Driving the 2011 Gillard labor government's Family law changes �
Posted by: "Yuri Joakimidis" firstname.lastname@example.org
Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:03 am (PDT)
More on the Australian family law circumstance
As many single fathers also know, the so-called
family-violence amendments were passed by one vote only, that vote coming from
Tony Windsor, an Independent MP in name only it seems, who has sold out his
prior assurances to single fathers, we believe because of
inducements on offer from Julia Gillard’s minority government. http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2012/06/15/tony-windsor-villain-to-many-single-fathers-to-face-formidable-foe/
Villain to Many Single Fathers, To Face Formidable Foe
15 June 2012
As many single fathers are acutely aware, the Gillard Labor
government last November repealed the essence of Australia’s 2006 Shared
Parenting family law reforms, in the dead of night and with little meaningful
The Labor government passed amendments to the family law act,
which have not only weakened the rights of a child to a meaningful relationship
with both parents in the event of divorce,
but they have seen fit to go even further, much further in fact.
Julia Gillard and co saw fit to also
effectively embed a presumption of guilt against separated fathers, placing
them in a situation where false allegations of child abuse are all that is required to
deny fathers any contact at all with their children.
The impetus of these amendments have already been felt it seems,
providing the judiciary with the fortitude to once again hand-down outrageous
decisions, as in the recent case from federal
Magistrate Tom Altobelli. This decision goes against all the
principles of a child’s best interests, and is sure to be heralded as a
free-pass to other reckless mothers, ensuring that lying in Court will not only
continue to occur, but will become the gold standard strategy for any mother
wishing to secure sole-custody.
As many single fathers also know, the so-called family-violence
amendments were passed by one vote only, that vote coming from Tony Windsor, an
Independent MP in name only it seems, who has sold out his
prior assurances to single fathers, we believe because of
inducements on offer from Julia Gillard’s minority government.
response to our criticisms over his unconscionable behaviour has
done nothing to quell our suspicion that his remarkable about face had little
to do with his genuine beliefs, and quite possibly everything to do with his
privileged position in a hung parliament.
It is common knowledge that Tony Windsor has not only offended
single fathers with his unholy alliance with the Gillard Labor government. He
has also offended pretty much everyone else who expected him to act as an
independent. This includes a large chunk of his previously supportive New England electorate.
It was therefore inevitable that Windsor would be singled-out
come the next federal election, and it seems the Nationals may have found the
right person for the job already, another Independent MP (within State
parliament), who unlike Windsor, has maintained a reputation for sticking to
his principles and working for his electorate, despite the numbers in the
His name is Richard Torbay, a name that we are sure to hear from
of on the federal stage.
ON the streets of Armidale yesterday it was hard to find anyone
who doesn’t know and like Richard Torbay — and doesn’t intend to vote for him
at the next federal election.
“He’s so loved in this town, because he’s a person who can go
out there and do what is required, what people are crying out for,” said Samson
Baivucago, a manager at the Belgrave Twin cinema, which Mr. Torbay, a former
mayor, helped establish.
“People look up to him because he’s always there; he’s the face,
the voice, of the people.”
These sentiments show the scale of the task facing the local
federal independent MP, Tony Windsor, when he confronts Mr. Torbay at the next
As foreshadowed in The Australian yesterday, Mr. Torbay used the
local campus of the University of New England, where he began his working life
as a kitchen hand, to announce he was joining the Nationals and would seek
preselection to take on Mr. Windsor in New England.
Mr. Torbay has represented the state seat of Northern
Tablelands, which overlaps New England, as an independent for the past 13
years. His popularity extends into the wider reaches of the rural electorate.
Sheep and grain farmer David Mailler said Mr. Torbay had a
“window of opportunity” as a result of Mr. Windsor’s support for the minority
“Certainly, within the rural farming community that has cost
him,” he said. “I think he has struggled to crystallise in people’s minds why
he supports Gillard.”
Standing alongside Nationals federal leader Warren Truss, Mr.
Torbay said he had extracted guarantees he would be allowed to maintain a
degree of independence in the party room.
“It’s very important to me that this area does not become very
important in this hung parliament and then is forgotten after, or even
punished,” he said. “I don’t think there will be an independent in the (next)
parliament and I don’t think we’ll see a hung parliament again in our lifetime.
I think people will be voting against that and in some numbers.”
Mr. Truss said he would be delighted to campaign alongside his
new recruit at the election due in the middle of next year, as the Nationals
focus their resources on a few key NSW seats.
“This most certainly will be a priority seat for us,” he said.
“The whole of the state of NSW gives the Nationals its best
chance at the next election.”
But if there is one fly still circling the ointment, it is
Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce, who is seeking a seat in the House of
Senator Joyce, who grew up in the area, but now lives in
Queensland, yesterday refused to rule out a tilt at preselection for New
England. “I don’t rule anything in or out,” Senator Joyce said. “But I know
that Mr. Torbay has been drafted by the local electorate council, and I can’t
see why they would ask two people to stand.
“I know they’ve done the polling on Mr. Torbay versus Mr.
Windsor and me versus Mr. Windsor. Both of us beat Mr. Windsor, but Mr. Torbay
beat him by more.”
----- Forwarded Message
From:Yuri Joakimidis email@example.com
" <fathers-4- firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2012 5:23 AM
Subject:Driving the 2011 Gillard labor government's Family law changes –
Paranoid, Deluded & Psychotic Testimony
from the Fathers for Equality website http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2012/06/24/driving-the-2011-gillard-family-law-changes-paranoid-deluded-psychotic-testimony/
Driving the 2011 Gillard Family law changes – Paranoid,
Deluded & Psychotic Testimony
To the average viewer, this video testimony (and
others like it) on how the Family Courtdecided to take a young boy away
from his loving mother sounds all too familiar. Even worse and as the mother
states, the Family Court placed the child in the sole custody of his sexually abusive father.
Now this sounds like a loving, decent and honest mother’s worst
nightmare, doesn’t it?
We have all heard countless such stories in the media leading up
to the repealing of Australia’s 2006 Shared
Parentinglawsby the the Gillard Labor government.
These stories have become the foundation that many mothers’ groups have relied
upon to create the necessary momentum to change Australia’s Shared Parenting
laws into a set of laws that on any fair description are ‘shared parenting’ in
name alone. I should emphasise that the current family law act is in many ways
far worse than the legislation that was replaced back in 2006.
For many Australians, you would perhaps believe that such abuses
did previously occur, not simply as a one-off aberration, not even on rare
occasions, but all too often within the Family Court. I mean these were the
stories that we have kept hearing from the likes of Adele Horin
from the Sydney Morning Heraldand Caroline
Overington from the Australian. So they must be true, right?
In fact, not many people are
aware of a review of the 2006 Shared Parenting reforms by the AIFS. The Australian Institute of Family Studies evaluation of the
2006 Family Law Reformsinterviewed almost 28,000 parents who had gone through a family
court dispute after the 2006 reforms were enacted. Amongst many findings, this
review could find NO EVIDENCEthat children were being placed into the care of sexually
abusive fathers as a result of the 2006 reforms. In fact it gave a glowing
endorsement of these new laws, much of which was simply not reported by the
media, for reasons that we have yet to fully understand.
Now, this video testimony suggests quite the opposite. According
to these video testimonies, it seems that the Family Court, despite concrete
evidence that children have been sexually abused by their father, have for some
unexplained reason removed the children from the safety of their caring
mothers, and placed them in the sole custody of their ‘sexually
These tesimonies it should be stated were ‘organised’ by Barbara
Biggs, a woman with a very questionable history involving fraud, imprisonment,
prostitution and numerous but uncorroborated allegations that she had been the
victim of extensive sexualabuse in her youth . It must also be stated my reading of this woman is that
she sounds like a crackpot. I have heard her speak and read transcripts of
other speeches from Ms Biggs, and I find it hard to believe that any
fair-finded person would find her to be a credible advocate on sexual abuse.
But don’t take my word for it.
Listen to this video testimony. This video, despite what one may
initially think, is not of a real mother. This is in fact an actress. And as
far as the testimony is concerned, well who knows how much it has been doctored
by Ms Biggs.
And while you are watching this video, ask yourself why the
Family Court would act this way. Why would a Court put the child in the care of
a sexual abuser? Is the Court deliberately placing children into unsafe
environments despite the overwhelming evidence that the children had been
And while you are at it
ask yourself a further question. Why has Ms Biggs not offered any shred of
testimony, proof or evidence apart from the alleged testimony of a mother who
has lost custody of her son? Are we really supposed to believe the testimony of
an actor without any supportive evidence? Are we really supposed to believe
this testimony, despite there being nothing offered to corroborate this scripted
Watch this video and you will realise that such bizarre
testimony raise many more questions than answers. And sadly, consider for a
moment that the 2011 Family Violence amendments to the family law act, changes that have effectively
created a presumption of guilt (of family abuse and child sexual abuse) against
separated Australian men were driven in no small part by the Paranoid, Deluded,
Psychotic and Uncorroborated testimony like the one in this video.