MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Judge Michael Jarrett

Filed under: General — allan harvey @ 8:13 pm Tue 7th August 2018

Maybe we should lobby to have this Judge jump the ditch?

Mother jailed for hiding kids from their father for three
years despite custody agreement
By Kristian Silva
Updated Fri 3 Aug 2018, 7:47pm
A Brisbane mother has been jailed for 18 months after she abducted
her two children and went on the run for three years.
Supporters of the 49-year-old mother wept as she was taken into custody,
with Federal Circuit Court Justice Michael Jarrett ruling she had shown
“flagrant disregard” for a custody arrangement with her ex-husband.
The children’s 74-year-old grandmother, who has cancer, was also jailed
for a minimum of three months because she kept the location of her
daughter and grandchildren secret.
The children’s mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had
claimed her ex-husband was violent, abusing the children and threatening
her life.
But Justice Jarrett said he was “completely unsatisfied” that the mother had proven the allegations.
In 2014, after the Family Court ordered an even custody split between mother and father, the mother used a secret
network of helpers to escape Brisbane with the children and hide from authorities.
It is understood that with the help of the network they moved to several locations and were able to stay off the grid,
staying clear of using phones and bank accounts.
However, the Australian Federal Police located the mother and children north of Brisbane late last year, after they moved
into the grandmother’s home.
The children were returned to the father and continue to live with him.
PHOTO: The woman’s children were deprived of any chance to build a relationship with their father, Justice Jarrett said. (Supplied)
Children subjected to ‘trauma’
8/7/2018 Mother jailed for hiding kids from their father for three years despite custody agreement – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corpor…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-03/mother-jailed-for-ignoring-custody-agreement-for-two-children/10071786 2/2
It is understood the mother was never charged with abduction or other criminal offences.
But on Friday she pleaded guilty to contempt of court for breaching the custody arrangement.
Justice Jarrett said the mother’s offending was “significant”.
“[The mother’s] non-compliance with the orders have deprived these children the
opportunity of developing their relationship with their other parent,” he said.
“Even more significant is trauma these children have been subjected to as a result of many shifts from residence to
residence.”
Justice Jarrett said the mother had shown no remorse for her actions, and a fine was inappropriate given the “gravity of
contempt”.
He jailed her for 18 months and ordered her to serve the full sentence.
The children’s grandmother also pleaded guilty to contempt of court and was handed a six-month custodial sentence,
suspended after three months.
The court heard the grandmother had been ordered to provide any information about the whereabouts of her daughter
and the grandchildren, but harboured them for nearly six months without informing authorities.
Outside court, a lawyer for the women said they would not appeal the sentence.

3 Responses to “Judge Michael Jarrett”

  1. allan harvey says:

    Here he goes again, Wow we don’t have decisions like this here
    An old judgement from Judge Jarrett but it shows he means business. Parenting orders should be complied with. In this decision he was overturned on appeal.

    Judges critical of mum jailing
    By Janet Fife-Yeomans, DailyTelegraph October 30, 2007 2:00am

    A MOTHER who could not afford the petrol to drive her children to a court-ordered contact visit with their father should never have been jailed, the Full Bench of the Family Court has ruled.

    In an extraordinary judgment, the court said not only did Federal Court magistrate Michael Jarrett get it wrong, his considerations fell “far short” of what was required by the Family Law Act.

    With no money to put petrol in her car and without a lawyer, she had represented herself before Mr Jarrett, who earns $239,430.

    She was jailed for four months in March but released on appeal on the order of the Full Bench after eight weeks and reunited with her daughter, 6, and son, 8.

    The Full Bench of the Family Court reserved its reasons which were published yesterday.
    Justice Mary Finn, Justice Bernard Warnick and Justice Jennifer Boland said prison should only be invoked as a last resort.

    “For this mother, with primary care of two young children, the more so,” the judges said.
    They said they expected Mr Jarrett would have “cogent and thorough” reasons for such a serious decision however his reasons were “deficient in detail and lacked clarity”.

    The parents split up when their son was 14 months and the mother was pregnant with their daughter. The children have always lived with their mother, who has since remarried.

    The three judges said Mr Jarrett was also wrong in sending the children to live with their father indefinitely when he jailed their mother.

    Just three months earlier, a Family Court judge had granted the mother custody, saying she was an outstanding parent doing an outstanding job and living with their father would expose them to “too much prospect of harm”.

  2. Evan Myers says:

    This doesn’t belong here.

    I saw a discussion about this on another thread.

    Is someone wants to put it in the right place.

    Very interesting though, I must say.

  3. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Evan Myers @2: Yes, some here described it as a Men’s Refuge. Ha! It’s clearly no refuge but yet another indoctrination centre. It’s there to change men to better suit women’s preferences. Sure, a lot of desperate men who have been kicked out of their homes on the basis of women’s allegations will go along with the indoctrination and will be grateful for the shelter and something that looks like support. But it’s a male denigration initiative.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar