Sunday, February 1, 2009

The Australian ~ Is this publication biased toward women having sole custody of children? Are they playing favourites? You be the judge!

I've read several articles from Ozzy newspapers on the kidnapping of Andrew Thompson by his mother and I get the distinct impression they are feminist oriented and biased. In this one I can't put my finger on it exactly but I get a "gut" feeling this writer is sympathetic to the kidnapper and to the fact the law has been equalized in Australia for moms and dads. To say the mom in this case has some mental health issues is an understatement. To say she has control issues is an understatement. She needs to maintain control not only over her child but her husband as well. The only way she can do this under Ozzy law is to kidnap the couple's son and hide somewhere else. But where? How does she support herself? Is her family complicit? Are they risking imprisonment to keep a selfish person in hiding and a son from his father.

The article also indicates a greater number of child kidnappings by mothers since equal parenting was introduced. That could well happen in other jurisdictions when equal parenting is introduced given many of these parents who deem the have ownership of the children are emotionally fragile to start with. We will likely have to deal with more exaggerated allegations of abuse.

It is interesting what the reaction by feminists and wives is in Australia given the equal parenting law. It is testament to the fact the feminists are not interested in equality at all but supremacy when it comes to parenting of children. Just check their blogs for the esteem in which they hold dads, including this scribe. There is a group of women from OZ calling themselves anonymums who secretly troll web sites around the world leaving comments behind about how women are victimized by just about everything under the sun. They are truly paranoid but would be just the type to offer cover for someone like the woman described in this article.

Defiant: mother tells why she took her son and ran

Caroline Overington | February 02, 2009

Article from: The Australian

MELINDA Stratton is a woman on the run. In April last year, she fled Australia with her four-year-old son, Andrew, to avoid a custody hearing in the Family Court.

In December, her husband, NSW deputy fire chief Ken Thompson, asked the court to lift a ban on identifying Andrew so he could launch an international campaign to find the boy.

Photographs of Andrew are now plastered on buses in Europe, and on billboards in England. Mr Thompson has launched a website, and a group email has gone around the world, urging people to contact Interpol if they see Ms Stratton.

Ms Stratton - a professional woman from Sydney's northern suburbs, who has an MBA, speaks French and German, and has lived and worked abroad - has so far managed to dodge the authorities, but yesterday emerged from seclusion to tell her side of the story.

A 10-page letter - the first contact between Ms Stratton and anyone outside her immediate family since last April - was provided to The Australian with no identifying marks. It was dated January 15.

Ms Stratton says she had no choice other than to flee Australia, because she had lost faith in the Family Court.

She says the balance of the court - once firmly in favour of granting custody to mothers - had tipped dramatically towards fathers. The Howard government's regime of "shared parenting" had given power to fathers at the expense of mothers.

"I have lost all faith in any form of justice coming out of Australia," Ms Stratton says.

"By remaining silent, however, I ensure that they (the Family Court) can continue to treat other mothers and children this way."

Ms Stratton does not say where she is hiding, but adds: "Currently, my son is well and happy.

"I spent $30,000 on court proceedings. I have been told I will receive harsh penalties as 'punishment' for leaving from the Family Court.

"I am in my 40s. My son is only four. His welfare and future are my priority.

"The decision to break all contact with my family and friends, leave my job and our home was not taken lightly.

"I also understand that the Family Court could take my son away from me and give Ken full custody of him, again as punishment."

The battle between Ms Stratton and Mr Thompson for access to Andrew is complex and bitter.

She says he suffers from depression and anxiety. He says he suffered from "mild anxiety" when his first marriage ended 20 years ago.

"It was nothing more than mild anxiety," he says.

"It was a very difficult time, but it was also a very long time ago."

When he launched his campaign to find Andrew, Mr Thompson said that his former wife had a "mental condition". On his blogs, he says she is "paranoid" and that she may harm Andrew rather than return him to Sydney.

Ms Stratton says she has "no mental problems whatsoever".

Ms Stratton has made more serious allegations against Mr Thompson but The Australian is constrained by law from publishing them. She made the allegations in December 2007, left the family home in January last year, and the country in April.

Mr Thompson strenuously denies his wife's claims, saying she "made all kinds of allegations ... the psychologists have said there is no reason to even investigate them".

Ms Stratton says the court psychologist is biased against mothers. She points to papers presented by Family Court practitioners in which they say that mothers can make up allegations of abuse and that children can be manipulated by their mothers to say they have been abused.

The identity of the psychologist is protected by the Family Law Act (1975).

The Family Court ignored Ms Stratton's complaints and ordered her to make their son available for supervised contact with his father three or four times a week.

She complied only a few times before fleeing.

Her move was not unprecedented: although there have been some high-profile cases of men leaving Australia with their children - such as in the case of Canadian mother Melissa Hawach, whose two children were taken to Lebanon by their Sydney-based father and freed by mercenaries - it is overwhelmingly the mother who flees.

According to the Attorney-General's Department, more than 120 children were abducted and taken out of Australia last year. In 75 per cent of cases, the mother was suspected of taking the children.

Mr Thompson said his former wife should return to Australia. "I'm not the one who has run away from the court," he said. "I'm the one who took court action.

"She's decided that the police were wrong, the courts were wrong, the psychologists are wrong, and she's right.

"If she's right, I don't understand why she doesn't come back and see the matter through in the Family Court.

"What kind of country do we live in if people can disagree with what the court says, and just take off?"

The AFP is conducting a criminal investigation into Andrew's abduction and subsequent disappearance.

Interpol has also issued alerts for Ms Stratton and Andrew in 187 countries.

The Family Court publication order warns anyone recognising Ms Stratton or her son not to approach them and to instead pass the information on to police.

Mark Harris, NF4J in the UK wrote to the President of the Family Division Court System, Sir Mark Potter

Sunday, 1 February 2009

Judges do not enforce contact orders upon Mothers Official !

Judges do not enforce contact orders upon Mothers Official !

Sir Mark Potter

New F4J member Mark Harris wrote to the President of the Family Diviision, Sir Mark Potter, asking if he would like to meet with him and his daughters to detail just how the 33 family court judges that dealt with their case each failed them all during the fathers' ten year battle to see them.

Sir Mark Potter, ignored their request to meet but did detail in his long winded response that family court judges simply DO NOT ENFORCE ANY CONTACT ORDER UPON A MOTHER OR CHANGE RESIDENCE OF A CHILD SO THAT CHILD CAN HAVE BOTH PARENTS IN IT'S LIFE.

So there you have it, despite the intentions of the Children Act to shared parenting back in 1989, despite Parliament passing the Contempt Act so Civil orders can be enforced, Potty Potter (like his predecessors) will only make Contact Orders by consent.

No change in government, no new laws will succeed in reform of family law while tossers like POTTER and his corrupt members of the judiciary manipulate the legal process and Acts of Parliament in secret while treating mothers as above the law.

You cannot have 'some justice' in courts, either their is 'Justice' or 'Injustice', there is no middle ground.

Mark Harris



Mr Mark Harris

Address deleted
For privacy

19 January 2009

Dear Mr Harris,

Thank you for your letter of 4 December 2008.

In broad terms, it raises two matters. First, your own complaints and those of the membership of new Fathers 4 Justice in relation to their own treatment before the family courts. Second, a request that I take action to "return fairness to the Family Courts".

So far as the first matter is concerned, as Head of the Family Division, my powers do not include review of individual cases during or after their progress through the courts. Such cases are subject to appeal procedures so far as any misapplication of the law or complaints of unfair process in the course of the proceedings are concerned. I have no right or power to interfere in such matters (unless sitting as an appellate judge in the case concerned). Similarly, in so far as complaints may be made of oppressive or inappropriate conduct on the part of a judge in the '~ourse of proceedings, other than simple misapplication of the law, such questions fall to be investigated under an established judicial complaint procedure.

On the wider front, namely the general content and the application and enforcement of the law in relation to applications for residence and contact in respect of children, which I believe to be the main substance of your concerns, again I lack the power to change the law, which is a matter for Parliament.
Such guidance as I can, and on occasions do, give by way of Practice Directions or Guidance to the judiciary generally is limited to matters of procedure rather than substance. In this area, the law under the Children Act is clear, namely that, in corning to decisions in relation to matters of residence and contact, or indeed any matter concerning children, the welfare of the child is to be regarded as the paramount consideration. Where those welfare interests lie has to remain a matter of judgment for the judge in the individual case.

Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Website



I know that this can give rise to feelings of frustration and concern on behalf of non-custodial parents, particularly, those adversely affected by noncompliance with the court's rulings by the principal carer. However, that is because, when it comes to the crunch, there are very few cases in which judges consider that the welfare of the child will be advanced by the sending of a carer to prison or the "reversal" of a residence order once made, though on occasions that requires and continues to be done. Again, howeyer, that "ill always be a matter for decision by the judge in the individual case and is not one which I (as opposed to parliament) am in a position to change.

In relation to the last two paragraphs of your letter, I am always willing to consider sensible proposals for reform of the Family Courts once I have seen these set out, and I have given public support to proposals for the admission of the press to family proceedings. However, as I understand the last but one paragraph of your letter, you are there in fact referring to reform of Family Law, in relation to which the position is as I have set it out above.

Finally, I am pleased to note that, as I would expect, you are personally opposed to any suggestion that judges' personal details should be circulated "in hope that something far worse than the protests may occur". I hope you will continue to use your influence to reject any such misguided suggestion.

Yours sincerely,

Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Website



Michael J. Murphy said...

His comments are blatantly and unfairly biased. What he is saying is the children's best interest are served by the custodial parent blocking access even if that custodial parent has a court order to ensure the NC parent gets access. He is saying the NC parent, usually the dad, is peripheral and marginal and the child is best served if the blocking parent is not forced to comply with a lawful order. We did think that but we clearly now know with certainty.

The fight continues and I'd say this revelation is another small step to getting changes rather than a step back.

I'll post the letter on my blogs on this side of the Atlantic.

The work of Fathers 4 Justice and the Pain of Fathers ~ Activism in the UK

Equal and Shared Parenting ~ The Movie