Let's Get Honest! Blog: Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

The Truth, Half the Truth, and Only Half the Truth — Australian “Ad hominem” Disgrace in Stratton/Thompson case

with 2 comments


Here Come Da Psychologists — follow- up.

Thought Crimes / Witch Hunts, 2nd millenium C.E

Poor, Poor Mr. Ken Thompson. He lost weight, but he gained the world, so far…

He had a foundation bankroll him:


Morcombe group bankrolled Thompson hunt

September 14, 2010


AAP

The
foundation formed in honour of missing Queensland boy Daniel Morcombe
helped bankroll Ken Thompson’s international hunt for his son.

It was a euphoric ending to a two-and-a-half-year search that saw Mr
Thompson cycle 6500km across Europe in search of the son he last saw in
April 2008, when his mother took him to Europe.

The
parents of Daniel, presumed abducted and murdered on Queensland’s
Sunshine Coast in 2003, have revealed the foundation they set up in his
honour helped fund Mr Thompson’s search
.

The Daniel Morcombe Foundation paid for his flights to Europe and contributed $1000 to the cost of his hunt.

Daniel’s
mother Denise said it was the first time the foundation had helped fund
such a mission, after Mr Thompson’s supporters sought help

The Morcombe family’s situation was ENTIRELY different from Mr. Thompson’s situation, and happened in a different context.  Linking the two is dishonest, particularly given the quantity  of PARENTAL kidnappings in the context of allegations of abuse.  Parental kidnappings could have two reasons — one, to stop abuse, two – to cover up abuse which has been reported, and/or punish the other parent.  It’s always a bad thing, bt it’s DIFFERENT from stranger-kidnapping.

He put the foundation’s logo on his bike shirt in return.”
She
urged people to continue to support the foundation, which relies on
donations and the sale of merchandise, to pursue its child safety and
other initiatives, including helping victims of crime.

OVERWHELMINGLY the Media scapegoats the fleeing mother, yet she is not the only one who fled for these reasons.   The underlying issue is whether or not abuse happened.  If abuse happened, then the repeated supervised visitations (3 or 4 times a week) would confuse a youngster (see Jack Stratton, Ph.D./NOMAS on this topic — I have a link) and prioritizes kids as property over children as potential victim.  The most VITAL question to answer is, did this happen or not.  At the bottom, I am going to repost the Caroline Overington article, (2009 Febr.), quoting Ms. Stratton’s reasons for leaving.

I had MY children stolen under false allegations that were easily disproved (not sexual or physical abuse).  The DA would not pursue adn the courts switched custody without giving a reason for doing so.  By law, they are required to, and my attorney, thinking quick on his feet, as the mediator had already ignored this FELONY, by simply failing to give me a cover sheet on which to notate it, but continually ignoring my responses, when he wanted to talk “psychology,” “how’s your relationship?” and I answered directly — I do not know where they are, they are truant, they are missing and have not been found; I have no contact with them, I am frightened for their safety, they have been stolen.”  I doubt this joker didn’t know that child-stealing was a felony.  I had sole physical custody, had done nothing — at all — wrong, no court order had been broken– by me.  And yet, there was a blank wall. Why?  I suggest that, because I am a woman, and in the U.S., a federal grant systems exists (which I found out about 3 years too late) which ties father presence to welfare reform and says, more noncustodial time ALWAYS appropriate.  I had already asked fo supervised visitation, in order to reduce trauma of exchanges AND to prevent a kidnapping — and had been rebuffed by the court!  After these failures did in deed produce a kidnapping, did the court say, “oops!  Sorry, we should’ve listened?”  No, it absolutely did not.

I do not know either of these couple.  But I do know an unbalanced fight when I see one. 

WHAT AB OUT THE RELEVANT TRUTHS?  THOSE ALLEGATIONS!

Almost no one seems except those familiar with the problem of child abuse, and its cover up. seem to go beyond the knee-jerk repetition of ONE parent’s emotions. Perhaps when little Andrew grows up (what about HIS emotions, if he was actually sexually abused, as is alleged below?) he may run across a blog or two, where women supported not the criminality of child-stealing (we know what that feels like, many of us had children stolen illegally, then rubbberstamped “legal” afterwards).

Name-calling is the logical equivalent of face-slapping in response to an assertion:

In Logic, it’s called the “ad hominem.” When you can’t answer the argument, slander or attack the person. A well-known dodge. Of course this general practice pretty much summarizes the family law system.

Ad Hominem:

ad HO-mi-nuhm, HOM-uh-nuhm) pronunciation

adverb, adjective:

  1. Appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or other personal considerations rather than to intellect or reason.
  2. Attacking an opponent personally instead of answering the argument.

Etymology
From Latin, literally “to the person”.
(FIRST, the news (and my commentary). Below, more references on “ad hominem.” It’s RELEVANT — because once any debate gets into the character category — by labeing (versus by showing identified patterns of deeds — it’s almost impossible to have a sane conversation, or defend onesself. This problem is CENTRAL to the structure of the fmaily law system, and the closest indicator I have that it is where batterers go to hide (and child-molesters) because there is plenty of ground cover there. It’s a win-win deal for those two chemically -receptive populations: Batterers and child-molesters need to go SOMEWHERE when the law is involved, the people most likely to notice these things are the other parent of the child, AND, hey — they need to work, too, right? How many otherr fields, besides sales and in government, could any psychologists and get a constant stream of forcibly-referred clientele? The business plan here is brilliant.

Caught, but still being scandalized

Two Parents, Two Possible Truths, the Heavy Hand of the Media Slathers Mr. Thompson’s emotions, worries,tribulations, and hopes — hearsay reports, quippable quotes, etc. across the Internet, aftter Ms. Stratton (Thompson) has been slapped in jail, from which I see not one singl einterview.

Where are the jailhouse interviews? Any attempts made to contact the Mom?

I want to hear more from her…

, ,

What About Melinda Stratton’s side of the Story?

In domestic law on September 12, 2010 at 11:53 pm

The news articles are flying in supporting a potential sexual abuser and claiming that Melinda Stratton is mentally ill. Mental illness is the only pathetic explanation as to why a businesswoman would run away from everything that is familiar to her and Andrew. If there was a criminal background, it would be featured, but no Melinda Stratton has nothing but the opinion of a court ordered psych.

Ken Thompson has certainly been around pushing his views to all that challenge until most people just give in and say, “Oh…Um…yes, shes crazy and your not an abuser”.

Note the word most. The exclusion is the community of REAL mothers and children who have been through this and know what Melinda has gone through. Lets face it, experts get paid for their opinion at the end of the day and I am sure some are willing to alter some to get a nice big payout at the end of the day. I place my bets on experience.

In Australia, we now have grown up children who have been forced by court order to stay with an abusive parent. No law is going to stop them from speaking out in the end as Australian jurisdiction only reaches so far.

Someone posted another diatribe in a craigslist, a continent and half a globe away. That made me angry, particularly as it reported half the half-truth, and said nothing about “serious allegations” that might have prompted this woman to flee. So I kept reading, and this report tells a little more — not much, but a little:

A hard slog for dad and little boy lost as Ken Thompson waits to bring son Andrew home

The most unique data below is who was, and who was not gagged. A better title might have read:

“He was not gagged, we were”

Let’s review the case again: (see my previous post) “Serious allegations” by mother. Public is not allowed to know what they are, but some of us can guess.

But the two words “court” and “psychiatrists” should make it clear we are dealing with a royalty situation. You Do understand the connotations of Family COURT, right? No, it’s not like tennis or basketball,l we’re talking who’s in and who’s out at Buckingham, etc. These words indicate clout. Be in awe of them. Professionals are, after all, a higher life form than normal people, i.e., than parents in the courts (no matter what their normal professions may have been outside). Truth sticks better to the professional with more magnetic adhesion to decisionmakers.

Leading Australian psychiatrist (name of this person, is gagged) diagnoses mother as mentally ill, based on her believing certain facts. Status of fact-check (on which her insanity diagnosis might hinge) — not shown. Fact-checking is harder work than name-calling. Fact-checking entails finding evidence (of said facts) and a definition system related to actions. Psychology entails, looking a person in place, calilng the context, and comparing it to previous names called. Probably less foot-work.

The report the mother made is not available to the rest of us, but the mother, and her supporters, did NOT get permission to release it.

The report itself is also not available to the rest of us, but the father got permission to release that one was made, and the diagnosis, by special permission.

Which this article says:

IT ALMOST seems as if the easiest part is over. Ken Thompson’s international search for the son he hasn’t seen for 2 1/2 years ended this week when he wrapped his arms around six-year-old Andrew in an all-enveloping hug. But after cycling 6272km around Europe searching for the boy snatched from Sydney in a custody dispute with his mother Melinda Stratton, the hard yards have just begun.

Yesterday, the former deputy commissioner of the NSW Fire Brigade was waiting to hear if psychologists who monitored Monday’s 40-minute reunion would allow him daily meetings with his son.

There is expected to be a protracted legal fight to bring Andrew home after he was tracked down in the Dutch city of Amsterdam.

Well, THAT should be helpful for this little boy’s future wealth and welfare…

Melinda Stratton is in an Amsterdam jail on an Interpol warrant for taking her son out of the jurisdiction of the Family Court. She may well have visiting rights to her son under Netherlands law.

Ms Stratton, who has accused her estranged husband of sexually abusing Andrew, is considering whether to fight her extradition to Australia.

Her family in Sydney is sticking by Ms Stratton, her Sydney lawyer Clayton Long said late yesterday.

Mr Long has been hired by Melinda’s brother John Stratton, chief investment officer with insurance giant IAG.

Mr Long said there was little he or the family could say because while Mr Thompson was given special dispensation by the Family Court to speak to the media in a bid to trace Andrew, Ms Stratton and her family had not.

“He’s not gagged, we are,” said Mr Long, of Clinch Long Letherbarrow Lawyers.

Mr Thompson, who has been staying with friends, is looking for an apartment in Amsterdam and plans to settle in for the long haul.

Under the Hague Convention on child abduction, Andrew has to be returned to his home country unless there are special reasons, such as his having settled in the Netherlands.

He is expected to remain in the care of the Dutch Child Protection Unit and, if he is returned to Australia, it may well be in the company of Australian Federal Police officers.

That would make some sense, particularly as to date, we don’t know whether those allegations had substance or not.

After the adrenalin rush of the reunion subsided, Mr Thompson, 57, said the insights into his child’s state of mind provided by the psychologists looking after him had been concerning.

“They said to me, it’s quite obvious he’s been told some very bad things about me,” said Mr Thompson.

“They’ve had to work through some things with him to make sure he’s comfortable with meeting this person he’s been told is such a horrible person.

Again — if the allegations are true, he IS a horrible person. If not, then we’d have to say he is not, although I don’t think calling in the posse of psychologists was an indicator of common sense. Well, depending on whether one is interested in the truth or not:

In early 2008, Ms Stratton walked out of their marriage.

On April 24, 2008, in the middle of Family Court proceedings, she boarded a Singapore Airlines flight with Andrew to Frankfurt in Germany.

The court allowed Mr Thompson, who denies his wife’s claims of child abuse, to reveal that, just before she disappeared, a psychiatric report found she was suffering from a mental condition that affected her judgment and ability to parent effectively.

Just to reiterate — since this case IS being reported, and tried (essentially) in the public forum, with the help of mindreaders and half the truth — one side’s only, and then only insinuations, no hard data —

Vocabulary Review:

Parenting effectively = As a Mother, Not reporting sexual abuse of one’s child, if one believes it occurred, child exhibits symptoms of sexual abuse, or one has evidence of it.

Mental condition [negatively, in context] affecting one’s judgment — obviously a quality required for parenting ability.

Poor Judgment — particularly after this international case — for a protective mother to think that there’s anywhere in the world to hide, or protect one’s child AFTER “Da Psychologists” came in.

Does actually perpertrating sexual abuse upon an infant constitute poor judgment and a lack of ability to parent effectively?

Well, thanks to Family Courts selective suppressing of one side of the story, and the MainStreamMedia — or most media’s following in line, quacking like little duckes whatever draws media to their sites, thanks to “Parental Alienation” having such broad and sloppy applications worldwide — Probably not. Any female that grows up in this situation, and marries someone like her Daddy (or child-abuser) will know by then that the world, in geenral, as we speak, doesn’t like to deal with distasteful unpleasantries, and hence making them go away by saying “she had a mental condition, she was imagining things” indeed is redefining parenting, back to beliefs widespread a century or fifteen ago.

FACTUAL WEIGHT WE SHOULD GIVE TO “SIGNALING.” (Mr. THompson repeatedly signals — with court permission– she ahd a mental condition. (cf. “Gulag”posts). Every 57 or 75 articles or so, an actual signal gets out to allegations by her. Of course, by public appeal, her allegations are “per se” invalid because, it’s a mental condition. Says who? Well, NOYB.

LOGICAL FALLACY OPERATING HERE: Character assassination is a distraction.

Sometimes crazy people may squeak out a piece of truth. Truth stands on its own two feet, so long as they are on the ground, even if cawed by a crow.

AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

(This is funny);

The ad hominem fallacy fallacy


One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is “ad hominem”. It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don’t need it when they’ve got ad hominem on their side. It’s the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

{{smile}}

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn’t there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments.

Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent’s sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Given that the relevant information in the CUSTODY case (as opposed to, the runaway Mom facts) is not open to the public, we cna’t make a legal argument. HOWEVER, it’s clear that in the press accounts, the father is portrayed in context as dismissing her allegagions by calling her crazy. Or, rather calling in someone who called her crazy.

Maybe a 3rd opinion should be solicited. Let’s call in any former partners; his first wife, and any former lovers she may have had. So long as it’s a free-for-all, why not get a few more people involved? Who would call WHOM “having a mental condition,” and how would the public react? Would we, the public, do what the family courts so often do — when confronted with disconcertting evidence, dismiss it with an “oh, that’s just what YOU say?”

— Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal “ad hominem” are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again. I will begin with some invented examples, before dealing with some real-life misuses of the term at the end.

Not that press is likely to, ever, fully raise itself to the category of reason and logical argument, but –still, a little review on what IS and IS not ridiculous — when responding to a statement of facts (i.e., something alleged) will help defend the honor of this hunted down-woman, or at least the calibre of the publicity, for the sake of the next one.  Let’s get above the reptilian brain from time to time, and engage in the actual argument (statements). 

As his examplee shows, sarcastic flourish, and verbal abuse happens.  This is to be expected in verbal boxing ring. I do it.  But I also point out “anomalies” and missing factts.   A substitution of namecalling for engaging the argument IS “ad hominem.”fallacy.  It offends me because it diminishes the whole CONCEPT of discourse, to ignore the facts and go for the person delivering them.  In contextt, this i s what Mr. Thompson (and his court-appointed psychiatrist) DID, and was allowed to do in hunting her down, in failing to answer that a crime is alleged to have been committed.

A. is the statement.  B is the response, and the question is, is it “ad hominem,” (derailing the issue to the person making it) which would make it a fallacy.


A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a
mammal.”

B: “This does not logically follow. By your own argument, the set of rodents is
a subset of the set of mammals; and therefore, a weasel can be outside the set of
rodents and still be in the set of mammals.”

Hopefully it should be clear that neither A’s argument nor B’s argument is
ad hominem. Perhaps there are some people who think that any disagreement
is an ad hominem argument, but these people shouldn’t be allowed out of fairyland.


A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a
mammal.”

B: “This does not logically follow.”

B’s argument is less comprehensive, but still not ad hominem.


A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be
a mammal.”

B: “This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic.”

B’s argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A’s
argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There
is no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his
argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A’s argument. Unless we
have a good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a
sarcastic flourish
.

B’s argument is still not ad hominem. B does not imply that A’s
sentence does not logically follow because A knows nothing about logic. B
is still addressing the substance of A’s argument.


A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be
a mammal.”

B: “You evidently know nothing about logic.”

B’s argument is, most probably, still not ad hominem. The word
“evidently” indicates that B is basing his opinion of A’s logical skills on the
evidence of A’s statement. Therefore, B’s sentence is a sarcastic way of saying
that A’s argument is logically unsound: B is attacking A’s argument. He is not
attacking the person instead of the argument.

Put briefly, ad hominem is “You are an ignorant person, therefore your
arguments are wrong”, and not “Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are an
ignorant person.” The latter statement may be fallacious, but it’s not an
ad
hominem fallacy.


A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be
a mammal.”

B: “This does not logically follow. And you’re an asshole.”

B is abusive, but his argument is still not ad hominem. He engages with
A’s argument. There is no reason to conclude that the personal abuse of A
is part of B’s argument, or that B thinks it undermines A’s argument.


A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be
a mammal.”

B: “You’re an asshole.”

B’s reply is not necessarily ad hominem. There is no evidence that’s his
abusive statement is intended as a counter-argument.


A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be
a mammal.”

B: “Fuck you.

Not ad hominem. B’s abuse is not a counter-argument, but a request
for A to cease the discussion.    (smile…)


A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be
a mammal.”

B: “Well, you’ve never had a good grasp of logic, so this can’t be true.”

B’s argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by
addressing A’s argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person
.

{{This is EXACTLY what Mr. Thompson did in the custody case allegations.  They were “serious” and she alleged “sexual abuse.”  Just because Mr. THompson AND some “experts” came in and called her mentally unstable and lacking judgment to parent because her “condition” meant she believed some false thing about Mr. Thompson and “others,” there is no DATA other than the level of expert brought in (and if you read this blog, you’ve probably run across some of my sarcastic flourishes  on the matter of “Ex-Spurts.” ) to counter the claim. 


A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be
a mammal.”

B: “Well, you’ve never had a good grasp of logic, so this can’t be true.”

B’s argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by
addressing A’s argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person.


A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be
a mammal.”

B: “Well, you’re a moron and an asshole, so there goes your argument.”

B’s reply here is ad hominem and abusive.  [the word “so” indicates speaker B’s reasoning process]


A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a
mammal.”

B: “Well, you’re a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument.”

B’s argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound,
but it is in fact ad hominem. He is using the terms “rodent” and “weasel”
in different senses to those used by A. Although he tries to make it appear
that he is countering A’s argument by invalidating one of the premises,
he is in fact trying to counter A’s argument by heaping abuse on A.
(This might also be an example of an ad homonym argument.)  (2nd smile…)

: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a
mammal.”

B: “I’m sorry, but I’d prefer to trust the opinion of a trained
zoologist on this one.”

B’s argument is ad hominem: he is attempting to counter A not by addressing
his argument, but by casting doubt on A’s credentials. Note that B is
polite and
not at all insulting
.

{{This IS response, and — in practice — walking into  a custody contest in family law, the implication is, these pagans /peasants/parents/”unable to work it out halfgrown adults” PER SE are incompetent — the “competents” must be brought in.  The entire place is an “ad Hominem” Environment.  Of course, there’s also the conflictt of interest and work-referrals also, plus the background of social engineering through the courts — but the LOGICAL air one breathes in the courthouse is that, one’s presence there, and nearly any statement made, lacks credulity, unless a professional is coming in, or a judge makes a personal decision.  But the paraprofessionals’ word being more than eyewitnesses, is a real problem..}}{{and a polite — or NOT so polite — ad hominem argument is VERY likely to show up on an evaluator’s report.  Perhaps, if it does, someone could bring this up — I DNK…}}

A: “Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a
rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks.”

A is abusive, and his argument is fallacious, but it’s not ad hominem.
B’s reply, ironically, is ad hominem; while he pretends to deal with
A’s argument, in using the term “ad hominem” incorrectly, B is in fact trying
to dismiss the argument by imputing that A is resorting to personal attack
s.  [Speaker A DID have some abuse in there, but not as support to the argument.  It was a flourish, and a posture; it had a purpose — but not in support of the argument.]


A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be
a mammal.”

B: “Well, you’re a moron and an asshole, so there goes your argument.”

B’s reply here is ad hominem and abusive.

Why not hit two birds with one stone, eh?

OK, more on PROPER application of “ad hominem fallacy”


Types of ad hominems

Ad hominem abuse

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.

Examples:

  • “You can’t believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn’t even have a job.”
  • “Candidate Jane’s proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003.”

Ad hominem circumstantial

Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

Where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.

AGAIN, here are the mother’s statements, pre-capture:

other tells why she took her son and ran
Caroline Overington, The Australian
February 02, 2009 12:00AM

MELINDA
Stratton is a woman on the run. In April last year, she fled Australia
with her four-year-old son, Andrew, to avoid a custody hearing in the
Family Court.

In December, her husband, NSW deputy fire chief
Ken Thompson, asked the court to lift a ban on identifying Andrew so he
could launch an international campaign to find the boy.

Photographs
of Andrew are now plastered on buses in Europe, and on billboards in
England. Mr Thompson has launched a website, and a group email has gone
around the world, urging people to contact Interpol if they see Ms
Stratton.

Ms Stratton – a professional woman from Sydney’s
northern suburbs, who has an MBA, speaks French and German, and has
lived and worked abroad – has so far managed to dodge the authorities,
but yesterday emerged from seclusion to tell her side of the story.

A
10-page letter – the first contact between Ms Stratton and anyone
outside her immediate family since last April – was provided to The
Australian with no identifying marks. It was dated January 15.

Ms Stratton says she had no choice other than to flee Australia, because she had lost faith in the Family Court.

She
says the balance of the court – once firmly in favour of granting
custody to mothers – had tipped dramatically towards fathers. The
Howard government’s regime of “shared parenting” had given power to
fathers at the expense of mothers
.

(Sounds like the family court is more mentally unstable than this woman.  They are rethinking it, too:::)****

Ms Stratton said

I have lost all faith in any form of justice coming out of Australia

By remaining silent, however, I ensure that they (the Family Court) can continue to treat other mothers and children this way.

Ms Stratton does not say where she is hiding…

WHEN it putting some age-appropriate restrictions on to how YOUNG shared parenting can happen, MensVote Australia is upset at the “psychobabble” — altthough Mr. Thompson found itt handy.  HEY — psychobabble in the courts wasn’t my idea; but don’t blame women for its presence !!!

Australian
separated and divorced fathers will soon have to prove that their
children are developmentally mature enough to live with them under
plans by Labor to amend the Family Law Act in 2011.


SOME Parenting orders in doubt after High Court r… (14 September, 2010, 09:24 AM)

Courts
Thousands of family court orders could be invalid after a landmark High
Court decision, of ”Rosa v Rosa”. The federal government has revealed
it is drafting urgent legislation to avoid mass confusion among
parents. The High Court found unanimously that the decision was wrong
and ordered a fresh hearing in March, saying the Family Court cannot
order that children spend equal or substantial and significant time
with both parents unless the arrangement is ”reasonably practicable”
.
A string of recent reviews – including one by Professor Chisholm, who
is a former Family Court judge, and others by the Family Law Council of
Australia and the Australian Institute of Family Studies – have
recommended changes to the laws to better protect children from abusive
parents, and to make the law clearer for parents and judges
. The
reports have received a lukewarm response from the government, which is
reportedly anxious to avoid upsetting men’s groups that welcomed the
change
s.


Domestic violence victims ‘miss out

NineMSN
23:03 AEST Wed Jun 9 2010

Victims
of domestic violence have been dealt a blow in the NSW budget, with a
groundbreaking program missing out on funding, the state opposition
says.

The Staying Home Leaving Violence (SHLV) program was now
under a cloud after an earlier-promised cash injection of $4.5 million
was not included in the 2010/11 budget, opposition spokeswoman for
women Pru Goward said on Wednesday.

The scheme, which helps
women remain in their own home without their violent partner, was
rolled out to six other areas after a successful pilot in Bega and east
Sydney.

A total of 18 services were due to be operating by 2013,
with the government announcing in March it would continue funding the
expansion.

Ms Goward said

The sector had been expecting to see more investment in this program but it wasn’t there.

What about Labor actually funds a real life program like SHLV, which is not a government pipe dream.

If it works, it should be funded accordingly.



Submitted by

Inspired by
the Howard Governments 2006 Family law reforms to respect the
fundamental needs of children to enjoy the love and nurture of both
their mother and their father, the countries of Canada, the United
Kingdom and Israel had moved to embrace shared parenting laws however
policy progress had recently been jeopardised by Australian anti-shared
parenting advocates weighing into the overseas debate.

MensVote
Australia has learned that the Israeli Governmental “Shnit Committee”,
reporting on shared parenting reforms, has been reliably informed that
Family Law in Australia will change next year to consider psychological
developmental milestones of children (read as code for ‘The child being
too young to share’).

AHA — the “Breast is Best” argument.  Because it is.  And she might not want to have all that expressing to do under shared parenting.  …  I looked it up.  This is also funny -so we pause in MensVote Australia to consider ways to undermine the concept of Breast is Besat and help out, well, in the case here, that formula.  Men can use this to say it’s OK for them to split up while Mom has a little one, and still get shared custody.  Why would she split so soon after having a kid anyhow?  Mentally ill?  Surely it has nothing to do with Dad…

Breast is Best, Sponsored by Simfamil: Don Draper Explains It All For Us.

(Dialogue in PINK, for contrast}


INT:
STERLING COOPER DRAPER PRYCE, DON DRAPER’s OFFICE. PEGGY OLSON and PETE
CAMPBELL sit expectantly on the sofa, an easel bearing the Simfamil
logo and a photo of a smiling baby next to them. A box with canisters
of various brands of formula is on the floor.

Enter a typically
taciturn DON. He glances at the easel and continues to the liquor
cabinet without breaking stride, pours himself a scotch, then turns his
attention to the pair on the sofa. DON remains standing …..

ON
Enfilac, Simfamil, Nestle, their strategies have all been the same. Look at this.

(He grabs a one canister after another out of the box, reading their labels aloud, then tossing them aside.)

“More
like mother’s milk”. “The closest thing to mother’s milk.” “Now with
more of the same ingredients found in breast milk”. They’re all vying
to make their product more like breast milk than any other brand.
What’s the problem with that, Peggy?

PEGGY
(thoughtfully)

Well,
because there’s just no comparison with breast milk. We’ve looked at
all the research, and the brand never matters. Formula just can’t
measure up, no matter what brand. So . . . (she gestures at the
discarded canisters) . . . how do we set Simfamil apart from them?

PETE
(enthusiastically)

A new package design? Some prettier, younger models as the mothers?

DON

We take on breastfeeding itself.

PEGGY

But you just sai . . . didn’t we just say there’s no comparison to breastmilk?

DON

There
isn’t. Formula can’t compete with breast milk. We can’t fight the
research and mothers know this. Almost every mother in America wants to breastfeed. There’s no suppressing the truth. Women know that breastfeeding is best. So we’re not going to argue with that.

{THIS IS A COMIC DIALOGUE — I hope not a real one — on how to the ad agency’s formula, getting around the discomforting thought that kids do best at Mama’s breast, not on formula.  The same rationale could also be used — and is — to get around the fact that LITTLE kids really DO need Moms, and that SOME Dads, when mixed with little kids are Dastardly.}{Notice, the company is just going to want to “help” (cf. provide some “services”) but the clear intent is to undermine that breastfeeding, subtly causing faiures, and then pop up with the solution — our product.}}

Back to MensVote

The Committee was also informed that fathers will
need to prove they have the resources to share-parent before being
allowed to enjoy an equal life with their children
. Consequently the
Shnit Committee report recommendations are on hold until after the
anticipated Green-Labor ratification of family law changes. MensVote
convenor Edward Dabrowski said today, “The Israelis have adopted a wait
and see approach given the disclosure that Labor intends to cut back
shared parenting. He said, “This means that psycho-social babble and
text book psychologically will determine the fate of families rather
than parent-child loving relationships. Mr Dabrowski said, “It is
unconscionable that yet another set of hurdles are being put in the way
of fathers wanting to parent normally after divorce and that
segregation of children from their Dads and their paternal extended
family would create another Stolen Generation of desperate and defeated
fatherless kids”

Written by Let's Get Honest

September 18, 2010 at 8:21 pm

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Family Court in Australia has gone MAD…and are removing kids from protective mothers, and handing them to the abusers. Is child sexual abuse accpetable..only to family court and so far to the Howard Legislators..they must chirn up some extra revenue for the govt. Everyday I hear stories of mothers losing kids, being diagnosed with personality disorders, mental illness by junk scientists used by the courts, lawyers, and the psychiatrists breach the diagnostic tools for diagnosis. Maybe one strategy that can be used is to get the various Mental Health bodies to stand up to the abuse of people, and giving mental health a negative impact, I am sure many voters will be shocked. There is a lot of corruption in the system. I will not be donating to Daniel McCombe funds to support child sex offenders. I am eager to learn more from the mother. More and more professional women are targetted. One day that son will grow up and learn more…and will speak up. If this father had any love and feelings for his son, then he would leave the child in his mother’s care as he knows her better, and also it will not retraumatise him to be left in the father’s care, who has most likely exhibited sexual abuse towards the kid, or oops..is it something men’s rights groups are using in AUstralia, licking face and neck, digitalising their bottoms, feeling the mother’s breasts, and the mums panic an dreport this. The fathe ris a winner..from there on as the case in Australian family court system is, as soon as sexual abuse is mentioned, the mothe ris considered mentally ill and the child is removed from the mother, similar incidents have been reported to us from many mothers..but it would have to be some sicko to do that to their child to get custody. Overall it is a multi-billion dollar business for the crooks, keeps govt officers in jobs, and family court in operation. Abuse and dv cases do not get investigated here. And it is a real concern for the mothers, but thank you for educating and for us to throw some light on the subject, is it okay to post this on our website…have you subscribed to our newsletter, you will need to goto http://www.safety4parentsandkids.org.au, in Australia.

    safety4parentsandkids

    September 19, 2010 at 1:59 am

    • It is ironic that the parents of the unfortunate Daniel Morcombe, the victim of a pedophile, were the ones to pay the air fare for a man accused of the sexual abuse of his little kid to hunt down his wife and child. Even worse is the fact that donations were used for this purpose. So many well-intentioned people actually gave their hard-earned cash to assist a man whose innocence is far from proven. The poor Morcombes. It’s a shame they didn’t realize that the father’s ploy, after presumably losing his job (why would he have given notice at his age instead of taking compassionate leave?), of claiming his wife was paranoid, is typical of men in his position. So is the unproven claim that she has tried to alienate her son from him. Why is it that the Family Court judges in Sydney and most others who have anything to do with the young son are influenced by what they see as the father’s clout? In fact, he’s a nobody, just a guy who’s probably been forced to retire young, undoubtedly with a golden handshake (poor Morcombe donors). And it seems the mother has been gagged.

      Jelena Savacevic

      December 29, 2011 at 11:23 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

Let's Get Honest! Blog: Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

iakovos alhadeff

Anti-Propaganda

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

Mom & Kids Need "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: