“Family Court makes disputes worse” – 1999
Letters to the Editor and an Editorial in response to two articles published in The Australian on 24-26/12/1999 “Court Out – One man’s battle for his
×
Letters to the Editor and an Editorial in response to two articles published in The Australian on 24-26/12/1999 “Court Out – One man’s battle for his
I applaud The Australian for publishing the articles “Court Out” and “Trial Separation” on Christmas Eve. For too long the media have been silent about
The Australian Editorial written in response to the “Court Out” and “Trial Separation” articles that appeared on Friday 24 December. Christmas and New Year is a
Which court? In the near future the Family Court may not be so famous, or infamous, depending on your point of view. As more engaged couples get nudged into marriage education, fewer may end up in court as a breakdown statistic. More families in trouble will be encouraged to see their local psychologist for mediation rather than the court registry. Of the few that who must litigate their way out of relationship conflict, more will go before an informal magistrate, not a superior judge of the Family Court.
More than a million Australian children will spend Christmas in a broken home. As the Government tries to improve family justice, ‘Mr X’ tells of
Senator Lionel Murphy introduced his Family Law Bill into the Senate as a replacement for the Matrimonial Causes Act. Senator Murphy introduced the Bill with
The rise of fathers’ rights groups in Australia is obviously causing great concern among feminist academics, prompting the production of a 50 page critique paper about the groups.
The paper, “Fathers’ Rights Groups in Australia and their Engagement with Issues in Family Law”, was written by by Miranda Kaye and Julia Tolmie, feminist lecturers at the Faculty of Law, Sydney University. It was published in the Australian Journal of Family Law in 1998.
Kaye and Tolmie interviewed father’s / men’s rights groups under false pretenses and supported their paper’s feminist conclusions with selective content from some submissions provided to government inquiries.
Kaye and Tolmie displayed their lack of impartiality in their paper’s lead-in paragraph by featuring one of the most objectionable statements every made by Alistair Nicholson, the Chief Justice of the Family Court. Nicholson publicly accused those who disagreed with his views on the practices of the Family Court, mostly men, of being “discontented litigants, sometimes obviously dysfunctional”.
There is a constant and persistent view pursued by people who are often discontented litigants sometimes obviously dysfunctional, that the court is in some sense designed by anti-family groups to destroy the institution of the family in society… An unfortunate concomitant of this approach is that some people and some politicians with limited knowledge of the issues involved, tend to latch on to such dysfunctional persons for apparent political gain. This has the further unfortunate effect of empowering such persons to feel that their behaviour is not only acceptable but is the subject of sympathy and approval by politicians and government. It is all too often the experience of this court that its most persistent critics have behaved in a way which cannot stand up to public scrutiny, particularly in relation to issues of violence against women and children. Such persons, who often espouse the rights of fathers, do very little for their cause
A Gold Coast woman divorced from her husband a decade ago has been forbidden by the Family Court to relocate to central Queensland to live
Child custody disputes are undoubtedly the biggest single cause of friction in the aftermath of a marriage break-up and are probably the most significant factor
Australia's national, non-profit organisation providing a better outcome for men and their families.
©Men’s Rights Agency, 2022. All rights reserved. You can contact us at: support@mensrights.com.au | Privacy Policy