Thursday, September 24, 2009

Family Court Reacts to A Bloke's Guide to Family Law

Hi Droogs,

Just read an article at the [former] Howard Cash for Comment site about a new case where the court has dug up the body of the Stevenson and Hughes case, a case well and truly buried until the Divorce Doctor explained all in his book.

I will leak out the full details so stay posted

back agin, and here is quote from book
5.12.8. If you get a lawyer everything seems quite different,
and Buttercup is actually there in court with her team, imitating a
Mexican Standoff with your team and even the beak is now looking
more "beakish". This time your affidavit is taken seriously and a
Prima Facie case is made out. Buttercup is required to do the good
old Catholic Confession type thing "bless me Yer Horror for I have
sinned, it will be 3 months before I sin again" and before she might
burst into tears her counsel intercedes on her behalf, suggesting to
the beak that a lot of the fault rests with the lawyers for making
boomerang orders and if you could just make a marking at say 3PM I
am sure we can work out a far better boomerang order for next time.

5.12.9. So the whole scrum heads for one of the Roll-Over
Rooms and in a now convivial atmosphere one camp scribbles out the
normal "dog's breakfast" short minutes for your "consent", and that
will probably cost less than $10,000 for the day and Buttercup was
spared being burnt at the stake. The whole thing will be repeated say
3 times that year so your lawyers will tell you that you got good value
with 4 sets of [boomerang] orders for less than $50,000, and that
although you got no visitation [which we now call spending time], we
think you will see that she is starting to learn her lesson. Yeah, right!!

5.12.10. So shaking your head and mumbling to yourself "so
how did that happen, and I'm still the bad guy", you decide to be a
smart SRL next time. Now I am not saying that it will be easy but to
give yourself a fighting chance you must prepare a proper written
submission as well as make it very clear in your application, affidavit
and submission that you are also complaining in respect of passive
contravention. The main reason is that with passive, the onus shift
happens at an earlier stage.

5.12.11. And for the case which fully explains the "folded arms
principle" read Stevenson & Hughes [as many times as you need to
understand it], and remember that it deals with s 112 AD etc
contempt whereas you will be arguing the amended [but identical]
provisions in Part VII. Here is the punch line:

[the book then quotes from Stevenson]
The Cash for Comment [CfC] article was in fact along the lines of Ginger Snatch and her "relationship" with the Courier Mail in the famous RimmerGate affair [see ], but this time it was a certain Geoffrey Greene of one of the "Popular Fronts" for Shared Parenting interfacing with The Australian's Ginger Snatch, Caroline Ovaltine.

And NO Caroline, the court did not say "Children must see dad, like it or not", you just made that up as would Ginger Snatch.

I started reading the CfC article and my eyes and ears pricked when I read:

"Geoffrey Greene, of the Shared Parenting Council said
We call it the closed-arm doctrine.

The parent stands there with their arms crossed, saying, 'Well, I can't make the children go, if they don't want to go'."

Gosh, I thought, sounds like this E Book Pirate has actually read my book re the FOLDED Arms Principle, but is all mixed up with "closed arms" and "crossed arms", but surely the case has not exhumed Stevenson and Hughes after Nicholson ordered it buried in 1994. So does that mean Geoffrey is a Plagiarist as well as a Pirate?

So yes Stevenson WAS there in the HeadLines and yes, a trip to AUSTLII revealed that once the case was buried in 1994 [because it is bad for business] there was a gap until just after my book release in 2007 of any mention in other cases. So there you go folks, not only did Kevin '07 read my book regarding Aged Pension and Shared Parenting matters, but I had shamed the FLIndustry into a token recognition, per:

Section 65DA(2) creates a duty for the Court to include in the orders that it makes, the obligations the order creates. Prior to 1 July 2006 with the operation of the amendments to the Act, this Court has traditionally said that there were implied provisions in orders. (See Stevenson and Hughes [1993] FamCA 14; (1993) FLC 92-363). Save for one situation, obligations imposed by courts must be set out in the order. That is particularly so where, as here, there is an ***allegation that the wife has been a passive bystander*** rather than making a positive attempt to make the orders work.

The upshot is Buttercup is found guilty on 2 of the 4 alligators [so there will be no costs order, clever huh?] and is sent to work in the Salt Mines - or rather:

"(4) That pursuant to s 70NEB(1), each of the husband and the wife forthwith enrol in an ***approved post-separation parenting program*** to be organised by the Independent Children’s Lawyer."

So folks, just as I said in the book, the Howard "Reforms" were purely to waste taxpayer money setting up more and more lawyers in Hairy Legged Quangos like this [and despite the fact the High Court ruled against "ordered counselling"].

In Stephenson the Salt Mines were:

14. Her Honour then considered the question of penalty and took the view that the appropriate penalty would be to order ***compensatory access*** for a weekend for the period similar to that referred to in order 3(i), that is to say from 4.00 p.m. Friday until 6.00 p.m. Sunday and after some discussion between counsel, she directed that this compensatory access take place from 4.00 p.m. Friday, 9 October, 1992 until 6.00 p.m. 11 October 1992. It would appear from a statement made by counsel for the wife today that that access did not take place. Her Honour also made an order for ***costs to be paid by the wife in the sum of $2800***.

and of course that Buttercup was about to pay costs of appeal as well, "but say to you" $20,000

But it gets even more interesting folks because in the CfC case we see that bloke is done over TWICE by the CfC "help". As set out in the book, the Ruddock deal was $75,000 pa to each of the "Shared Parenting Freaks" if they kidded their Visitors/Members that Shared Parenting Responsibility [which is God Given, see Vlug case in my book] is the same as Shared Time Spending. So we see for this Bloke

"the husband began parenting proceedings seeking a week-about arrangement concerning the children. The wife responded that the husband’s time should be limited to alternate weekends from Saturday morning to Sunday night."

but then we see

The Senior Registrar, in addition to making an order for the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer, made the following orders:

By ***consent***, that the husband and the wife have equal shared parental responsibility for the children of the marriage [M] born [...] November 1996 and [L] born [...] May 1998.

So this was a CONTESTED Interim Hearing but Bloke CONSENTS to this order, thinking he is getting equal time [see my book on Stockholm Syndrome]

But just why would these 2 boys NOT be wanting to be with their dad? Well that is the second Double Cross by CfC, per:

"The husband too might benefit from some reflection because of his need to understand how the stressors of litigation impact upon the children. In this case, ***he attended upon the wife’s house with witnesses*** and now rightly or wrongly, believes the wife is specifically influencing the children against him."

So maybe 50% of the articles at CfC are "Toxic Masculinity" suggestions of how to make family law into a CSI episode with secret microphones, notepads, witnesses - even bin Laden if he is free to "gather evidence", and yes it does NOT include any consideration of Rule #1 "DO NOT INVOLVE THE KIDS".

Finally it would be recalcitrant of me not to mention the "lack of computer parenting skills" by the court in the drafting and proof reading [if any] of this judgment. To use the Walters FM intellectually responsible words:

"The judgment was a 'florid, almost incomprehensible polemic' where Orders 5 and 6 flowed straight into Clause 7 of the Judgment", per:

5. That the husband have reasonable telephone communication with the children not less than twice per week.
6. That all extant applications be adjourned to 11 May 2009 at 9.45am.
7. I also do not have benefit of the Senior Registrar’s reasons for making those orders.

My polemics might well be intellectually difficult for Walters FM and His Brothers and Sisters to get their minds around but at least they are perfectly formatted such that the Indents keep DECREASING [or would they not be Exdents?]. Just think about it, IF your main style for the document is a one tab indent but the next style is a one tab exdent [to the outside of page] then where the Hell do you expect the third level style to go? Correct, it ends up with the main style, which is reason 5, 6 and 7 are all one one tab indent.

Surely we deserve better for our tax dollars.