Australian Judge lowers DV victim’s compensation because she is used to violence

WTF?  What in the hell was this judge thinking...WOW!  Apparently he isn’t.  Oh, and notice that the husband only served 8 months of a 2 year sentence to begin with.  That sentence seems low to begin with, only 2 years, for a violent incident that turned into a hostage stand-off when police arrived.

Source:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350962/Battered-wifes-compensation-cut-used-violence.html#ixzz1CFyPp1Pw

Battered wife's compensation cut because she is 'used to violence'

By Richard Shears
Last updated at 3:59 PM on 27th January 2011

• Comments (25)
• Add to My Stories

A terrified wife who had to lower her children from a window when confronted by her abusive knife-wielding husband has had her compensation pay-out cut by a judge because she was 'conditioned' to domestic violence.

The Australian judge said the woman, who was 26 at the time, had been subjected to violence in the past and suggested that because she was used to the abuse he agreed her compensation should be cut.

The decision has outraged domestic violence experts who said the Brisbane court's decision would only 'diminish' the woman's traumatic experience.

It was in 2006 that the woman and her children were confronted by her 36-year-old husband, who was wielding a knife.

A hostage stand-off developed when police arrived but the woman was able to hand her children out of a window.               

The District Court in Brisbane was told that the husband then pushed his wife into a bedroom door, injuring her shoulder.               

He was eventually arrested and pleaded guilty to deprivation of liberty and common assault and was jailed for two years, to be suspended after eight months.               

His wife, who has not been named, applied for criminal compensation and was awarded the equivalent of £13,000.

But lawyers for the Queensland government appealed and argued that the percentage of the maximum compensation for mental anguish should be reduced from 34 per cent to 20 per cent.               

Judge Jones said a 20 per cent reduction was justified, meaning that the woman will now receive £10,400.               

The judge said that unfortunately for the woman, the incident was one of a long history of domestic violence, resulting in her being conditioned to it by her husband.               

Because of her predisposition to post traumatic stress disorder, he agreed the 20 per cent reduction was justified.               

He noted, however, that the offences before him had pushed the woman over the edge.               

Domestic violence experts told Brisbane's Courier Mail that the cut-back was the latest case in which judges expressed concern that their hands were tied when awarding criminal compensation payments to people who had suffered domestic violence over a long period.               

Miss Diane Mangan, chief executive of the help-line DV Connect, said the decision to reduce the payout because of the woman's predisposition to mental stress from previous domestic violence served to diminish her traumatic experience.               

'It's almost like saying the years that you have suffered at the hands of your husband don't count,' she told the paper.

Australians have expressed outrage at the decision to cut the woman's compensation. 

'I just hope this judge never has a family member in a similar situation,' said one writer to a newspaper's online comment page.

'Where is the justice here?'               

One man said the Australian legal system is a colossal failure.

'When is this going to be fixed?' he asked. 'When are Australians going to get off their apathetic behinds and tell our local members, state and federal ministers that enough is enough.'

AU: Act aids abusive fathers, imperils children

Really?  Hmmm, finally someone see it!  Hat tip to Annie for this one!

http://www.theage.com.au/national/act-aids-abusive-fathers-imperils-children-20100623-yz3u.html

Act aids abusive fathers, imperils children

ADELE HORIN

June 24, 2010

THE Family Law Act is failing to protect children from ongoing trauma at the hands of abusive and violent fathers, a study has found.

The act's aims of protecting children from violence and giving them ''meaningful involvement'' with both parents was being resolved in favour of contact even in cases of severe domestic violence, the study reveals.

Sydney University education and social work senior lecturer Lesley Laing, the report's author, said more thought needed to be given to what formed a ''meaningful relationship'' when a parent had traumatised a child through domestic violence. ''There is no requirement that a parent who has harmed a child in this way must demonstrate they can offer a safe and meaningful relationship,'' she said.

The report is based on interviews with 22 women, contacted through domestic violence services, who were negotiating parenting arrangements in the family law system. It is the first study that has allowed women experiencing domestic violence to speak about the impact of the 2006 legal changes that put greater emphasis on shared parenting while still maintaining protection in cases of violence.

The women describe a situation where they are discouraged by legal advisers and others from raising violence issues in the Family Court for fear of being seen as an ''unfriendly'' or ''alienating'' parent unwilling to support contact with the father.

''Anything that you do to try and advocate for your children is somehow twisted into being high conflict and parental alienation,'' one woman said. ''So you are basically silenced. And the children are silenced.''

Another said she had agreed to the children having sleepovers at their father's place because she felt she had no choice. Her lawyer had convinced her that if she objected the judge would give the father even more contact.

Dr Laing said some women felt guilty they had escaped violent men but their children had not. ''Forty years ago some women could only escape domestic violence by leaving the children behind, and they were pilloried,'' she said. ''Now there is a new form of child abandonment, at least part time. It's a terrible thing we are asking women to do.''

The report shows the women are battling a complex and unco-ordinated system that often sees state child protection services shunting matters to the Family Court though the court with no powers of investigation.

As well, the women battled community attitudes that regarded them as liars who misused the system. Professionals constantly stressed to the women the importance of fathering, without regard to its quality. It was commonly assumed that at least some contact was inevitable, no matter what violence had occurred, and that supervised contact would eventually move to unsupervised contact.

The study, No Way to Live, will put further pressure on federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland to amend the Family Law Act. An earlier review he commissioned recommended amendments to provide greater protection.

Children Have A Right to A Relationship with Their Father

While attempting to write up something coherent on this news article I found a post on RandiJames.com that I’d like to share with you.  I am still currently too mad...and worried for these little girls to say anything useful here!  But Randi James put it very well:

Original Post here:  http://www.randijames.com/2010/03/children-have-right-to-relationship.html

UPDATED!! AGAIN
Does watching child porn match you a bad father? Maybe, maybe not. But who'd like to bet their own children on it? Any volunteers?
No, seriously.
A father was convicted of child pornography offenses a couple of years ago.
His wife left him.
Subsequently, the father has been trying to get access to his children.
The court previously found that he had behaved inappropriately in bed with one of the children.
But JUDGE ROBERT BENJAMIN ordered that the two children, who are girls aged 8 and 10, spend weekends with their father.
Eldest daughter is afraid.
To facilitate the father's rights, JUDGE ROBERT BENJAMIN orders that:
1. the girls sleep in the same bedroom (to "support" each other), and
2. the father place a lock on the bedroom door for the girls
3. the father have an adult friend stay overnight when the girls are present
Additionally, some UNNAMED Family Court counselor has stated that the girls don't pose a risk to the father, at their current ages, when they are awake, clothed, and together.
How considerate.
Think I'm kidding? See article here.

A summary of the rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child
Article 3 (Best interests of the child): The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly applies to budget, policy and law makers.
Article 4 (Protection of rights): Governments have a responsibility to take all available measures to make sure children’s rights are respected, protected and fulfilled. When countries ratify the Convention, they agree to review their laws relating to children. This involves assessing their social services, legal, health and educational systems, as well as levels of funding for these services. Governments are then obliged to take all necessary steps to ensure that the minimum standards set by the Convention in these areas are being met. They must help families protect children’s rights and create an environment where they can grow and reach their potential. In some instances, this may involve changing existing laws or creating new ones. Such legislative changes are not imposed, but come about through the same process by which any law is created or reformed within a country. Article 41 of the Convention points out the when a country already has higher legal standards than those seen in the Convention, the higher standards always prevail.
Article 5 (Parental guidance): Governments should respect the rights and responsibilities of families to direct and guide their children so that, as they grow, they learn to use their rights properly. Helping children to understand their rights does not mean pushing them to make choices with consequences that they are too young to handle. Article 5 encourages parents to deal with rights issues "in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child". The Convention does not take responsibility for children away from their parents and give more authority to governments. It does place on governments the responsibility to protect and assist families in fulfilling their essential role as nurturers of children.
Article 6 (Survival and development): Children have the right to live. Governments should ensure that children survive and develop healthily.
Article 9 (Separation from parents): Children have the right to live with their parent(s), unless it is bad for them. Children whose parents do not live together have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might hurt the child.
Article 12 (Respect for the views of the child): When adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account. This does not mean that children can now tell their parents what to do. This Convention encourages adults to listen to the opinions of children and involve them in decision-making -- not give children authority over adults. Article 12 does not interfere with parents' right and responsibility to express their views on matters affecting their children. Moreover, the Convention recognizes that the level of a child’s participation in decisions must be appropriate to the child's level of maturity. Children's ability to form and express their opinions develops with age and most adults will naturally give the views of teenagers greater weight than those of a preschooler, whether in family, legal or administrative decisions.
Article 19 (Protection from all forms of violence): Children have the right to be protected from being hurt and mistreated, physically or mentally. Governments should ensure that children are properly cared for and protect them from violence, abuse and neglect by their parents, or anyone else who looks after them. In terms of discipline, the Convention does not specify what forms of punishment parents should use. However any form of discipline involving violence is unacceptable. There are ways to discipline children that are effective in helping children learn about family and social expectations for their behaviour – ones that are non-violent, are appropriate to the child's level of development and take the best interests of the child into consideration. In most countries, laws already define what sorts of punishments are considered excessive or abusive. It is up to each government to review these laws in light of the Convention.
Article 34 (Sexual exploitation): Governments should protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse. This provision in the Convention is augmented by the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
Article 36 (Other forms of exploitation): Children should be protected from any activity that takes advantage of them or could harm their welfare and development.
Contact us
Our mission is to enable journalists and media producers to tell the stories of the world's children, while creating greater public awareness, emotional involvement and social participation. Through our video products and partnerships we advocate for the protection of children's rights, mobilise political will and material resources, respond in emergencies and promote the equal rights of women and girls.
We encourage you to browse our website. Become informed on new issues, inspired by what you learn and then take whatever steps you can to make a difference in building a better world for children. Please contact us if you have any further questions. Email Tanya Turkovich: tturkovich@unicef.org

This case is one of many, internationally, involving fathers' rights to their children. We can't all be lying.

In the words of Judge Robert Lemkau (California):
And you have an ex parte request calendared for tomorrow which I am advancing today. One of you is lying, and I am very concerned...
...I am inclined to deny you ex parte request. I feel that, if you're lying, there's going to be adverse consequences...
...I'm denying your request, ma'am. I think— there's insufficient evidence in my mind...
...Well, ma'am, there's a real dispute about whether that's even true or not...
...I'm going to deny it, ma'am. My suspicion is that you're lying, but I'm going to keep the custody orders in full force and effect...
...I reviewed it and that's why I'm -- my supposition, ma'am, is that you're lying, but if I'm incorrect, you can always bring another ex parte motion but don't misrepresent the situation. If you're lying about this, there's going to be adverse consequences. My supposition is that you are lying...

Randi James: Children Have A Right to A Relationship with Their Father. I'd Like to Thank Judge Robert Benjamin on Behalf of the U.N.

What is Best for the Kids

 

Dads 'not entitled to shared parenting'

Caroline Overington

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/dads-not-entitled-to-shared-parenting/story-e6frf7jx-1225824407249

From:The Australian

January 28, 2010 4:23PM

SEPARATED fathers are not entitled to a 50-50 time split with their children, and legislation introduced by the Howard government in 2006 should be amended to make that clear, a report says.

A 300-report by retired family court judge Richard Chisholm recommends five changes to the so-called "shared parenting" law, which he described as a "tangle" that had taken the focus off "what is best for the children," The Australian reports.

The hotly anticipated Chisholm report, which was ordered by Attorney-General Robert McClelland after the shocking death of Melbourne girl Darcey Freeman, who was thrown to her death from the West Gate Bridge last year, says the shared parenting law has made it difficult for women to raise allegations of violence in the Family Court system.

A separate, 1000-page report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, also released this afternoon, says the majority of lawyers now believe that the 2006 reforms favour fathers over mothers, and parents over children.

The two reports into shared parenting - plus a third report, by the Family Law Council - were released simultaneously by Mr McClelland this afternoon.

Mr McClelland said the Government would review all reports before making changes but agreed that a false idea had taken hold in the community that fathers were entitled to a 50-50 time split.

“How we address that is what we've now got to decide,” he said.

Read more about the released reports at The Australian.

Children's Court lets dad live with daughter despite "numerous and consistent" sexual abuse disclosures

From Dastardly Dads

The daughter has disclosed abuse by her UNNAMED DAD. The Department of Human Services, the Royal Children's Hospital, and others have expressed concerns about the daughter's safety. Yet the Children's Court willy nilly permits the dad to live with the daughter anyway. What the h&*% is going on? If this girl survives her childhood, I hope she sues these bastards. Oh wait, she can't. These bastards have set up this protection racket set called "judicial immunity" so they never have to own up to anything. So they can pull all kinds of crazy sh*& with no consequences.

To Karen Hogan: Please, Honey. This isn't "difficult stuff." And you think there is "no right or wrong here"? It seems to me that this case is far from "gray" or morally complex. You either keep the child safe...or you don't. I'm not fooled at all by all the agonizing handwringing here, and neither are most people with an ounce of sense. Once again, your pals in the court failed to protect a child. They decided that Daddy's "right" to rape his own child had priority. Once again, children are treated like crap, and the "rights" of sexual predators to destroy the lives of anyone they choose is upheld. What else is new. It seems to me that moral priorities (or lack thereof) are crystal clear here. Business as usual.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/court-lets-father-live-with-girl-despite-abuse-fear-20091211-komq.html

Court lets father live with girl despite abuse fear
CAROL NADER
December 12, 2009
THE Children's Court permitted a man to live with his young daughter despite being aware of fears raised by child protection staff and others who had worked with the girl that he had sexually abused her.
In a complex case that has distressed many in the sector, the court went against the concerns of the Department of Human Services, the Royal Children's Hospital and others who did not believe the child, aged under 10, was safe with her father.

It is not known whether any harm has since come to the child, but it is understood that child protection is still working with the family. The Age understands the man also has a past sex offence conviction. Sources say the father denied the allegations of abuse and police investigated and no charges were laid. The Age is aware of more details that it cannot publish because they might identify the family.
Karen Hogan, manager of the Gatehouse Centre for the Assessment and Treatment of Child Abuse at the Royal Children's Hospital, said a number of her staff had worked with this family and the girl made ''numerous and consistent'' disclosures of sexual abuse.
''She was clear: 'This is what happened to me, this is what he does, I don't like it and want it to stop.' We believed what the girl said and we don't think children should be in an environment where they could be abused.''
She said it illustrated the complexity of these cases. ''We're just there to give evidence in court. We don't have an overview,'' she said. ''It's very emotional for the families and children, and all the professionals involved as well. This is difficult stuff … and so complex, and there's no right or wrong.''
The State Government has ordered a review of the way the Children's Court operates, following an explosive report on child protection services by the Ombudsman last month.
While most of the criticism was directed at the department, the report also criticised the court process for being too adversarial. Workers complained that their evidence was discredited, and the Ombudsman said sometimes the best interests of children were not being met.
Experts in the sector say this case highlights the problems with having an adversarial legal system. They say delicate cases like this would be better managed in a less combative way, with the best interests of the child the priority.
The issues are very sensitive and, in a court, it is difficult for a magistrate to use all the evidence they are presented with to make a decision about where a child should live. Some critics of the system believe magistrates are not sufficiently trained to identify signs of abuse.
Other options available to magistrates include granting orders with conditions attached, such as supervised access.
Another source involved with the family said: ''This is not about individual magistrates, it's about the system and about how the Children's Court needs to review its processes in order to ensure that the best interests of any given child are met.''
In the case, sources say the department appealed against an interim court order allowing the father regular access while the allegations were investigated because it was inappropriate for the girl to see her father after she made allegations of abuse. But the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
In a later decision that dismayed workers involved in the case, the Children's Court made a final order permitting the father to live with his family. It is understood that decision was not appealed because the first appeal had failed.
Sources say part of the problem is the role of lawyers, who play a big part in determining what evidence is permitted in court and who is permitted to give evidence.
Children's Court president Judge Paul Grant said in a statement released through the Department of Justice that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on decisions made by judicial officers of the court.
''The court makes judicial determinations according to law on the evidence presented by the parties … Any party who is aggrieved by a decision of the court is entitled to appeal to a superior court.''
He said in this case, the department did appeal against the interim order that was dismissed by the Supreme Court, and the final order had not been appealed against.
The Department of Human Services would not comment on the case, but said it carried out its legal obligations to administer any orders to ensure children's best interests were met.
State Government policy says children wherever possible should stay with their families. But balancing the rights of parents and children is difficult, bearing in mind the safety of children is always paramount.
Melbourne University professor in child and family welfare Cathy Humphreys said it was difficult to get that balance right.
''Everyone would want to support reunification wherever it is possible, and more resourcing and work needs to be put into that,'' she said. ''The thing is that highly adversarial processes don't support good work in this very sensitive area.''

Dastardly Dads: Children's Court lets dad live with daughter despite "numerous and consistent" sexual abuse disclosures (Australia)

Poverty, domestic violence

Poverty, domestic violence: Women bearing brunt of economic crisis

Jess Moore

25 October 2009
A domestic violence shelter in Alice Springs told ABC radio’s AM on May 1 that between January 1 and mid-April this year, it provided accommodation for 157 children and 149 women. However, due to lack of funding, it turned away a further 158 women and 100 children seeking support.

In other words, for each woman it provided shelter to, one was turned away. Where did she go? In all likelihood, she ended up back with her abusive partner.
We live in a society that still, in many respects, treats women as second-class citizens. Women’s supposedly predominant role as bearers and carers of children, combined with inadequate childcare services and maternity leave provisions, mean women are discriminated against in employment. Women are highly concentrated in part-time and casual jobs.
This situation leaves women more vulnerable to economic hardship. When the chips are down, such as in the current global economic crisis, women are the first hit. Women are the first to lose their jobs. Financial independence, and the options that come with that — such as leaving an abusive partner — is still a dream for many women.
Women bear the brunt of trauma and hardship, such as war and economic recession. The global economic crisis has disproportionately affected women in terms of poverty and unemployment.
However, women are also experiencing an increase in violence within the home. A 2009 United Nations report also noted a rise in the number of women remaining in abusive relationships because of a lack of affordable alternative accommodation, an inability to sell property and decreased support services.
In Australia, ongoing funding cuts to women’s services mean national domestic violence statistics are sketchy. However, the available state and local figures are alarming.
In Queensland, in the first quarter of 2005, 6874 new cases of domestic violence were reported. In the first quarter of 2009, it rose to 9739 new cases — a 42% rise.
The January 29 Newcastle Herald said that between 2005 and 2008, the number of domestic Apprehended Violence Orders (AVOs) issued rose by more than 7%. However, in Queensland, the numbers did not peak until 2009, so the real rise in NSW could be significantly higher.
In poor and regional areas the situation is worse.
US figures tell a similar story. The National Domestic Violence Hotline had a spike of calls in September 2008, which were up 21% from September 2007. The organisation conducted a six-week study to determine the cause of the rise.
It found a strong link between financial stress and domestic violence: 54% of callers reported a change in their household's financial situation in the past year and 64% of callers answered “yes” to the question "do you believe the abusive behaviour has increased in the past year?"
A 2004 study by the National Institute of Justice found that women whose male partners experienced two or more periods of unemployment over five years were three times more likely to be abused.
Frighteningly, the violence is also becoming more deadly. The December 25 Boston Globe reported: “Economic stresses often lead to more frequent abuse, more violent abuse, and more dangerous abuse when domestic violence already exists.”
A series of reports in the Sydney Morning Herald in November 2008 revealed that, in NSW, the number of deaths of women and children as a result of domestic violence had risen to a 10-year high.
In Australia, domestic violence is now the most likely cause of preventable death for women under 45. It is also the leading cause of preventable disabilities and illnesses for women under 45.
Higher assault rates are made worse by inadequate support services. Government funding for women's services is considerably less than it was a decade ago, despite the marked rise in demand.
This situation is the result of neoliberal funding cuts and a conservative anti-feminist ideological campaign. Consecutive governments have blamed domestic violence on individual family breakdowns and unhealthy relationships, rather than recognising the social basis of violence against women.
The swell in the number of domestic violence cases is not a setback in an otherwise generally improving situation. Before the economic crisis, domestic violence in Australia was already a growing social problem.
Rates dramatically rose across NSW between 1997 and 2002. Figures released by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show that, for this period, the recorded instance of domestic assault rose by 40% in the Sydney area and 50% across the rest of NSW.
A huge injection of public funding is needed to support essential crisis services for victims of domestic violence to prevent the needless death of so many women and children.
Beyond that, the underlying causes of domestic violence — unemployment, insecurity, poverty, disadvantage and women’s financial dependence on male partners — have to be addressed.
Collective opposition to attacks on women’s rights is the only force powerful enough to empower women, to change sexist social attitudes and stop all forms of violence against women.

From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #815 28 October 2009.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/815/41932

Paedophile awarded more than victim

 

THE victim sexually abused by paedophile Anthony Douglas Walters received just $7500 compensation as a victim of crime while her tormentor was awarded more than $93,000.

Walters, 47, sentenced to six years' jail with a minimum of three for a series of child sex attacks, received $65,000 compensation for plastic surgery, medical expenses and psychological counselling after being attacked while in prison.

He was also awarded $28,750 for legal costs. But his victim, a young girl who was repeatedly abused, received just $7500 in victims of crime compensation, the maximum allowed four years ago.

Should Walters have been allowed to apply for compo? Have your say below

While Walters sued the State of Victoria in the County Court to get his payout this year, the child victim went through the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal.

Her family was outraged at the difference in the amounts and slammed the system.

"It's so unfair, her child is suffering still on a daily basis," a friend of the victim's mother said after reading of Walters' payout in the Herald Sun.

With the victim's mother by her side, the family spokeswoman said the difference in treatment and compensation was staggering. "He was awarded $93,000 for one incident (where he was attacked in jail). He assaulted his victim over a period of two years from the time she was four.

"She was awarded $7500 under victims of crime, which she can't access until she is 18."

The family friend, on behalf of the victim's mother, said she was considering her legal options to sue Walters for damages and access part or all of his jail attack payout, held in quarantine for a year.

The victim's family is also asking why Walters was given money and not just provided with state-paid medical care.

Attorney-General Rob Hulls said the Government had taken a balanced view on compensation to prisoners by ensuring money was put in quarantine for victims to apply for.

He said the statutory maximum available for victims' pain and suffering had now also been increased from $7500 to $10,000 but civil courts had the potential to provide higher amounts and individuals had the option to sue.

"Our Government reinstated compensation for pain and suffering for victims of crime, which was abolished under the previous government," Mr Hulls said. "Victims can also receive up to $60,000 for counselling, medical expenses and other expenses.

"Awards of financial assistance from VOCAT made to victims of crime are not intended to reflect the level of compensation to which victims of crime may be entitled at common law or otherwise.

"The Government took the view a couple of years ago that in relation to prisoners who are serving time, if they receive compensation then that compensation is actually held in trust unless, or until, victims have made a claim on that compensation money."

Opposition legal affairs spokesman Robert Clark said most Victorians would see the difference in payment amounts as grossly unfair.

"The gap between the compensation paid to his victim and the $93,000 provided by taxpayers for a pedophile's free cosmetic surgery and psychological counselling adds insult to injury for both the victim and long-suffering taxpayers," Mr Clark said.

- Matt Johnston

Paedophile awarded more than victim | Herald Sun

Will Darcy Freeman Get Justice

 

By Special Guest Writer Akasha Mc Donald

The dead cannot speak.  They cannot cry when there is no justice. 

"Take me away" Arthur Freeman said. 

The defense lawyer continued to shift the focus on the words that were not spoken, the food that was not offered and the CTV camera that did not record.  Well dressed with a shiny purple tie, sat Arthur Freeman carefully following the movements of the lawyers, calculating the sum of words, expressions and moments nearing the end of a two day committal hearing at Melbourne Magistrates Court.  His lawyer did well to convince others that Arthur Freeman was not guilty, that he was mentally ill and not fit to stand trial.  There was more than just a few flaws that became the thread undoing the blanket of defense.  Without saying the word "catatonic", the lawyer gnarled away with questions establishing a lost cause even after it was confirmed that Mr Freeman had spoke.   It is an empirical fact in trauma studies that perpetrators suffer from trauma post the incident.  This has been well documented over many years.  The behaviors Mr Freeman displayed after the act, sounds just like text-book trauma. 

Towards the end of the hearing, the judge spoke directly to Mr Freeman informing him of the consequences of pleading guilty and not guilty throughout the trial.  As if gratified by knowing that his victims would be tormented by the case dragging out and the possibility of it twisting into a great injustice, he stood proudly and said, "Not Guilty".  Silence filled the room, followed by an echo of pens in unison furiously scratching away at paper.  His face was devoid of all emotion but a twisted sense of triumph that spread across his face. After all, it is the last opportunity he has to torment his ex wife and family. 

Family Court in Australia--You can’t handle the TRUTH

 

WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW:

The truth about the Family Courts in Australia

- By Rebecca Bliss

Look at the system

It’s such a shame

Our children are suffering

And the courts are to blame.

To the family courts

There is no excuse

That what you are doing

IS CHILD ABUSE.

They give out ‘shared custody’

Even if it puts kids in danger

The child’s ‘best interests’

Are determined by a stranger.

It is the Family Courts

Who are shattering lives

By giving kids to men

Who beat up their wives.

They say ‘To Violence

Australia Says No’

But women speak up

And their kids have to go.

When a parent is violent

It is simply not fair

To ignore all the evidence

And enforce this ‘shared care’.

A child should live

Where he or she chooses

Not be forced into staying

With child abusers.

Lawyers get involved

When decisions get made

But they don’t care about kids

They just want to get paid.

When a mum finds out

That her child’s been abused

She finds that in court

She becomes the accused.

When someone speaks out

About how the courts fail

They get fined, or worse,

Even end up in jail.

Not many know

About the Courts wrong-doing

News crews can’t cover it

Or the Courts threaten suing.

You won’t hear what goes on

In your Sunday Mail

Because reporters have been warned

It will put them in jail.

So it’s all a ‘big secret’

About what really goes on

They don’t want you to know

Because they know it is wrong.

It’s not in the papers

It’s not on the news

Because when someone tries

It’s the court who sues.

How many more

Kids have to die

As a result of these courts

Letting abuse slip by.

To the Family Courts

There is blood on your hands

We are sick of giving in

To your ridiculous demands.

Open your eyes-

It could happen to you

The need for a change

Is long overdue.

If they want to play God

And put kids lives at stake

Then judges must be liable

For the decisions they make.

        By Rebecca Bliss

PLEASE - STOP COURT ORDERED ABUSE NOW.

Visit www.saferfamilylaw.org.au

to find out more about how you can help by signing the online petition asking the Government for a change to current Family Law.