Tuesday, July 28, 2009

The Today show discussing the Baldwin vs. Basinger controversy.

A segment of The Today Show discussing Alex Baldwin's phone call to his daughter Ireland. Its pretty clear Basinger released this conversation for no other purpose but further the alienation of Mr. Baldwin from his daughter and to publicly humiliate him. MJM

Source location: http://www.archive.org/details/FathersRights-Episode1

In OZ ~ Dads hit out over shared parenting law review choice

Annabelle's choice of language and attack is interesting but not surprising from what I have seen elsewhere. She focuses on the mythology of dad being abusive yet stats clearly show moms are equally so in mutual IPV and in addition in the USA and OZ the biggest abusers and killers of children. The shrieking, however works, as can be seen by the usually hysterical headlines in the media. This one is apt showing dads "hit". That's really a good choice but shows the overall bias.

If you notice the Annabelle's of the world almost always get to economic issues rather than what's best for the children. She brings up the canard of child support but the opposite is true. Moms won't get it but they consider it an entitlement. That's one of the reasons why they were the applicant for divorce. What she fails to disclose is dad will still be supporting his children directly. Is mom unable to support herself or her children or get a job or get re-trained. Why in this day and age is that the case? These are fundamental questions. The issue should be having both fit parents in the lives of their children. If one is unfit then deal with it but don't create greater distress for children because a minority of recalcitrant parents are having a tantrum.MJM

Article from: The Courier-Mail

Matthew Fynes-Clinton

July 28, 2009 12:00am

FATHERS' groups have blasted the Rudd Government's appointment of a retired Family Court judge to examine shared parenting laws he has openly criticised.

There are concerns that Richard Chisholm has already made up his mind to recommend ditching the controversial legislation.

"I believe the Government wants to change the law to satisfy the radical feminists and (other) extreme groups that might want to roll back shared parenting," said Shared Parenting Council federal director Edward Dabrowski.

"And Richard Chisholm has already indicated his reticence for shared parenting. That's why he's been brought in.

"The Government has a preordained agenda. (Chisholm's) is an inappropriate appointment. He will give them the result they want."

In a dire warning, Mr Dabrowski said that if the laws were repealed, suicide rates among divorced dads "will increase, without a doubt."

Professor Chisholm emphasised yesterday that he had been asked to review how the Family Court deals with allegations of violence.

However, the University of Sydney honorary professor in law acknowledged that this issue and the shared parenting laws were linked.

The review, announced last week by Attorney-General Robert McClelland, follows an outcry mostly from women that the prescription of shared parenting has resulted in the Family Court ordering children to spend time with violent parents.

In October 2007, Prof Chisholm and Melbourne child psychologist Jennifer McIntosh co-authored an article cautioning against shared parenting of children for high-conflict separated couples.

The paper, published in Australian Family Lawyer, referred to a study by Dr McIntosh involving a Family Court sample of 77 parents and 111 children, where almost half the children left court in a substantially shared-care arrangement (five nights or more a fortnight with each parent).

Four months later, 73 per cent of the shared-care parents reported "almost never" co-operating with each other.

And 39 per cent of the shared-care parents said they were "never" able to protect their children from their conflict.

The Howard Government introduced the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act in 2006 to rectify perceived unfairness in custody orders and assuage concerns about the impact of absent fathers.

The changes direct trial judges and magistrates in the federal family law courts to "presume" that "equal shared parental responsibility" is in the best interests of children.

This means separating parents are legally bound to attempt to make major decisions on their children's welfare jointly.


In OZ ~ Dads On The Air: Amfortas and podcasts..

Thanks to Christian J. It is good to see opposition to the victim feminist shrieking over shared parenting.

What Men are saying about Women

Christian J.

It is always nice to get some exposure and it's particularly gratifying to see the excellent effort and work by my friend and colleague Amfortas..

Here is a small update and hopefully when they log the podcast I will be displaying it here..
The podcast referred to are available on this on the right hand side.._________>

Dads On The Air

Tuesday 28 July 2009 10.30am-12.00 2GLF FM 89.3 and ONLINE

The Mandarins and the Masses

With Special Guest Amfortas.

Over the past week father's activists around Australia have been appalled by announcements from the Australian Labor government that it intends winding back the 2006 reforms to family law which promoted more cooperative arrangements after divorce or separation.

The government is conducting three separate inquiries into family law, inappropriately linking the inquiries with domestic violence. Not one of them consults the views of fathers or even the general public. There could be no clearer case of the mandarins regarding the great unwashed with contempt and not trusting their opinions, because after all there is strong public support for shared parenting.

Arrogantly, the government is not even pretending to consult dads. One report is by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, often referred to as The Australian Institute of Feminist Studies because of its repeated failure to take men's issues seriously.

The next is by the Law Council of Australia, who's feminist stances are also well known. And finally retired Family Court judge Richard Chisholm is conducting another review. His open hostility to shared parenting is well known and he is perceived by many as displaying the worst characteristics of the old style of Family Court, which almost invariably treated fathers with contempt. It was Chisholm who several years ago showed his true stripes by ridiculing separated fathers in a ditty he performed at a family law conference. Thanks to his blatant biases, many see his appointment as entirely inappropriate.

A better choice would have been Michael Green QC, author of the book Shared Parenting. That this government is prepared to overthrow the popular reforms to our despised family law system and return the country to the dark ages when the majority of fathers entering the court rarely if ever saw their children again defies belief.

The government's kow towing to the wild exaggerations of the taxpayer funded domestic violence industry and the peddling of hysterical hatred against men has sickened many.

Against this background, this week we play samples from the compelling podcasts compiled by a private practicing psychologist with 25 years experience who is driven by his own experiences and the experiences of many of his clients.

He goes by the handle Amfortas, after the keeper of the Holy Grail.

"I am a men's rights activist who is fighting against the excesses of feminism and the deleterious affects they are having on our public policies, particularly as they affect families and children," he says. "I am not at all embarrassed by the use of the term men's rights, even if its unfashionable. Men's rights are part of human rights."

The podcasts can be found at http://soundcloud.com

In the Stolen Generation podcast he declares: "There is no suggestion that obstructing the child's relationship with the noncustodial parent or undermining his or her parental authority is to be considered abuse or neglect. The sole custody model is first stage parental alienation. Parental alienation is child abuse. It follows that the sole custody model is child abuse."

The podcasts provide a professional analysis of the Family Court’s ‘Bible’ - In The Best Interests of Children: The Least Detrimental Alternative - that justifies the ‘ least detrimental alternatives’ to the traditional family. "We have a generation of fathers who are shell-shocked, heartbroken," he says.

"It was Adolph Hitler who first said that people will take any reduction to their freedom if you tell them it is in the best interests of the children. Could we not have a non-detrimental alternative?"

He argues The Family Court's culture and style of orders bring about the detrimental conditions that lead to a delinquent culture of fatherlessness in children. "The ‘most deserving parent’ is chosen on genitalia," he says. "Professionals make judgements that cause parental alienation syndrome. A juggernaut is driven over Magna Carta. An equal society is replaced by a superior class of people."

We close the show listening to his podcast Give a Dog a Bad Name, in which he argues the mass media is anti-male by commercial design.

"Comprehensive study data shows the depth of disrespect for men," he says.

"Even ‘Old-school’ feminists are appalled at the damage being done to men. The media is wrong, both factually and morally. Government pays for an agitprop war on men’s reputation to frighten women. At what cost?"

Next week: DOTA's Canadian Special, with Member of Parliament Roger Galloway, family lawyer Karen Selick and retired professor of Men's Studies, Jeffrey Asher.

If you haven't visited us for a while, please check out the wonderful redesign of our website thanks to the superb efforts of our researcher Greg Andresen. It is now less cluttered, more functional and much more stylish.

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

Equal and Shared Parenting ~ The Movie