CURRENT FAMILY LAW AND CHILD SUPPORT LEGISLATION HAS THE BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT OF THE LIBERAL AND LABOR PARTIES.
The ABOLISH CHILD SUPPORT/FAMILY COURT PARTY was registered federally on 25 July 1997 and will give Australians a CHOICE AND A VOICE at the next Federal elections as to the future direction of Australia and Australian families.
In 1995, 65 year old Peter Johnson submitted into Federal Parliament 247,000 petitions (collected over 3 years) calling for the Family Court and the Child Support Agency to be abolished. THESE WERE IGNORED!
This Party is dedicated to all those children, parents and others who are suffering and have suffered legalised abuse at the hands of:
the Family Court, the Child Support Agency/Scheme, State Human Services/Community Services the Children’s Court and other associated professions and organisations.
Approximately one million divorces have occurred since the Family Law Act was passed in 1975, with 1 in 2 marriages currently ending in divorce.
420,000 non-custodial parents currently pay child support through the Child Support Agency and this figure is predicted to rise to 600,000 by the year 2000.
Approximately 1,500,000 children have lost a parent through divorce since 1975.
“In Australia vast areas of the bureaucracy and the law are now dependent for their survival on the continuation of the trend towards family breakdown” – NEWS WEEKLY, AUGUST 9,1997 P4
FORM YOUR OWN OPINION
FAMILY COURT JUDGES are selected from the legal profession. A Herald Sun phone-in poll indicated that prostitutes have more respect in our society than do the legal profession.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – Mrs WEST MP “Over a period of many years, a vast array of support networks associated with family breakdown have grown up–a growth akin to an industry, but an industry feeding off the emotional hardship and trauma of vulnerable, distraught individuals unaccustomed to the experiences about to beset them as they enter the labyrinth of the Family Court and Child Support Agency. GRIEVANCE DEBATE Hansard for 10th February 1997
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – Mr ROCHER MP (Curtin) “Non-custodial parents often regard their children as having been stolen from them by Family Court sanctioned judgements and rulings. It is open to wonder if in adulthood some of those children might come to believe that they were indeed stolen from one of their parents by government edict. They might even think they are entitled to compensation.”. Hansard, Monday 16 June 1997 P5199
Peter Duncan, parliamentary secretary to the Attorney-General in the Keating Government: “…there is nothing explicit in the 1975 Family Law Act indicating a preference for sole custody over joint custody. It has been an interpretation by the Family Court that has led to extraordinary overempowerment of the custodial parent – often to the exclusion of the non-custodial parent from the child’s life, with hurt, frustration, anger and sometimes violence as a consequence.” JUDGES IN THE DOCK, THE AGE Thursday 17 October 1996
“FAMILY COURT RESEARCH shows that, within a few years of the divorce, less than a quarter of non-custodial parents have regular contact with their children, and more than half have contact only twice a year or not at all. Justice Walshe (ex Family Court Judge) explained the ‘freedom to move’ has long been part of the powerful package bestowed on the custodial parents. “The right of the custodial parent to establish a new life has been regarded as all important” he says. The Age Saturday 12 October 1996 p.A17
“TAXATION ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY) Richard Bear says ‘the Child Support System is very fair’. Herald Sun, Wednesday January 22 1997 P.19
“JUDGE SUSAN MORGAN, of the Family Court, said equality was not always equity when it came to settling a divorce.” THE AGE Tuesday 15 October 1996 A2
“THE COURT HAS NOT HESITATED TO PUNISH MEN for non-payment of maintenance orders or absconding with their children – in the past men have been imprisoned for such offences. But when it comes to taking sanctions against custodial parents who deny access to their children, judges have traditionally gone to water.” The Age Tuesday 15 October 1996
JUSTICE WARNS AGAINST ACCESS RIGHTS EXPECTATIONS Alastair Nicholson (Chief Judge of the Family Court), “Neither children nor their parents should expect access visits to be granted by the Family Court as a given right. Children are not the property of their parents – we have moved beyond such an attitude and I hope we never shift back again.” Herald Sun, Friday September 8 1995 P.9
THE CHANGE “Former Court Chief Judge Elizabeth Evatt said, “The Family Court is a remote and expensive organization…. So, this expensive resource can’t be used by the average person because they can’t afford to pay the money. What is the use of that?”. THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, October 1, 1995 – p135
NEW WIVES ALSO LOSE: “…there is another group of “losers” in family break-ups – the new wives of the non-custodial parents. She struggles to maintain the budget while her spouse keeps up his payments to his ex-wife. Until there is a fairer system of deciding maintenance payments there will always be resentment from ex-partners trying to establish a new family life with no funds to do it. – Step Mum, Mildura”. Herald Sun, Tuesday, June 8, 1993 p16
HUMAN FRAILTY ‘FAULTS THEORY’: “Family Court specialist and a past family law division chairman of the Law Institute, Mr Paul Staindl, told the Herald-Sun: “The no-fault concept is admirable, however, our system isn’t a no-fault one. When it comes to property and custody there is just as much fault in there as always. Custody is primarily determined upon what is in the best interests of the child. Who the children should be living with is determined on the moral standing and the fibre of the parent. That obviously goes to how they have behaved during the marriage. That doesn’t mean because you are the person who had the affair that broke up the marriage, you are automatically excluded as a custodial parent. Where are the children best going to be served? What are the attitudes to law and order, the social expectations, education and religion?” Herald-Sun Saturday 13 March 1993 (1st edition) p.24
MAX BURR, former MP for Lyons 1992, “We need a procedure that allows a marriage to be dissolved with dignity, fairness and equity and that takes proper account of the emotional and physical needs of all parties, which particularly includes the children. I do not believe the Family Court fulfils such a role.”
ACT QUICKLY TO ENFORCE ACCESS “Professor Chesterman’s report, urging the Family Court to enforce access orders ….” THE AGE’, 23 July 1987 JUDGE HALL SLAMS FAMILY COURT: “Sir Edward Williams, former Supreme Court Judge, said that if he had his way, he would tear up the Family Law Act which, he said, helped break up families, putting more young people onto the path that led to drug addiction”. Daily Sun BRISBANE Saturday 3 May 1986
Written and authorised by Justice ABOLISH CHILD SUPPORT AND FAMILY COURT B.Eng.(Civ), Dip Ed
Federal secretary
