Men's Rights Agency, Lack of representation across the spectrum of all interested parties:

This is the html version of the file http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/subs/sub0909appa.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:baFJSSU_DrMJ:www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/subs/sub0909appa.pdf+g%C3%B6ran+lambertz&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.

These search terms have been highlighted:

göran

lambertz

Page 1

Men's Rights Agency,

P.O. Box 28, Waterford Q 4133

Tel: 07 3805 5611

Fax: 07 3200 8769

Email: mra@ecn.net.au

Website: www.mensrights.com.au

When the Family Law Pathways Group was first announced many eagerly awaited more detail,

especially the names of those, who would participate in the forum.

For the first time we thought the Government may be on the right track and would appoint a good

cross-section of people from all the interested parties - those representing men, women and

children.

Instead, the membership composition of the panel causes great concern.

Lack of representation across the spectrum of all interested parties:

There are no representatives from men's/fathers groups, yet there are representatives from

women's groups, one of whom has recently spoken out publicly to vilify fathers, who are low

income earners.

There others who are known by their allegiances to favour a radical pro-

feminist regime that is, by its very nature, anti-father and anti-family. However, there could be

others on the panel who are genuinely seeking to improve the outcomes for separated families,

but they are not obvious at this time. Bettina Arndt is the only person known to us who has

consistently spoken out against the gender war in family affairs.

At the moment, the odds are seemingly stacked against just one person being able to influence,

the decision making process of the Group, especially in the light of such formidable, known

opposition. No matter how skilled the person may be in their endeavours to produce change by

consensus we are convinced the current agenda will prevail. Therefore, perhaps we should

conclude there was never any intention for this forum to produce any fairer or more equitable

outcomes for fathers and their children, for if the intention had been present, then the Attorney

General and the Minister for Families and Community Services would have ensured adequate

representation of all interested parties?

In the best interests of women, or gender feminists seeking

funding for their cause?

Some forum members seem to overly focus on the domestic violence issue and even though

they may be acting with the best of intentions, they are perpetuating the victim status of women.

Since the 1980s the domestic violence industry has expanded at a remarkable rate, due in part

to the statistics produced as a result of self-advocacy research projects.

Unfortunately, people

are being encouraged to complain about the most minor of slights and even encouraged into

making false allegations. Many DV applications are made purely to gain the upperhand in

forthcoming Family Court hearings.

Page 2

Surely this approach is contrary to the aims of feminism? Promotion of victim status negates

the promises made to women to guarantee their right to self determination and independence, if

they so choose. Christine Hakim comments that "We must stop presenting women as 'victims',

or as an undifferentiated mass of mindless zombies whose every move is determined by other

actors and social forces… Women are responsible adults, who make real choices and are the

authors and agents of their own lives."

Ultimately, the current policy places far too many women into a role of dependency on

government handouts, instead of being independently single or in a partnership role with their

husband/defacto. Considerable research shows family disruption and divorce or separation is

not good for children, their parents or society in general.

The utopia promised by modern-day gender feminism remains just an illusion for most women.

The vast majority - those with limited academic skills and limited opportunities will remain in the

lower paid or part-time jobs,

struggling to provide for themselves and their family. A job made

that much harder without a partner to share the responsibility.

The domestic violence industry that promotes "women as victims of male patriarchy" is playing a

significant role in separating families. Their protocol insists on separation of the parties,

immediately, which prevents any opportunity to reconcile or even discuss in a civilised manner

an impending separation. Being falsely accused of domestic violence as happens in many

cases is unlikely to endear the accuser to the accused. But the DV industry has a vested

interest. More alleged victims produces more dollars. Not that those dollars seem to be

alleviating the suffering of those who genuinely need protection from violent partners, either male

or female.

In our opinion, that will always be the case, whilst only one side of the problem receives attention.

Men as victims of violence and abuse are ignored, as are violent women. There are no anger

management services for women, for to provide these services would be to admit women can

be and are violent and that goes against the doctrine "women are always the victim and men the

perpetrators of violence" and - "if they hit back, it is in self-defence".

Solicitor and university lecturer, Trevor Nyman, favouring counselling rather than a court ordered

response to domestic violence said in a letter published in the NSW Law Journal, " …a group of

lawyers, psychologists, probation officers and counsellors believe that violence in the home is

the result of family dysfunction, amenable to counselling".

After making the point that there is no excuse for violence he continued, " …if a marriage can be

saved with all the benefits to the parties and the children and the community, it is far better than

a court ordered separation where the only winners are the statistic keeping people who regard

every DVO as a notch on their gun.

We have a system out of control! Using false statistics to create a climate of fear, domestic

violence organisations have waged an unjustifiable war on men in general, thereby removing

thousands and thousands of women and children from the security of their home life to be

consigned to the welfare rolls and relying on government handouts for support. That's not

independence - it is a retrograde step.

I mention domestic violence early in the piece because, although it is a state legislative issue, it

is the tool that is often used to dictate the carriage of a family law matter. An easily gained

domestic violence order against a father gives an undoubted advantage by removing him from

Page 3

the home, thereby establishing sole parenting, which usually results in a financially beneficial

settlement of the family assets.

There is serious speculation from the legal profession that only 5 to 10 percent of applications

are genuine. Other whistleblowers who work in the industry confirm these figures but are unable

to come forward for fear of retaliation against their families and losing their employment.

Federal Government sponsored organisation perpetuates the myth:

The Federal government has involved itself in the issue of domestic violence and perhaps a

quick look at the domestic violence section of the National Crime Prevention website illustrates

the "blinkered" attitude that prevails in any discussion on domestic violence.

http://www.ncavac.gov.au/ncp/division_2/htmi/d2-t6-4a.htm

The reading literature on this site is confined to reports about women as victims and men as

perpetrators. We are presented with titles like, The Legal System's Treatment of NESB Women

Victims of Violence; Violence Against Women -, Women's Safety Survey; Violence Against

Women in the Home; Evaluating Criminal Justice Programs for Violent Men and Who pays the

Economic Cost of Violence Against Women.

There is not one study showing that perpetrators of domestic violence are found equally

amongst men and women - yet there are more than one hundred international studies to prove

this is so.

(Attached) Neither is there any mention of the study carried out by Australian

researchers - Bruce Headey, Dorothy Scott and David de Vaus. They produced the 1999 study,

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN AUSTRALIA: ARE WOMEN AND MEN EQUALLY VIOLENT?

Dr.

Sotirios Sarantakos who conducted studies into family domestic violence

and whether

women's claims to be acting in self-defence hold true,

is not mentioned either. (Studies are

available on request) This leads one to suspect that studies producing results confirming

women's violence do not figure in the ideologically stifled confines of this authority's mantra.

Perhaps I am judging too harshly. There is one exception that has slipped through. That is the

latest research into teenage abuse, Young People and Domestic Violence

. The study found

that more boys than girls had experienced domestic violence at the hands of their partners - 37

per cent versus 36 per cent. The teenagers even reported their parents abused each other

equally.

John Coochey, Canberra quoted from the study in an extract from his letter to the Canberra

Times:

The experience of young people who had witnessed domestic violence showed "the most

common pattern was two way domestic violence? The most severe disruptions on all indicators

occurred in those households where both male to female and female to male violence was

reported".

For most people it is a frightening thought, for men in particular, to realise that mothers, who are

viewed by society as the "gentle hand that rocks the cradle" could in fact be the perpetrator of

dreadful harm to their children and their husbands/partners. Even the Women's Safety Survey

identified 27 per cent of the abuse suffered by women was committed by other women, but this

figure received little or no prominence.

Page 4

Melanie Phillips, a noted UK social commentator said, "Men are terrified of being thought

prejudiced against women, not least because of an old-fashioned sense of chivalry. They look at

the absence of women among captains of industry or Members of Parliament; they look at the

football hooligan and the burglar from hell and they think it must be true that women are their

victims. But life's a lot more complicated; and the result of such brow-beating into false

stereotypes is that everyone ultimately becomes a loser".

Are researchers failing to maintain their independence?

Research in this country seems to have been heavily influenced by academics, who are at the

forefront of an anti-male, anti-father network that seeks to deconstruct and reconstruct men as if

being a man is a pathology. As a result of this research we are seeing the emergence of

programmes that have little empathy with maleness and masculinity and even less for the

traditional family.

Much of the research produced could only be classified as attempts to justify predetermined

conclusions, in line with pro-feminist thinking, of course.

For example a graduate from Griffith University recently presented a paper to a Family Law

Conference

asking the following question of Queensland magistrates, "Do you feel comfortable

ousting a VIOLENT person from their home?"

Apart from the poor response rate

, several magistrates replied that it was immaterial whether

they felt comfortable or not and the vast majority, as one would expect, answered YES

It's a little like asking, "Should this convicted murderer go to jail?" Any sane and sensible person

would, I think, naturally answer 'YES'.

By using the word 'violent', the author's question presumed the person was guilty and in many

instances that has not yet been decided by the court, particularly if an interim order has been

granted without the accused being present. Field agreed that if she had removed the word

'violent' the response would have been different.

Much of her paper included phrases such as "women and children escaping violence...... and

"most often women and children are forced to relocate to a refuge". She referred to women and

children as "the survivors of violence". In describing ouster orders she said, "it prohibits HIM

from entering the residence", "overrides HIS legal title and interest in the property". The

assumption throughout her paper followed the familiar feminist concept that "only the female is

ever the victim of violence perpetrated by a male".

When it was pointed out that nearly 20 percent of DV applications are from men, Field

responded that they had taken gender considerations into account, but then added, that most

applications from men are "cross-applications" as if by implication this meant they could not

possibly be victims of domestic violence. Yet there are studies showing the mutuality of abuse

between couples.

The scope of her endeavour has, in our opinion, been seriously limited by the

agenda that only women are to be regarded as victims of domestic violence.

A presentation from Professor Sandra Berns, also from Griffith University started with an

admission that she and her colleague, Dr John Touchie had failed to prove their assumption that

men's and fathers' rights websites are promoting the use of claims of parental alienation

syndrome as a "tactic or strategy" in Family Court custody disputes.

Page 5

Despite not being able to prove their theory the report was written, in my opinion, to diminish the

importance of allegations of parental alienation syndrome. The authors, using words such as

"tactic or strategy" infer a deliberate use of cunning to gain some end. No acknowledgment is

given that perhaps the allegations may be true. Rather the paper is more concerned in 'proving

the ineffectiveness of claims of PAS, the time involved and monetary cost of investigating such

allegations. They seem to place considerable importance on whether the person who alleges

PAS is self-represented or not. Quite why is not clear, but it would seem to me to be a logical

progression in a long drawn out case when a parent is trying to see their children and the other

parent is denying or disrupting contact that monies for legal representation would run out.

The Brisbane Courier Mail reporter Margaret Wenham said "Their report said alienation

syndrome, although not widely accepted by the psychiatric community, was being increasingly

promoted on fathers' rights websites in America, Australia, Canada and the UK as a "magic

bullet to "get" a former spouse and obtain contact or residence".

As the study found that only 2 of each gender out of 37 cases had received information from a

support group, one would think that the authors would be keen to set the record straight.

However, this does not appear to have happened.

Their finding that as many women as men make these claims would seem to be at odds with

most other overseas research

that suggests PAS is more often present in children living in

female headed households than vice versa.

Well-known critic of statistical misinformation, John Coochey unearthed some interesting rules

governing feminist research. He illustrated the implications in the following passage from his

paper Myths and Realities or All the Facts that Fit we Print

(Paper attached).

In March 1996 the ACT Department of Health released a report entitled Review of ACT

Sexual Assault Services (9) which stated without any evidence that one in four women had

been the victim of sexual assault. It was largely based on an earlier report Many Paths for

Healing prepared by the Canberra Women's Health Centre, funded by the Commonwealth

and Territory Governments. This had found 20 per cent of respondents to a survey had been

the victims of organized ritual abuse, formerly known as satanic ritual abuse-black masses

torture chambers etc. This obviously means the ACT must have more covens complete with

torture chambers than Catholic Grammar schools. And absolutely ridiculous study, but which

was accepted publicly by the ACT Government! In fact a British Government study found

only three such cases over a four year period and in the US only one out of 12,264 cases

was substantiated. The origin of this insanity can perhaps be found in the WHS report, page

Feminist research methodology

· The distinction between subjective and objective research is rejected. All research

occurs in a social context and reflects the researchers way of seeing the world.

· The production of emancipatory knowledge and empowerment of those who are

being researched is a central focus.

· The research process should contribute positively to consciousness raising and

transformative social action"

With such methodology , it is not surprising that stupidity occurs. But how on earth does it get

included in Government policy?

Page 6

Research becomes valueless when it sets out to support a predetermined conclusion that is

formed as a result of obvious bias. Figures can, after all, be manipulated to provide a multitude

of answers - it depends on the questions asked.

More anti-father propaganda in the name of research?

The rise of fathers' rights groups in Australia has caused some concern among feminist

academics, prompting the production of two reports. Miranda Kaye and Julia Tolmie with the

'help' of Professor Regina Greycar, at the University of Sydney, based their work on interviews

with various personnel from men's groups and by searching through submissions made to

government inquiries.

Kaye & Tolmie's attempts to define the groups' attitudes to issues concerning family law, contact

with children, child support, and domestic violence, in my opinion fall far short of academic

excellence. The standards, normally expected from university faculty members, appear to have

been forgotten in their attempts to grasp at straws to belittle men's groups.

I cannot speak for other groups, but in our own case, I well remember the conversation with the

researcher, who firstly claimed to be compiling a list of organisations for government reference.

Not exactly an honest appraisal of the reason for his call.

For an example of the errors or deliberate misinformation contained in the first report, "Fathers'

Rights Groups in Australia and Their Engagement with Issues in Family Law"

I refer to the

following:

Under the heading Custody/residence the authors wrote:

"Men's Rights Agency CLAIMS (my emphasis) that, of the men who actually go to court, only

18% get sole custody" and then they comment "these statistical claims are generally

unreferenced by the groups and so it is unclear what their data sources are".

I said, "18 percent of fathers gain custody by 'consent'" not by going 'to court'. I provided the

researcher with the details of the study by Sophy Bordow 1994

and spent quite some time

explaining to him, the difference between shared/sole/split custody. Quite how the authors can

make a claim that that our sources are "unreferenced" and then go onto use the very same

study themselves in the next paragraph is inexplicable.

Secondly, under the Legal Aid section , notation 313, the authors wrote:

"The Men's Rights Agency CLAIMS [my emphasis] that the legal aid dollar is split 2:1 in favour

of women".

Once again using the word "CLAIMS" Kaye and Tolmie attempt to cast doubt on the information

tendered, but only 6 lines later they confirm that MRA's comments are correct, that is if

mathematical calculation has not nowadays succumbed to feminisation. According to Kaye and

Tolmie's version "men receive approximately 32 - 39 percent of all Legal Aid funding in family

law matters, Legal Aid in Australia 1993-1994, Statistical Yearbook. Now doesn't that equate

pretty closely to a 2 to 1 ratio of distribution?

Page 7

In their final report published in the Melbourne Law Journal "Discoursing Dads: The Rhetorical

Devices of Fathers' Rights Groups"

they continue their denigration of men's groups, in

particular our own organisation, by repeating newspaper allegations that were known to be false.

When legal academics, who are engaged in funded research resort to using newspaper articles

as the basis for their commentary, and ignore evidence to negate the information, one might

question if they are engaged in quasi-journalism or credible research. Journalists, at least, have

a professional standard that requires the subject to be given the right of response prior to

publication. Kaye & Tolmie gave us no such opportunity.

Censorship applies to 'men's issues':

Loyalty to an extreme pro-feminist doctrine is creating a barrier between men and women that is

present not only in the domestic violence industry, but sadly, in our universities too. Just

recently, on July 18 2000, the Guild Council at the University of NSW, banned their magazine,

Tharunka from producing an upcoming "men's issue" that would have dealt with the 'men in

present society, including health, suicides rates, imprisonment and men's attitudes to

feminism'.

The Guild Council said it "condemns any proposal to produce a men's edition or 'white

heterosexual male' edition of Tharunka. Accordingly Guild Council directs the Media

Directors/Tharunka Editors not to produce any such editions or publish material which

contravenes general Guild policy (eg K9.4), or Anti Discrimination Legislation, or, which

undermines the purpose of women's, lesbian/gay, indigenous or ethnic students' departments."

At the same time, the Council passed a motion approving the publication of a Women's Edition

of Tharunka!

Educational staff often find themselves silenced and those who fail to abide by the restrictions

will lose their tenure or their working life will be made so unpleasant they are forced to resign.

The latest in line is Jeffery Asher. Albeit a Canadian, his situation has probably been mirrored

here in Australia many times, especially in our primary schools where men have been

discouraged from becoming teachers by the threat of false child abuse or sexual harassment

allegations.

Asher, a professor at Montreal's Dawson College, found his "men's studies" and "feminist

propaganda" course cancelled after a four person committee accused him of belittling and

marginalising women. Asher, who was judged outstanding by 85% of his predominantly female

class equipped his students with the skills to analyse the information put before them, instead of

blithely accepting everything that is said as fact. For telling the truth about the falsity of domestic

violence statistics and the equity pay dispute amongst many other issues, he was reassigned to

teach courses in critical thinking, science and technology and business ethics.

One of his accusers, committee member, Professor Greta Nemiroff, had been caught on the

school's security videotape on Sept. 3, 1997, pasting pamphlets on Mr. Asher's office bulletin

board, covering articles on preferential hiring practices and sexual politics. She was not even

censured.

Accusing the "politically incorrect"

Page 8

Oppressive regimes have always used tactics of expulsion and alienation to quash unwanted

criticism. Unfortunately, here in Australia, most attempts to put forward another point of view

have been quickly silenced by accusations of sexism, racism and any other 'ism' or 'phobia' that

comes to mind as a result of an undue adherence to political correctness.

A Canadian social commentator, Walter Schneider challenged the bias and political correctness

displayed in a recently published article, "The Y Front" (Good Weekend magazine24/8/00) as

follows:

"Let me take a single paragraph from the article (indented below) and allow

me to make a few observations with respect to manifestations of serious

anti-family and anti-male bias in the article itself and also in society.

"The men's rights crusade has been kicking around in Australia

since at least 1992, when the group Men's Confraternity led a protest

march on Western Australia's Parliament House to decry the evils of feminism."

It is obvious that the author of the article feels that it isn't politically correct for men

to complain about being discriminated against. In case that sentence didn't

get the idea across to the reader, the next one surely will. Even readers who got

the point of the preceding sentence will have it reinforced by this one.

"That march was symptomatic of the movement itself, which has largely

been a crusade of angry dads with an extreme right-wing view that

feminism and the Family Court are undermining men."

The preceding sentence states in effect that any expression of displeasure

that any man or father may offer is politically incorrect, that any father who

complains is in fact angry, worse, that to complain is to automatically secede

from society and to become a member of the dreaded "EXTREMIST RIGHT

WING." It's a wonder that the author of the article didn't put in the additional

modifier "religious" that is usually brought up in connection with such a statement.

That is normally done in response to any expressions of displeasure concerning the

consequences of the planned destruction of the traditional nuclear family.

Few people seem to notice any longer that when derogatory statements about

traditional social and moral standards are made and reinforced through mentioning

the "extremist right wing," that such views are themselves an attack on the sanctity of

established moral traditions, that in fact such views are expressions from the

outermost end of the radical extremist left wing.

How come nobody *ever* mentions THE RADICAL EXTREMIST LEFT WING and

the fact that its views have been elevated from disrepute to social acceptability,

whereas conservative views -- considered to be a sign of respectability and stability

less than a generation ago -- have now fallen into disrepute?

Anti-male, anti-father and anti-family bias has crept into the debate about families and family law.

It is contaminating research studies and government attempts to change the policies dealing

with these issues are stifled. This bias resulting from the pro feminist agenda is perhaps

responsible, more than any other reason, for the mess we find ourselves in today - record

Page 9

divorce rates; dysfunctional families; children abused and neglected; children failing at school,

particularly boys; and record suicide levels, particularly men.

Proforma questions do not canvas divorce/separation prevention:

I have considered the questions you have asked in the proforma response with concern because

they do not canvas the exploration of ideas that might help to restore some relationships. They

seem to be based on the "given" that the relationship is over - and what can we now do to

smooth the path to separation?

Some might suggest 'no-fault divorce' is precisely the reason our divorce rate has reached such

heights. By making divorce easier it has lessened the commitment to marriage.

One might ask the question - has the government now adopted social policies that accept high

levels of divorce because they believe this is good for our nation? Have they lost the will to make

the changes needed to restore confidence in family life, or is it a phenomenon they can do

nothing about? I would suggest the government should seriously consider adopting policies that

aim to restore some stability and expectation for future security. When one marries it should not

be intended as a short term measure until something better comes along. There is a growing

movement of both men and women who have woken up to the anti family, anti-male agenda that

is pervading all facets of our life. The time will come when enough of us will say enough.

The primary responsibility of any government must surely be to protect and maintain the family

unit, which forms the cornerstone of our society. There is ample research to show the harmful

effects of separation/divorce on children.

Every effort should be made prior to separation to encourage couples to stay together. We see

no sign of that in this inquiry.

Counsellors admit "they got it wrong":

Social historian, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's book, The Divorce Culture explores the attitudinal

change that brought about what she calls "expressive divorce". During the 1970's the 'therapy'

professions recognised the opportunity to expand their services to counsel individuals seeking

their own happiness and self-fulfilment. This change resulted in a shift in focus away from

considering the good of the whole (family) in preference to supporting the individual no matter

what effect their decisions may have on others.

Counsellors and psychologists in the USA have recently acknowledged that for the past thirty

years, they have been incorrectly advising couples to separate if they argue. This advice was

based on a mistaken premise that arguing couples could not live together and should therefore

divorce. But no-one thought to ask couples who stay together, if they argued! Here is an edited

report about the findings:

Sent.- Friday, June 30, 2000 6.-12 PN4

Divorce Prevention Said Flawed

by STEVEN K. PAULSON

Associated Press Writer

Page 10

DENVER (AP) -- Saying they have taken the wrong approach to marriage counseling for three

decades, more than 100 scholars, religious and civic leaders pledged to turn the tide on divorce.

The pact to take a new tack in fostering strong marriages was signed on Thursday at a

conference addressing the breakdown of the family and growing divorce rates.

"For the past 30 years, marriage counselors have been operating with faulty information, and the

divorce rate has soared," said Diane Sollee, director of the Coalition for Marriage, Family and

Couples Education. "It's not because we were bad or stupid, we just had the wrong information."

"Counseling policies are now based on the acceptance of family breakdown and focus on

dealing with the aftermath instead of prevention, leading to a 50 percent divorce rate nationwide",

she said.

Those policies stemmed from studies of failed marriages that cited frequent disagreements as

the cause of failure. When researchers went back to study successful marriages, they found

those couples also disagreed over some of the same issues such as money, sex and children.

Those who's marriage ended in divorce concluded they picked the wrong person because of

frequent fights, Sollee said.

"We need to get out the message now, and tell people before they get married that it's OK to

fight," she said. "Right now, we're sending couples out onto the football field and not telling them

the rules."

Counselors should teach couples communication skills and how to handle their disagreements.

Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education:

Commonsense is once again emerging in some parts of the world, at least, so perhaps there

will never be a better time than now to suggest a course of action that firstly encourages people

to resolve their problems and stay together, before they take the 'path to easier' separation.

By this we do not mean a course of counselling that tells people they must not argue, or that any

power disparity in the relationship must be levelled out before agreement can be reached. There

are times when one person, because of their knowledge or expertise in a particular subject, may

be seen to be the one with the most decision making power, and at times the other partner, with

their knowledge, may be more suited to make the final decisions. That should not be seen as a

'put down' of one party, rather a sensible use of the available talents the couple bring to the

relationship.

We need courses that provide strategies for people to voice their disagreement without resorting

to aggressiveness. People need to be able to learn how to give and take criticism, for it is only in

this environment that consensus can be reached and people can feel they have been heard. If

concensus cannot be reached, as it may not be in all instances, then many long-standing

marriages have survived by resorting to the old maxim "we'll agree to disagree".

We are obviously not suggesting that all couples should stay together no matter what, but there

must be some checks and balances to try to slow down the increasing divorce rate. A positive

counselling course of this nature should be a requirement before separation and could be

encouraged prior to issuing sole parent pensions.

Our own organisation has considerable success in reuniting couples by providing them with all

the facts, - realistic financial information that may vary from the unrealistic expectations created

Page 11

by other groups. The difficulties for the children of divorce, the costs of running two households

and the diminished value of joint assets when split between two can become persuasive

reasons for both parents to try again to restore the love and affection they obviously felt for each

other in the past.

Often couples are more willing to try again when counsellors are prepared to guide them

towards that goal by exploring the more positive aspects of their relationship prior to what may

have been just a minor 'hiccup'. Instead much of the counselling on offer seems to escalate a

minor incident/disagreement into enormous proportions with the only solution on offer -

separation/divorce.

A caller on Brisbane ABC radio 3LO 14/9/00, concerned about the advice given by counsellors

pointed out to Ian McDonald, Relationships Australia that many of the counsellors seem to be

divorcees themselves. She asked the question "Who counsels the counsellors?" No answer

was given.

There needs to be a monitoring system to maintain the competency of our counselling services.

Measures must be put in place to ensure a counsellor's solutions to his/her own bad experience,

that may have been formulated in an atmosphere of bitterness and hatred, are not passed on to

their client.

Women's Rights and Men's Suicide:

Most men and women acknowledge the justification for equal rights for all people and

considerable effort has been made to support the concept. However, we are seeing a movement

that has gone far beyond the concept of equal rights and is now creating a gender war between

men and women.

Over-concentration on rights for women has caused its own imbalance. A growing number of

women have no concept that along with their rights they have responsibilities and if their rights

are going to be exerted it will have an effect on others rights. Few seem to understand that for

every right that is created, someone or something else is in some way restricted. In some

cases of family breakdown the restriction can be so severe as to remove the motivation for life

itself. Witness the suicide rate among fathers of divorce. 2028 adult men aged 20 years and

over committed suicide in 1998.

Professor Pierre Baume estimates 70 percent of these are

due to relationship breakdown.

That is 27 per week. A national disgrace! We first attempted

to raise this issue at the Men's Forum in Canberra 1998,

but it has taken the suicide of a

federal politician Greg Wilton before any response was noted. Then it became the subject of

'depressive illness', not a depressed reaction to an entirely curable set of circumstances that

could be alleviated, if a father's role in his children's lives was acknowledged and facilitated as

soon as separation takes place.

When you take away children from their fathers or severely restrict their contact, you take away

a father's reason for living!

We are sure the sequel for mothers would be just the same if they lost their children at the same

rate as men lose their children, as a result of Family Court decisions.

No-fault' - an unrealistic expectation:

Page 12

To expect that a no-fault divorce concept would sit comfortably in an adversarial fault based

system of trial would appear to be naïve. The incongruity of the situation must have been

obvious, for courts by their very nature must decide who is at fault. Someone is found guilty or

not guilty. Someone is right and someone is wrong. The judges' years of legal training in an

adversarial system would be hard to overcome and unfortunately no matter how sound the idea

might have appeared, the nature of human beings is not, we believe, magnanimous enough

embrace the concept of 'no-fault'. People always seem to need someone to blame, whether as a

result of their own failure or in order to validate the wrong done to them. Consequently the angst

previously associated with 'fault-decided divorce' has merely been transferred to

residency/contact and property settlement decisions.

Men could be forgiven for thinking they are being punished for some reason, when they find they

can only see their children for minimal times, as specified by the court and the majority of the

lifetime accumulation of assets is given to their ex partner. The final insult is to garnishee the

paying parent's income, usually the father's, as if they are not to be trusted to support their

children.

The child support legislation came into being on the basis of claims that less than 30% of liable

parents were paying to support their children. It is equally possible though, that a good proportion

of the remaining 70% did not acknowledge receiving child support, for to have done so would

result in a reduction of pension payments and possible prosecution by DSS for not declaring

child support payments.

No-fault has mostly benefited women and our statistics show that if fault were still taken into

account women would qualify as being in the majority. This may be a quirk in the statistics in that

perhaps Men's Rights Agency tends to attract men who have reason to feel genuinely aggrieved

by their wife's behaviour and her unilateral decision to separate or the statistics may be indicative

of the general population. Further studies would confirm or disprove this. Perhaps the finding

might take the gloss off the aura surrounding women. Kate Fillion investigates this topic in her

book "Lip Service".

On the cover of her book it says:

Lip Service: The Truth About Women's Darker Side in Love, Sex and Friendship,

Canadian journalist Kate Fillion takes on one of the great myths of gender relationships:

that women are always the sweet, innocent victims of male duplicity. It's a myth which,

she argues, prevents women from taking responsibility for their own lives, and in many

cases from breaking out of patterns of self-destructive behavior for which men wrongly

take the blame.

We can live with "no-fault" family law legislation providing automatic blame is not

assigned to the father, as appears to be the case now.

We cannot close this commentary without bringing to your attention concerns we have about

sole custody, mediation, the principle of the "best interests of the child", Section 121 of the

Family Law Act, and the unfair practice of restricting DNA testing to a small group of court

approved pathology companies, despite our misgivings that the formulation of this group is just

another exercise in tokenism and no real changes will result.

Page 13

Shared Parenting:

MRA is particularly concerned for the well being of our children and we spend much of our time

encouraging fathers to stay in their children's lives. To this end we would strongly urge the

adoption of shared parenting, for by doing so, children will be able to maintain a meaningful

relationship with both parents.

There are many examples of week and week about, split week, or other arrangements that result

in children being able to spend close to 50 percent of the time with each parent. It is an ideal way

in the unfortunate world of divorce/separated parents to ensure children gain from both parents

being involved in their upbringing. Shared parenting also limits the opportunities for friction

between parents - they only see each other on change over once week, instead of twice a

weekend and sometimes twice during the week.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for the Group to talk to some of these parents, who successfully

manage their lives in this way.

Six years ago most counsellors seemed to oppose the idea of shared parenting because they

felt it placed too great a burden on the custodial parent. And of course, some in government have

the attitude of "how will the mother be able to get the sole parents pension if they do not have the

children for the majority of the time. That is a particularly poor attitude in our opinion. It places the

well being of the mother above that of the children and the father. We are however noticing a

better acceptance of shared parenting among some counselling services and the judiciary.

If the expectation of financial gain for the parent who keeps the children is removed, and an

expectation that both parents will continue to fully participate in their children's future becomes

the standard norm, then much of the acrimony that is present today will vanish. The relationship

between the two parents and the children can be fully developed and the children can look

forward to a hopeful future, albeit in separated circumstances.

Sanford Braver, ends his book, Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths

with the words:

"…a future in which fathering is as valid as mothering; a future in which fathers are empowered

by the courts, mothers and society to remain positive forces in their children's lives; a future in

which mothers and fathers, though no longer connected through marriage, remain equally

committed to working together for the good of their children - the only constituency that ultimately

matters."

To this end we offer for your consideration a Swedish study by Lars Tornstom

discussing the

benefits of shared parenting. The study has just been translated from Swedish into English by

MRA's psychologist Dr. Mark Wood.

Mediation:

Mediation is logically the ideal method to resolve problems between people, however it has

become apparent that mediation only works if both parties are prepared to be fair with each other

and the mediator remains just that - and does not impose their own views on the couple.

Page 14

Unfortunately a growing number of reports to this Agency suggest this is not the case. Many

fathers, in particular, feel pressured to sign agreements that they consider are not in the best

interests of their children and themselves as a parent.

A mediator and a Legal Aid representaive taking sides with a mother can present a formidable

force against a father. Few are able to withstand the affect, especially when threats are made

that if they don't sign the agreement, they will be not able to see their children. Many of these

parents, usually fathers, have already waited three months to see their children.

Often it is implied that the father is "failing in his duty to his children" if he does not agree to the

conditions demanded of him. Or they are told "There is only 20 minutes of the [mediation]

session left - make up your mind" or "this is the best you can expect" or "we will not on fund your

case if you refuse to agree to this".

As long as an agreement is signed for even the most minimal of contact, say 2 hours per week,

Legal Aid consider they have fulfilled their commitment to the parents and the children and will

not on-fund a father who feels this amount of contact is not enough to maintain a real

parent/child relationship with his children.

We would suggest the pressure can be alleviated by allowing a 'cooling-off' period of say 30

days. Such provisions are available for even the most basic door to door selling agreements.

Surely our families when making some of the most important decisions they will ever be called

on to make in their lives, deserve this option.

In the meantime contact with the children should be arranged without delay, unless there are

other reasons to deny contact. There is no justification to allow a situation of 'blackmail' to sign

agreements on the basis of contact denial.

Our advice to all our people will continue to be: tell the mediators that you need time to consider

the proposals and will give them an answer when you have reached a decision. And "do not sign

any agreement unless you are completely satisfied that it is fair for you and your children".

Efforts should be made to ensure mediators are trained to not impose their own views on the

parties and a cooling off time period after the session should be available.

The best interest principle not always the best idea:

Recently, the Director General of the Swedish Justice Department, Goran Lambertz discussed

with a small audience, the changing face of the concept "in the best interests of the child".

raised the prospect that strict adherence to the principle ignored other stakeholders such as the

parents, who also have a right to enjoy 'family life'.

He counselled caution to ensure undesirable behaviours are not ignored in deference to the best

interest's principle. For example, he believes it sometimes wrongfully leads to a result where a

parent who has kidnapped or retained a child is given sole custody on the basis that a child

requires continuity. This is in sharp contrast to the other parent's interest in family life.

He reminded the forum that the European Court of Human Rights had just decided with a 13 to 4

majority that denying a father access to his child is against human rights (basic family rights).

The court awarded him costs and compensation to the total of about US$40,000.

Page 15

Section 121 removal:

Federal MP Roger Price recently tried to gain his party's approval to remove the Section 121

restrictions that prevent identification of the parties in Family Law cases. He failed in his initiative,

but his attempt prompted a number of polls among the general public.

An overwhelming 93 per cent in a Sydney Daily Telegraph poll voted to abolish section 121.

Perhaps this overwhelming figure is an indictment of the suspicion surrounding the operations of

the Family Court. A court of justice needs to be open and accountable. The Family Court of

Australia is neither.

A good example of the Family Court secretiveness occurred at the beginning of April 1999. The

Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson made good use of the media to announce a reform plan for the

Family Court. An article in The Australian newspaper said the plan would reflect the "firsthand

feedback" from meetings between court personnel, 100 litigants, family lawyers and welfare

groups.

According to Justice Nicholson the criticism that emerged from the focus groups was different

from the "second-hand" feedback of men's groups and the media. The article confirmed that

costs, delay and anti-male bias had not figured as primary concerns and that men's groups had

not been invited into the consultation process. It also said litigants had been security-vetted and

that process may well have excluded any who felt considerable discontent with the Family Court

processes.

In an effort to find out how many men and how many women clients had participated I asked Ms

Robinson, Canberra Family Court for the gender breakdown. She agreed to forward the

information as she realised it would not involve any breach of privacy. However, my request was

personally refused by the Chief Justice less than an hour afterwards. Did he not want too close a

scrutiny of research, paid for by the public purse, that could perhaps be regarded as a

testimonial for the Family Court, rather than an independent critique?

The Australian people have a right to feel confident in their court system. The Family Court

attracts the most criticism, yet when people complain they are charged with 'scandalising the

court'.

Perhaps one of the prime reasons for the scrutiny of our justice system as a whole, is

the discontent caused by the Family Court for it touches so many people - not just parents and

children, but grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and friends.

DNA Testing

For some time now we have seen the rumblings of objection to hair DNA testing to determine

paternity. Presumably because it is offering men a method to check whether they are the father

or not of a child without having to seek the mother's permission.

The Age quoted the New South Wales privacy commissioner, Mr Chris Puplick, who said the

practice was unethical and an illustration of the need for formal guidelines about genetic testing

and access to genetic material.

But this reasoning seems to be a little back to front. I can think of nothing more unethical than

being tricked into believing a child is yours when he/she is not. The only person who knows that

Page 16

the alleged father may not be the father is the mother and there should be no excuse for her

deceit.

Using hair samples for DNA testing is a discrete method of reassuring parents of the identity of

their children, without alerting the child to the problem. Often fathers still acknowledge children

as their own even though the DNA test shows they are not the biological father. But without doubt

they have the right to know and the right to make the decision to continue as a child's parent if

they wish.

We need to look at Part 11 A Parentage Testing Procedures and Reports of the Family Law

Regulations to ensure the legislation keeps up with modern technology and allows parents to

access these simpler, cheaper, but equally competent methods of DNA testing.

Some months ago when we started searching for other DNA service I was surprised by the

reaction from some of the established NATA testers. Quite vociferous advice was given to deter

my interest in hair DNA testing. So much so that I became concerned these people were more

interested in retaining their share of the market than providing an easier to access service.

If these restrictions were operational in the general business community, a challenge could be

issued under the Trade Practices legislation. Unfortunately the Family Law Regulations escape

this scrutiny by virtue of Section 51 of the Trade Practices Act.

I can understand the need to ensure the samples submitted for testing belong to the people

identified as the subject father and the child[ren]. Apart from that priority which can be complied

with easily, I can see no reason to not support the use of hair DNA.

I would urge the Forum to consider recommendations to expand the regulations to include all

forms of DNA testing.

In the Best interests of the Family

Sadly, our society has not challenged the ever increasing divorce figures or the rapidly rising

numbers of sole parents with children with any success, mainly because of the entrenched anti

family beliefs held by many of those who are in a position to influence the policy makers of this

country. Just as the early feminist movement despised women who chose to stay home with

their young children, hardline feminism has evolved into a movement that seems to hold the

same dislike for fathers and families.

The Family Court has, despite attempts to change the ideology remained true to a 'maternal

preference'.

Until we can challenge the research conducted under the pro-feminist agenda by putting forward

studies soundly based on approved research methods, designed to provide independent results,

there will be no change.

Research undertaken into family law issues, including residency/contact and property settlement

issues, the affects of divorce/separation on children and their parents, child support and spousal

maintenance issues, domestic violence needs to be commissioned from independent services

and the criteria for the research needs to be defined by a committee comprising all interested

parties.

Page 17

It is a disservice to Australian families to allow the allocation of large sums of research funding to

a small number of academics, whose past research seems to be unable to find anything

favourable about men/fathers and portrays women as victims of male dominance, if this is the

only research allowed.

If the government does not wish to ensure it funds only unbiased studies then it must out of

fairness allocate similar funds for studies commissioned by people who display a little more

sympathy for men and fathers. We would, in the interest of fairness, prefer the original option. It

should not be necessary to extend the gender war by engaging in "his and her" studies. "Her"

studies are already on the table.

Stewart Rein, author of "Betrayal of the Child"

is extremely critical of the extremist cultural or

radical feminists. He says, "Their private political agendas and anti-male attitudes have helped to

create circumstances threatening the very core and concord of male-female relationships.

Ultimately, they are a real and present danger to the human rights of children.

The above comments about research should not be taken to mean I endorse more research,

rather less, but of an independent nature.

However a call for independent research should not contribute to a further delay in making the

decisions that can improve the outcomes for separated parents and their children. Far too often

these days it appears our governments (State and Federal) are unwilling to make the decisions

needed without the backing of studies, inquiries, commissions as if they have lost their own

confidence in their decision making abilities. Or perhaps they are just not willing to take

responsibility for the decisions they make?

We need to understand the damage that is being caused to Australian children as a result of

family separation and divorce under the present regime. We need to act now to give both

parents the reasonable expectation their relationship, whether married or defacto, will survive

without policies providing encouragement to separate. If such a separation does occur then both

parents should be able to fully participate in their children's lives and not find themselves

consigned to "visitor" status.

Children do need both parents!

Susan M Price

Men's Rights Agency

A national non-profit organisation providing services for men and their families

Tel: 07 3805 5611 Fax: 07 3200 8769

Email: support@mensrights.com.au

Endnotes:

Pauline Smit, Letters to Editor, Sydney Morning Herald, Brisbane Courier Mail, Melbourne

Age. [21/8/00] and Melbourne Sun Herald, 31/8/00

Beyond these walls, Report of the Queensland Domestic Violence Taskforce 1988. Not

only was this report dismissive of the 41 male respondents out of a total of 661 who

answered the questionnaire, the authors provided incomplete information when

Page 18

presenting information from another research project. On page 471 a table taken from

the Conflict Tactics Scale method of research (Straus and Gelles 1986) is illustrated. It

shows the category "Husband to Wife Overall and Severe Violence categories, but

neglects to show the 'other half' of the table - that shows Wife to Husband violence. If the

CTS findings had been shown in their entirety it would have challenged the authors

statements made on page 16 that they would refer to the perpetrator by the "masculine

pronoun and the victim - the feminine".

Chief Stipendiary Magistrate Stan Deer, Brisbane Courier Mail 5/7/95

Christine Hakim, "Five Feminist Myths about women's employment" British Journal of

Sociology 46(3): 429-455

See, for example, Judith S. Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, (in press) 2000. The

Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (New York: Hyperion); Sara McLanahan and Gary

Sandefur, 1994. Growing Up With A Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press); Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, 1997. A

Generation At Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press); Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, (in press) 2000. The Case for

Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier and Better-Off Financially (New

York: Doubleday).

Is a mismatch between women's choices and government policy hurting children?

Vincent Patrick and Antonia Feitz National Social Policy Conference - University of New

South Wales 21/7/99

Extract: "In her keynote address at the National Social Policy Conference in 1997, Belinda

Probert spoke of the polarisation of women into groups with differing expectations and

prospects. In Britain, Dex et al. (1996) have reported the polarisation of mothers into

"highly educated, high wage mothers and lower educated low-wage mothers", again with

little in common. Hakim (1996) also speaks of a "heterogeneous and polarising

population of adult women". In Australia, Birrell & Rapson (1998) have reported that there

are at least two marriage ‘markets’, and that the labour expectations of the women in

each market are quite different."

AVOs: Apprehended violence industry or disease? Trevor Nyman

Law Society Journal (NSW, Australia), December 1999, page 52. Cite as (1999) 37 (11)

LSJ 52

Counselling alternative, Letters, Trevor Nyman Law Society Journal (NSW, Australia),

February 1995, page 11. Cite as (1995) 33 (1) LSJ 11

References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male partners

An Annotated Bibliography, 1997, 1998 by Martin S. Fiebert, Department of Psychology,

California State University, Long Beach.

10.

Domestic Violence in Australia: Are women and men equally violent? Bruce Heady,

Dorothy Scott & David deVaus, Melbourne and La Trobe Universities, August 1999

11.

Husband Abuse: Fact of Fiction? S. Sarantakos, Charles Sturt University

12.

Husband Abuse as Self Defence, S. Sarantakos, Charles Sturt University

Page 19

13.

Young people and domestic violence, D. Indermaur, University of WA

14.

Extract from letter to the Canberra Times 3/00 John Coochey

Women's Safety Survey ABS 4128.0 1996

16.

"The Rape of Justice", Melanie Phillips, The Spectator June 10, 2000.

17.

Issues for Magistrates in the making of ouster orders under the Domestic Violence

(Family Protection) Act 1989 Qld, Field, Currie, Carpenter, 10

World Conference

International Society of Family Law. July 2000

18.

38 Queensland magistrates responded to the survey out of a total of 96 - from notes

taken at the 10

World Conference International Society of Family Law. July 2000

19.

See notes 9 - 13

20.

The impact of the fathers' rights movement on strategies and tactics in complex

parenting litigation in Queensland, S. Berns, & J. Touchie 10

World Conference

International Society of Family Law. July 2000

21.

Custody battles denigrate parents, Margaret Wenham, Brisbane Courier Mail, 15/7/00

22.

A THERAPIST'S VIEW OF PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME, Mary Lund FAMILY

AND CONCILIATION COURTS REVIEW, Vol. 33 No. 3, July 1995 308-316

PAS usually involves a hated father and a loved mother. In the classic scenario, a father

has left a depressed, low functioning mother who overidentifies with the mother role. For

the child to be susceptible to alienation, the child usually feels abandoned by the father,

who may have departed precipitously, or is made to feel abandoned because of the

mother's statements, such as "he left us." The child clings to the low functioning mother

and may be caught in a "folly a deux" against the father as a way of bolstering her so she

can continue to care for the child. Rarely, the loved parent is the father and the hated one

the mother.

THE SPECTRUM OF PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME D. Conway Rand, PhD

American Journal of Forensic Psychology, Volume 15, Number 3, 1997.

PARENTS WHO INDUCE ALIENATION

Gender

Gardner's observation that mothers seem to engage in PAS behavior with significantly

greater frequency than fathers is born out by divorce research, as well as by the clinical

PAS literature. The California Children of Divorce Study found that in a nonclinical

sample, mothers were twice as likely as fathers to form PAS type alignments with their

children. When false allegations of abuse arise, as in more severe manifestations of

PAS, mothers also seem to comprise the majority. Mothers constituted 67 percent of the

accusers in the nationwide study which revealed that allegations of abuse in

divorce/custody disputes were found to be invalid about 50 percent of the time. Fathers

were the accusers in 22 percent of cases while third parties such as relatives and

professionals were the adult initiators 11 percent of the time. Where a third party was the

initiator of the allegation, a parent might also believe there was abuse. The numbers

reverse when it comes to physically abducting the child, with fathers the abductors from

60 percent to 70 percent of the time. There may be gender differences in how men and

women go about gaining control of their children and taking revenge on an ex-spouse,

Page 20

with men more inclined to physical kidnapping and women more inclined to

social/psychological abduction, which is how Clawar and Rivlin characterized severe

PAS.

23.

Myths and Realities or All the Facts that Fit we Print, John Coochey, Australian Crime

Prevention Council, Melbourne 17 - 20 October 1999.

24.

Fathers' Rights Groups in Australia and Their Engagement with Issues in Family Law,

Kaye & Tolmie, Australian Journal of Family Law (1998) 12

25.

S. Bordow, "Defended Custody Cases in the Family Court of Australia: Factors

Influencing the Outcome" (1994)8 AJFL 252.

26.

Letter of advice to MRA from John Hodgins, Qld Legal Aid Commission

27.

"Discoursing Dads: The Rhetorical Devices of Fathers' Rights Groups" Kaye & Tolmie,

Melbourne Law Journal, Vol 22 No 1, 1998

28.

Email communication to MRA 3/8/00

29.

Feminism claims another victim" Toronto Sun, August 19, 2000

30.

See Note 5

31.

Suicide deaths by Sex, by Age at Death, ABS 1998

32.

Professor Pierre Baume, head of the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and

Prevention at Griffith University in Queensland, found in a study of 4,000 suicides that

70% were caused by relationship break-ups. Men were found to commit suicide more

readily than women by a factor of nine to one. Donovan Research, Men’s Counselling,

Attorney-General’s Department 1998

33.

"Scaling the Brick Wall" - S. Price, Men's Relationship Forum 1998

34.

Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, Braver and O'Connell, Sanford Braver Ph.D. - a

professor of psychology at Arizona State University, recently completed and eight-year

study on divorced fathers and is widely regarded as one of the nation's leading authorities

on fatherhood and divorce.

Diane O'Connell, an award winning journalist whose work has appeared in many national

publications.

35.

Dwelling Choices for the Children of Separated Parents, (Separationsbarns boende) Lars

Tornstam, Translation by Dr. Mark Wood, Men's Rights Agency.

36.

The best interests of the child - a problematic and a changing concept, Göran Lambertz,

Director General - Ministry of Justice, Sweden, 10

World Conference International

Society of Family Law. July 2000

37.

Elsholz v Germany, European Court of Human Rights, 13/7/00 Strasbourg

38.

Judges soften as Family Court gets up close and personal, The Australian, Pg. 3 8/4/99

Page 21

39.

Street protester beats judges at own game, The Australian, 8/3/00

40.

Paternity lab tests branded unethical The Age 27/3/00

41.

Betrayal of Children, Forthcoming book by Stewart Rein - former Executive Director of

The Children's & Human Rights Council UK, 1994-1996, Europe 98, and former

Chairman of the Parliamentary Affairs Liaison Committee Families Need

Fathers UK, 1993-94, and an expert on international child abduction.