providing additional recognition to what might be thought of as traditional marriage," Mr Abbott told Fairfax newspapers.

"Something akin to a Matrimonial Causes Act marriage ought to be an option for people who would like it.

"Even though [marriage] is probably the most important commitment that any human being can make, in fact there are many, many contracts which are harder to enter and harder to get out of than this one."

'Right-wing Catholics'

But Mr Dowding does not think there is any room for Mr Abbott's argument in Australian politics.

"I don't like people who are right-wing judgemental Catholics trying to bring their religious politics into Australian life," he said.

"We're not a bunch of Americans. We don't go round with our politicians pretending to be deeply religious and demanding that everyone else be while they go around committing adultery on the side, as they do in America.

"And we don't want to be in a position where people with right-wing and intolerant attitudes, like Tony Abbott, control what people believe.

"If people separate because they're unhappy with each other and live their lives apart, is he suggesting we want to go back to the 1960s and before when private investigators jump through windows and photograph people in bed?

"What's that going to achieve? Say you've been separated for five years from your wife or husband and you choose not to remarry and you have another relationship, you expect a private eye to come and [take a] photograph. I mean, how ludicrous is that?"

Mr Dowding says plenty of changes need to be made to the current Family Law Act, but the divorce itself is almost irrelevant.

"The biggest difficulty that people who are in relationships and separate have is to sort out what are the arrangements for the children and what are the arrangements for maintenance, and what are the arrangements for the property," he said.

"They're the difficult things about which people fight. The actual divorce itself is almost an irrelevancy.

"It comes about when people have been separated and their marriage is broken down.

"You can't hold people to failed marriages. So the idea of having a divorce based on something other than a failed marriage is just ludicrous."

Opposition finance spokeswoman Helen Coonan was cool on Mr Abbott's idea to bring back fault-based divorce when she spoke to the ABC yesterday.

Senator Coonan, who used to practise family law, says she needs convincing.

"The no-fault divorce, as a principle, seems to have worked reasonably well since 1975," she told AM.

"So I'll be just interested to see what he says is the problem with the way in which the divorce law is working."

Men in Family Law Court

While we were waiting in the waiting area of the Family Court, we were watching the other people and then we went in and watched a few cases in the court room. I swear people are so stereotypical and you could pick what the cases were about purely from what they looked like and how they acted outside.
Mr Short Back and Sides army guy and his new prissy wife were obviously there to get his kid from another marriage and guess what I was right...they didn't have orders but he kept the daughter since Christmas because they didn't think she was being looked after properly by her mother ( a nurse). Mother wasn't in court and they were trying to get sole custody based upon the kid missing a few weeks of school the previous year.

Mr Loud and obnoxious was there to avoid Child support and to demand a DNA test.

Ms Skanky was being questioned by her husband if the kid was his andd she had to confess to sleeping around.

Then there was the guy who thought his ex wife should be inconvenienced by having to travel a distance of 1000 kilometres with 4 kids rather than he alone having to travel.

90% of the cases were initiated by men. Interesting and most of the men seemed motivated by the dollars (ie Child Support or seeking not to pay it.)