Australian Family Court Judges to be Trained About the Malicious Use of False Accusations
Many have questioned, “How will bringing the Australian Family Court into the Federal Closed Circuit Court make a difference?”
It is becoming clearer the difference is wiping the Family Court rules and replacing them with the Closed Circuit Court rules.
To that end Australian Family Court Judges are to be retrained. It will include how to recognise victims of domestic and family violence whose stories are often not heard. i.e. Partners who have been falsely accused. And that it is usually the father.
This occurs when a woman, who may be feeling vindictive, tries to turn children against the other parent and makes unsubstantiated claims of violence and even child sexual abuse.
Such claims can be made out of malice and/or to bolster the party’s prospects of securing a favourable outcome – from their own perspective – in family law cases such as custody and property proceedings.
The law and penalty was always there under section 314 of the Crimes act 1900 (NSW). Punishable for up to 7 years jail. It just wasn’t in play in the Australian Family Court rules.
Where statements were made under oath that can be prosecuted for perjury under section 327 of the same act which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
New Zealand has similar laws under the crimes act 1961 section 115. Conspiring to bring false accusation upon conviction is liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
I am not entirely sure, but I think in NZ such accusations would need to be taken out privately in the district or High Court.
The direction the Australian Government has indicated is quite a significant one. It seems the Closed Circuit Court are arming and training Judges to award significant imprisonment penalties to those people who choose to lie in court.
It has been a long time coming to recognise what has been happening.
Looking forward to seeing other peoples view on why the Australian Family Court Judges are being retrained in criminal law.
According to their own summary;
This is, “an exciting time of change for the Courts, as the new amalgamated Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia commences on 1 September 2021,” the Chief Justice added.
This sounds positive but I am skeptical. Judges are well aware of the issues around false accusations just as they are aware that COCA states women and men have equal/same parenting rights. However we all know in practice that a judge’s discretion, personality, what side of the bed they got up on etc often surpasses what the law prescribes. There’s an innate culture that needs to be changed. Judges rarely say someone has been lying in their Family Court judgements. They prefer to use words like, ‘misunderstandings’ or ‘confusion’.
Hopefully the consequences of perjury will have the greatest benefit and make applicants/respondents stick to truth/facts in affidavits before they go near a court room.
The Courts have recently engaged the Safe & Together Institute from the United States of America to deliver court-wide training based on the Safe & Together Model™ developed by leading expert, Mr David Mandel.
That’s the source of the retraining.
@2 I too am very sceptical. Feminist Judges will find it hard to adjust. A lawyer need only take poor decisions to a higher court to set a precedent.
Examples I suspect will begin with ignoring or dismissing evidence. A step-up would be a suspended sentence. That I think would be the most common because as we all know women receive far lower sentences than men for the same crime.
There will be the view “the kids need mum”. She can’t go to prison. The answer to that is “Yes she can your honour, her perjury was to send an innocent man to prison and take all his children and property away from him.”
Sadly you are very right Erasing Dad, Judges and I suspect lawyers only refer to perjury as ‘misunderstandings’ or ‘confusion’.
The blood moon.
I watched her as a small child.
The street, treasury place.
Little was my knowledge of the moon.
And the Humans, tainting it with a footstep.
Recently finished, media headlines, moon abandoned.
To the blood moon.
Sorry for them Humans.
But a ghost, a memory, in past events.
Written stories, and heroism.
But no photo of the eclipse, from the moon.
Sorry to the blood moon.
Humans are to filled with hate.
To see what she will become.
To busy, fighting in courtrooms.
Is our love for her, not then just lies.
I will hope for the blood moon.
She watches me, as I watch her.
To see what we become.
For Humans, and the moon meet again.
Not the normal petty pursuits, of Humans.
Risen, await the blood moon.
Soon Humans will arrive.
Hope we reign, over petty things.
Earthlings can have the hate, in courtrooms.
Soon Humans, will make love, on the moon.
With blood, sweat and tears.
A courtroom, must be built.
To settle the resultants.
Tainted by Humans, and there Earth.
Staining it, by the humans earth, blood red.
They don’t need training about dishonesty.
They love dishonesty.
They make personal fortunes, from dishonesty.
Pay, and law firm, dividends, full of dirty money.
They kill men, and are dishonest about it.
Is there not a worse act, of dishonesty.
Should it not we, be malicious, seeking justice.
We understand it, researched it, know the lies.
Then righteousness, not like them, but absent of dishonesty.
Not malicious, or dishonesty.
The killing of men, is just corruption for money.
The abuse of rights, from conception, to Child Support.
But justice as we know it should be, is absent for men.
We should not have to ask judges.
Or have to teach them.
For men to have justice.
I hear your worry retraining to remove dishonesty. And you are right, for some it just can’t be done. It would go against what the past Judges genuinely believe to be right.
How can you battle or even tolerate such evil that has tipped thousands of men to do the unthinkable to themselves? Such great loss to the child the Judge claims to be their principal cause.
The Australian Government know and agree with you, DJ Ward. Pauline Hanson with her speeches inside parliament could not have been more frank in regard to the suicides, murders and nonsense that has been the plague of the Family Court. That is why the Family Court was terminated and brought home back into the reality where offenders of the truth can suffer nasty consequences.
The next stage will be to move matters to the High Court and beyond. I imagine that will happen reasonably smartly if the rules of the Closed Circuit Court or the retraining is not met, penalties not applied for the worst cases.
This is where the standard will be set. It will allow dads lawyer to refer to it as the law until a higher or highest court affirms the very clear intention of the Australian Government.
That intention is to recognise victims of domestic and family violence whose stories are often not heard. i.e. Partners who have been falsely accused or had perjury committed against them. I maintain suspended sentences will likely be the bulk.
It is a real slap across the face of feminism. It says separation is OK, perjury is not.
I come from an age when there was no family court. The court came first of course, then the legislation that turned it into the beast it has become.
I can still remember an acquaintance stopping on the side of the road, leaping out of his car, saying this new legislation is going to spell disaster.
To be honest I really didn’t have any great understanding of what he was talking about nor did I think it would affect me.
It’s hard to grasp that reality, that when you’re trying to explain your own situation. It’s hard for people to comprehend what doesn’t involve them.
Sometimes they are simply persuaded otherwise by relentless propaganda.
How do you end the family court. Suddenly is probably not the best idea.
What’s the alternative?
Perhaps just this, where you create a new authority just like when the family court was once created but with a different purpose.
Is the purpose clear?
Is the desired outcome clear?
Is it a matter of create the alternative and let the fighting continue?
The question then is; Did the Australian parliament give any clear direction or did they simply palm the problem off to a new court to see where the dust settles?
I interviewed a leader at Wellington Rape Crisis years ago for a story I published in The Press (in 2006). I just checked their website. I like how they say abuse victims don’t have to call themselves survivors. But this is the bit that always disturbed me for obvious reasons…
“We believe you. Your needs drive how we work with you. We will work with you as a whole person. We will base our services on what you want and need.”
I understand a real victim will feel very upset at being questioned. But the same applies when reporting any crime. Insurance companies can upset their clients when they become suspicious, too.
My worry is that if you are told right at the start that anything you say will be believed, then for some unscrupulous individuals, such a blanket statement is an invitation to elaborate or lie. It is imho also devaluing the staff – how could police for example have confidence in anyone who expresses credulousness? Perhaps they don’t need to. How about their saying, look as long as you tell us the truth, you have nothing to fear, and we will support you. But please don’t make stuff up, because then we and the police might not believe you when you are telling the truth. Maybe that’s unnecessary, but way back I was told by the Wellington Rape Crisis person, Georgina Thompson said to me firstly she does not represent a national body, but I did double check what she wished to say publicly then and it was (NB she may have changed her mind since 2006)
““I would find it extraordinary if [any women] come to us who have not been abused.”
We work intensively with our clients. They don’t make it up.
“There would be no motivation to do so.”
I recently heard similar or the same views expressed by several women.
Sadly, lawyers representing women are of the same ilk. There’s are reasons why the Family Court and the support industry around it is dominated by women. By this nature alone there is a clear bias. In 2017 60% of family court judges were women. Not sure what the figure is now. Its not uncommon for the only male in the court room to be the respondent. Gender neutrality/equality has never applied to the family court. If men are at the heart of abuse/violence, why are we not overrun with support services for men?
The invitation to lie is sealed from the outset. Before a single word is uttered. Even before a thought enters a woman’s mind, she and the world are drenched by everyone from the Government to the Police, the rape crises enterprise, the media, woman’s groups, social workers, the internet. They shout it from the roof tops.
That message is “WE BELIEVE YOU”.
In other words, the messages is “NO MATTER OUR UNLIKELY, UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES YOU WILL BE BELIEVED UNCONDITIONALLY”.
My question is how can you say such words as that before you hear what the complaint is? What sort of nonsense is that?
87% of the time juries clearly are saying “We don’t believe you”. All that tells me is the Police are setting up woman to be traumatised.
Not traumatised because they were not believed. Traumatised because piece by piece defence lawyers show just how they lied.
And if you want to know what real Trauma is?
You are taken from your home.
You are interviewed.
You are charged.
You are fingerprinted.
Your name is in the news.
You lose your job.
You become unemployable.
You are highly likely to lose your marriage or partner.
You will lose your kids if your marriage fails.
You could lose your home.
You lose your savings.
You consider suicide. Some do it.
You are 87% likely to win your case.
The process could take a couple of years.
You win but you always have a cloud over you.
You receive a police record.
You remain unemployable.
Now thats trauma at its maximum.
You realise in a short space of time. You won your trial, but your world was destroyed.
The Labour Government said, that’s not trauma enough. They set a law that will see innocent young men go to jail. – So says Simon Bridges a former rape prosecutor, the society and the nearly all Barristers in NZ.
Bridges says many 100’s of innocent men each year will go to prison.
In my case I got 5 Affidavits from the hundreds of direct witnesses or three serious loitering allegations as the applicant choose to place her loitering allegations in a dense social environ ment . All of them said under oath that she wasn’t even there .
Guess what ? The Judge wrote in her decision : Quote : I developed a tunnel vision to get to the bottom of her allegations and that was a psychological abuse and I got a P.O The same allegations that my legal response to her false allegations were rejected by the North Shore Police ( Thank you again Mr.Hooker) but the Judge accepted them all . When I mentioned that in my Application for a discharge of the P.O , the Judge put in writing that I need 6 months of psychiatric treatment . Only After I finish with my psychiatric treatment I can eventually reapply for a discharge. The Judge dismissed in its entirety the positive Report from the Anger management programme . T
The applicant in her Affidavit said I damaged two tyres of her car ( no photos, no repair bills , nothing ) while her car was at a restaurant parking slot but I found from my FVIR that she reported to the Police two tyres damage on the same day but this time her car was parked on a driveway inside her house . When I mentioned that the Judge told me that I instead of improving myself I got worse .
Exactly right Lukenz – you are prejudged as guilty before any hearing and punished from the first minute the Police serve the PO. It’s a form of remand. It its doesn’t matter if the PO is without notice and you should be heard within 3 months, the court piles of the ‘busy’ excuses. Even judges are not given a timeframe to produce judgements after a hearing. Men can wait for several months for a judgment. My lawyer once told me not to worry because all of her male clients eventually turn the tables on their spouses. I replied there in lies the problem. Men should not have to turn the tables in the first place. They shouldn’t be punished before being heard. And they most certainly should not be separated from their children.
The difficulty with civil law is some of the conceptual differences.
The claim is proven until it is defended. The PO system has been labelled draconian by overseas legal opinions.
“The Order” is given to the person who is the applicant.
It is an exclusion zone but you can understand the remand feeling.
Like a Custody Order, where access is not to your children but access to the exclusion zone of custody.
To have a protection order removed it is not taken off you, as such but taken from the possession of usually a woman but the owner of the order.
Even Myers – well said. Because the claim is proven until defended, it emboldens the ‘WE BELIEVE YOU’ brigades. And as Lukenz points out, the stigma of guilt remains after a successful defense.
You are on-to-it ErasingDad.
Over the years and on this site in particular I’ve tried to encourage others to see it from this perspective. It’s often not welcome, though and not what most individuals want to hear (he’s just an apologist for the system) and it has caused on many occasions considerable conflict.
Here you say, “stigma of guilt remains.”
This was one of the first things I learned, discussing the family court with a much older woman, she looked at me and said;
“But you’ve been to court.”
The penny dropped.
And this is the public perception of ordinary men going to court. If you’ve been to court you’ve done something wrong. It’s a cultural perspective that fits the criminal law narrative of the country and the propaganda plays on this.
The … get in first, get the claim in, don’t worry about settlng out of court, make him guilty.
That’s along the lines of what the Australian Court might be looking into. How to combat this misuse of the court.
In the civil sense in our world it is a crime to use the court this way, whereas the Europeans use their Civil System for their criminal cases as well. In our case the process should never have been allowed to develop.
It didn’t come from within New Zealand, it came from a US radical who butchered our legal system.
The protection order situation mentioned above is also very important. It you approach this from the perspective of it being an order against yourself that’s how you will try and get rid of the thing and of course the harder you try the deeper the hole.
It you approach this from the perspective of “her order in which you are named” you have a much better prospect of success.
My own application for a protection order to be dismissed went to court on the basis of misuse.
My oral submission was along the lines of “I don’t believe I can add anything that will assist the court.”
After what the court had already seen, how could it not see that someone on her tenth or twentieth lawyer however many we were up to then was just gaming the system along with her behavior.
Some women particularly those associated with the Labour Party develop this authoritarian ownership of the court being there for their own personal whim not the “benefit of their children”
A lot of painful hard work to get to that point I know and it shouldn’t be necessary to do that just to give your kids a chance in life.
The only people who are on to it are the ones who have experienced it.
They are in the tens of thousands.
That number includes the deceased by their own hand and the grown children who I call victims too.
The grown children are likely to be a significantly large part of NZ society who many remain fatherless, no bond to a dad, unhealed and likely disruptive members of the public.
I agree with you that there are hundreds of thousands of people who have suffered the experience.
But on the other hand there are very few who have an independent understanding rather than a reactionary perspective.
I know how hard it is to get people to take a step back and have a holistic view.
Women in particular aren’t asked to do this. You may have seen Jim Bagnall’s writings on ‘The Revenge Scale.’
Women as mentioned above are encouraged to be aggressive not encouraged to mediate.
To get out of balltrap men need to do the reverse and it can be a very difficult situation to unwind them out of.
When I say on-to-it to ErasingDad and what you are saying to me are two different things.
Downunder – can you please point me to Jim Bagnall’s ‘The Revenge Scale” writings. What really shakes me to the core is the things that have happened to me in 2020/21 are from a path many men have walked years prior. The process women follow has not changed. They are encouraged not to mediate. The aim is to achieve some sort of ‘Payback’. Maybe it’s because the counsel or support service personnel for the woman were once abused? Maybe its because there has always been an undertone that men abuse women? Whatever the source, the system/process facilitates the destruction of a man’s life. There is no scale of punishment. No one should ever be made to feel that they have no reasons to live.
This Revenge Scale started as a bit of a joke back around 2002 when Jim and I were heavily involved with helping men in the family court in Auckland. I tried to ignore it but Jim being the anthropologist went on to put some work into it.
Last time I saw Jim was not long before he died and he’d produced a yellow booklet with his family court musings along with this ‘Revenge Scale’.
Sadly there is probably more truth to it than there was the joke.
Someone will have a copy of it and Maurreen may even still have a box of them at home.