What defines a criminal or thief in the Family Court?

By Michael Knight

21 August 2009

Read & Add Comments: 3
Subscriber: login

What defines a criminal or thief in the Family Court of Australia?

Is it a court appointed psychologist who charges $4,400 for one(1) days work, that is $2,200 to be payed by each parent?

What about when one parent doesn't wish to waste his or her money on a useless report, but rather put this extravagant amount of money toward her children? Especially in tough economic times.

Tough titties, I'm sure the court says, indicated by their usual response of making orders to cough up the money.

What happens if you are sick and can't make it that day, or are misled into signing consent orders by your lawyer when you are not well and not having the fee disclosed to you?

Well guess what?

Unlike canceling a doctors appointment and re-booking without a cancellation charge, you get an invoice from the psychologist billing you for the whole $4,400. Yes, that's right. You have to pay the other parent's share as well.

Plus you are taken back to court for contempt by the parent who is the applicant, yes the aggressor, only to suffer further costs and consequences, all because you don't wish to partake in a Family Court of Australia activity that reels into these so called public servants a fistful of dollars. What a disgusting element of society we have, and what's more it is a Federal Court.

This was Samantha's (not her real name) plight. She was just a mum. By 'just' I mean she was not a tough business woman or a vicious lawyer versed up on all the legal trickery and bluff tactics they employ to bully innocent mums and dads. She was not aware or strong enough to resist the ferocity and fear invoking deception many of the Family Court professionals employ.

Another case is with a Father called Nick (real name) where this very psychologist had canceled an appointment with him, without any form of prior notification. It was only by Nick ringing the psychologist's office on the morning to confirm the prescribed appointment, when he was informed by the psychologist's secretary "he (psych) couldn't do it". Nick read between the lines taking this to mean he wouldn't do it as there was less than $10,000 available to pay him. However unlike Samantha, Nick was not hit with a double bill, or brought before the court for contempt and other costs.

Clearly, this psychologist and Family Court smacks of hypocrisy and double standards every day save weekends, or possibly no standard at all, except the one that says 'I will only see you if you pay me'. So much for helping families for the good of society.

Plus, what happened to that slogan "What's in the Best Interests of the Child"?

What about the poor children — Johnny, Mary and Ellen? (not real names)

Who gets to tell them that $4,400 worth of food, shelter, education, comfort, their livelihood and future was stolen from them, and by a court, who they are to supposedly look up to and worship? Well, like many other victimised children and parents through the legal system, that idea has been on the down and out for 30+ years.

Plus remember, this is only one tiny monetary example of robbery where the children go without.

Does the psychologist, lawyer or judge send a letter of apology to these children explaining why it was in the children's best interest that $4,400 be stolen from them? I don't think so —

Do psychologists, lawyers and judges really think that the public believes taking $4,400 away from children is in the child's best interests? I don't think so —

I would like a court professional to come out publicly and say it is. For there will be no member of the court or a court jester who will, as it would be like admitting to a crime of theft. The police would have to charge this court appointed psychologist and the judge for making or allowing such an order.

It's fanciful that this Family Court of Australia racket is still going on after almost 34 years.

As for the public, how fooled are they?

Is it fear or complete apathy by the citizens of Australia that they just sit at home being brainwashed and entertained by fictitious legal, police and criminal drama on television, when in the real world, real parents and children are victims to such perpetrators as psychologists in the Family Court of Australia?

If the Chief Judge Dianna Bryant doesn't take full responsibility for the crimes that take place in her court, then she should not only stand down, but be charged accordingly.

Furthermore, the Family Court should be closed down pending a full public inquiry into the dealings of this institution, including evidence from adults and children alike, who has suffered as a result of the court's powers and negligence since it was first opened in 1975.

Perhaps the real question is how long will the public tolerate the constant abuse from this institution that carries on criminal activities under the guise of 'what's in the best interests of the children'.

With love, kindness and peace
Michael