Print

Print


Gayle,
I imagine you looked there too but google, google news and factiva turned up 
nothing on the first case except Bettina herself. There is probably some 
report she has heard of an actual case, but she works on the Demidenko 
principle, always tell one truth for every ten lies and then get indignant & 
threaten to sue when people think that that one truth is a fib.
Her misreading of the WAFE Report is spectacular (H. Saunders, 'Twenty-nine 
child homicides', Bristol: Women's Aid Federation of England, 2004): Saunders 
only claims that 5 children were killed after court-ordered contact, and 
Nicholas Wall deals with same thing. He says the WAFE Report places too much 
blame on judges, not that it is too harsh on the murderers. Also given he came 
out with this report in mid 2006, surely it's not quite right to say that 
"Appeal judge Nicholas Wall has now released a report investigating the real 
circumstances of those 29 tragic homicides". A minor quibble, I guess. As I 
read it, his report is very sympathetic to WAFE.
ho hum -- except that I notice her article has been published in three states. 
Helen



Quoting "Davies, Gayle" <[log in to unmask]>:

> 
> Can anyone on the INT-LAW list verify two of the assertions in this
> article -  
> 
> 
> (a)     is there a case where a "forged"  judgment was presented in
> Court  by a self-representing litigant? 
> 
> 
> (b)     Is there a UK  barrister to be put on trial for perverting the
> course of justice by posing as a support group and  sending his opponent
> a forged judgment?  
> 
> 
> Grateful for any leads.   
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Gayle Davies
> 
> 
> Manager, Library Services
> 
> 
> Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW). 
> 
> 
> Australia
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------
> 
> 
> Lobby groups muddy family law
> 
> 
> Bettina Arndt
> 
> Courier Mail. 
> 
> February 01, 2007 11:00pm
> 
> FAMILY courts have always been known for dirty tricks but recent stories
> to emerge from Britain show gutter tactics have reached new lows.
> 
> A father recently appeared in a UK Family Court, representing himself in
> a custody dispute.
> 
> He made his argument, quoting a judgment sent to him by a well-known
> fathers' support group.
> 
> The opposing barrister pulled him up - claiming the case he had
> mentioned had never appeared in the law reports. The father was made to
> look a fool and a conman, and the angry judge warned him he could face
> up to $20,000 in court costs.
> 
> But when the source of the offending email quoting the forged case was
> finally traced, it turned out to have been sent by the wife's barrister
> - who is now scheduled for a court appearance for perverting the course
> of justice.
> 
> Then there was the misleading 2004 document produced by a UK feminist
> support group for victims of violence - Women's Aid federation of
> England - which suggested that in the previous 10 years, 29 children had
> been killed by their fathers as a result of court-ordered contact
> arrangements.
> 
> The so-called research made a huge media splash, leading to the paper
> being used as ammunition by lawyers arguing against child contact with
> men with any history of violence.
> 
> Appeal judge Nicholas Wall has now released a report investigating the
> real circumstances of those 29 tragic homicides.
> 
> In 18 of the cases, the families had nothing to do with the family court
> while in another eight cases court proceedings gave no forewarning of
> the violence. He found only three cases which gave rise to concern but
> Wall concluded that even here, from the evidence presented, the judges
> had good reason to allow contact
> 
> Yes, we should be very concerned about the risks of violence to children
> of separated parents.
> 
> However, it is disgraceful the way the violence card is played to try to
> frighten politicians and the public from making proper decisions about
> the care of children after divorce.
> 
> Last year in Australia, amendments were made to family law to support
> children's rights to contact with both parents after divorce, changes
> which included extra protection for children from violence. Yet these
> welcome changes are under attack from women's groups afraid the new laws
> will undermine the licence given to mothers to shut fathers out of
> children's lives.
> 
> The cries of alarm began long before the changes made it into law. Look
> at the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, which
> makes clear its position on the irrelevance of fathers with its
> insulting slogan - "Half the couple, twice the parent".
> 
> NCSMC executive officer Elspeth McInnes's reaction to the legal changes
> was to express horror this would mean "more children will be required to
> live in two households and families fleeing violence will face new risks
> and penalties", adding 100 mothers and children were "killed every year
> by partners and fathers around family breakdown".
> 
> Sound familiar? The British homicide tactic rides again.
> 
> Many women's groups are very nervous about new Family Relationship
> Centres set up particularly to deal with children's matters.
> 
> The Government has rightly concluded that caring for children after
> divorce is a relationship issue, not a legal one and that the previous
> adversarial system was disastrous for children.
> 
> But that legal system served the interests of the punitive mother very
> well since it failed so dismally to enforce contact orders and allowed
> allegations of violence to be used to deny fathers contact with their
> children.
> 
> Remember the 1999 magistrate's survey which found 90 per cent of
> magistrates believed false AVOs were used as a tactic in family law
> cases "to deprive partners access to children"?
> 
> Be prepared for more dirty tricks as lobby groups do their best to
> discredit the FRCs - aided by nervous lawyers who rightly fear that if
> the centres are successful, fewer divorcing families will use lawyers to
> fight over children.
> 
> Bettina Arndt is a writer and social commentator
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> [log in to unmask]: Use this address for postings and replies -
> Email text body 'SIGNOFF int-law' to:
> [log in to unmask]
> **DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed on this list are those of the authors
> and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CIESIN, its staff, or 
CIESIN's
> sponsors.
> 

[log in to unmask]: Use this address for postings and replies - Email text body 'SIGNOFF int-law' to: [log in to unmask]
**DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed on this list are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CIESIN, its staff, or CIESIN's sponsors.