Newsletter Subscription

Paypal Donate

Polls

Family Law Reforms needed urgently
NCCPS MEDIA RELEASE
CHILD PROTECTION WEEK
The National Council for Children Post-Separation (NCCPS) is seriously concerned at the irrational and tragic paradox that while State Child Protection workers, Police, and Medical Practitioners are working to prevent child abuse and to protect children from abuse, the Family Courts are ordering children to live with, or to have unsupervised contact with, parents who have abused them or are known and proven abusers.  This is happening in all States of Australia and in both the State and Federal Family Courts.
 
Examples include two small girls placed with a father who had convictions for pedophilia. The Judge in this case recognised the risk but naively claimed that as long as the two girls locked their bedroom door on a night they should be safe. In another case a Judge placed a small boy in a situation with a step-father who had convictions for child sexual abuse but the Judge excused his decision for placing the child because the child sexual abuse convictions were committed against small girls. The Judge believed the gender difference would keep the small boy safe.  There are many other similar cases occurring almost daily in Australian Family Courts.
 
Children are also being used as `Ping Pongs’ having to live with each parent on a week or month about basis and to travel very considerable distances merely so a parent can exercise their right to a couple of hours contact with the child.   Research has shown that psychological damage can result from the constant disruption and absence of stability for children, particularly under the age of four.
 
The Attorney-General is now in possession of at least four independent reports all of which have highlighted that shared parenting is not working for a significant number of children especially in cases where there is physical, sexual and psychological abuse.    The most recent report is by Professors Dale Bagshaw and Thea Brown which has found that the family law system does not assist victims of family violence.   These reports have been ignored and the damage to children continues.
 
Child Protection Systems Expert, Charles Pragnell says, “The NCCPS’s concern is larger than just the law itself.  The family court process, limited training and absence of the scrutiny of ‘experts’, and lack of investigation of abuse allegations are all problematic.   As a consequence, reports, disclosures, allegations, and criminal records of child abuse are being ignored and disregarded in judicial judgments”.
 
In many cases, parents who raise allegations of violence were either not believed or ignored when final custody arrangements were ordered.  Mothers, in particular, have been fearful of raising concerns of violence as they are adjudged to be hostile to contact and are threatened with losing custody of their child altogether and feel under duress in  ‘making a deal’ to at least retain some time with their child. Mothers who have failed to cooperate with Court-ordered contact of their children with alleged abusers, have been imprisoned or made to pay huge financial penalties”, he added.
 
The Family Courts of Australia have a duty and a responsibility to uphold and preserve the rights of children to be protected from abuse and exploitation which is their right under the U.N. Charter of Children’s Rights signed by the Australian Federal government in 1991. 
How many more children will be murdered, abused and violated before these reforms are implemented?.
 
 
Issued in association with:
The Safer Family Law Campaign
Justice for Children
National Peak Body for the Safety of Parents and Children
SingleMums of Australia
 
 
Vote Labor and support Julia Gillard

Find your Labor Candidate here:

http://www.aec.gov.au/election/

 
Help for psychologist fuels complaints




Judge Bell says her board hearing testimony does not suggest she would favor Dr. Kirkpatrick in her court.

By Pam Kelley and Gary L. Wright
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Usually, Judge Lisa Bell sits behind the bench. But in December, in a move that has drawn criticism, she took the witness stand to help a colleague.

As Mecklenburg's chief district judge, Bell testified on behalf of Charlotte psychologist H.D. Kirkpatrick, who was facing possible discipline. He had failed to provide face-to-face supervision of another mental health professional, and was appearing before the N.C. Psychology Board to explain.

In the end, the psychology board decided not to sanction him.

But Bell's appearance and testimony have fueled critics who complain that such clubby relationships in Mecklenburg's courts compromise justice.

Her testimony also prompted an ethics complaint against Bell, alleging that she had used the prestige of her office to promote Kirkpatrick's business interests.

The complaint was dismissed. But its allegations live on, now posted on an Internet blog titled "Judge Bell Exposed."

Kirkpatrick, who testifies in child custody cases, feared some lawyers would use any sanction against him to question his integrity.

So he subpoenaed Bell, who testified that even a minor sanction would damage Kirkpatrick in a major way.

Voodoo doll

Both described the hostility he faces from some Charlotte psychologists and litigants.

He has received threats, he told the psychology board, and in 2007 found a voodoo doll on his wife's car - with pins in its heart.

"I sort of walk around with a target on me," he said.

The acrimony dates back a decade to a feud among psychologists. Some complained that judges were favoring forensic psychologists, including Kirkpatrick and a few others, by too often choosing them to evaluate parents in child custody disputes, freezing other psychologists out of what can be lucrative court work.

Some critics also are suspicious because Kirkpatrick is married to Katie Holliday, a family law attorney with the James, McElroy & Diehl firm. Critics have accused the firm of having undue influence on judges. Holliday declined comment, but Bill Diehl says such allegations are nonsense.

Kirkpatrick does work with the Diehl firm on custody cases but says he actually works more often with firms that oppose Diehl and his colleagues.

Sets a standard

When Bell took the stand for Kirkpatrick, she praised him, saying he set a standard all psychologists who work with the courts should aspire to.

"We have our share of hired guns in Mecklenburg County," she testified. "And as a judicial officer interested in facts and the truth, I can say that he was never, ever considered one of those."

Bell also elaborated on allegations she'd heard aimed at both her and Kirkpatrick.

Asked what critics say about him, Bell said: "That he accepts bribes; that his wife's firm accepts bribes; that the court accepts bribes in order to rule favorably for certain litigants who are represented by Dr. Kirkpatrick's wife's firm; that he engages in criminal conduct ... that I assigned judges to family court specifically for the purpose of lining the pockets of Dr. Kirkpatrick and his wife, and that I should be in prison for those actions."

Three months after the hearing, an Albemarle woman filed the ethics complaint against Bell. It alleged, among other things, that Bell's appearance and kind words show "Dr. Kirkpatrick is in a special position to influence Judge Bell."

It also alleged that Bell had "a long and detailed relationship" with Kirkpatrick and his wife, as well as the Diehl firm.

In dismissing the complaint, the N.C. Judicial Standards Commission found that Bell hadn't testified as a character witness and didn't violate the judicial code of conduct. Judges can testify in court, though such appearances are infrequent.

The complaint against Bell was curious. It was filed by a woman named Rhonda Sisk, an Albemarle resident with no obvious connection to Bell or the Mecklenburg courts. Sisk didn't respond to the Observer's request to discuss her complaint.

Sisk grew up in Bluefield, W.Va., with psychologist Lisa Pennington and her sister Rhonda Patt, a pediatrician. The two court system critics say they are acquainted with Sisk, who is Pennington's Facebook friend. But the sisters say they had nothing to do with the complaint Sisk filed.

Bell called "ludicrous" the allegations that she has a special relationship with Kirkpatrick and the lawyers at James, McElroy & Diehl. She said she decides cases based on the law - not on who the litigants and their attorneys are.

She doesn't think her testimony at Kirkpatrick's hearing compromises her objectivity. She hasn't presided in family court since 2003. Even so, Bell says that if Kirkpatrick is ever a witness in her courtroom, she'll disclose that she once testified on his behalf.

"If they think I can't be fair," she said, "I would recuse myself."

Editor's note: Comments have been disabled due multiple abuse reports. Please refrain from profanity, obscenity, spam, name-calling or attacking others for their views.


Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/14/1623618/help-for-psychologist-fuels-complaints.html#ixzz0wjev6dxd
 
Judge Lemkau was voted out

Click on the link below as to why..

http://www.drphil.com/slideshows/slideshow/5736/?id=5736&showID=1442&versionID=

 
Australian Institute of Family Studies conference proceedings.


http://www.aifs.gov.au/conferences/aifs11/?subset=ps&sort_by=TI

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 23
Designed & Managed by: E-FusionSoft