"any attempt at alienating the children
from the other parent,
should be seen as a direct and willful violation
of one of the prime duties of parenting,
the public outcry and legal ramifications,
should, without question, be the same as in
all other instances of child abuse"

please visit these blogs and sign poll for me

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

and

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

kind regards
Steve

you can put your hand up top the sun but never block out the light

the blog is great stuff steve, there should be a lot more of it by dedicated people such as yourself.

enough people screaming out like that will go along way to bring awareness

really good stuff mate

Steve's blog regularly mentions the mother's solicitor sending letters claiming continued attempts at contact with the child will be construed as harrassment.

Reasonable attempts to arrange contact with children is never considered harrassment by the courts.

An important concept to undersand is the mother's solicitors responsibility is to advisw, then take INSTRUCTION from the mother. The solicitor's letters are in reallity EMPTY threats until they are back by an application to a court for a restraining order. The chances of getting a restraining order on the grounds of attempts to arrange contact with a child are very low.

The posts on this site are full of peolpe who has received letters from solicitors claiming inaccurate interpretation sof the law, which in fact are empty threats.

In the case on steves blog, if the solicitor actually thought an AVO or restraining order would be granted, he would have applied for one.

It is also interesting about the mothers choice of reason to discontinue C$. Didn't want the father to know her income. Hang on, another ground for termination a C$ registration is FEAR of the payer. If harrassment was a real and justifiable issue, I am sure the mother would have applied for the Restraining order and used this to stop the C$ registration.

I would be more concerned that the Mother is planning a move. There are to main sources of information used in Location orders. C$A and CENTRELINK. Being out of their respective systems make a parent that much harder to locate if they do do a bunk.

In regaurd to the courts, I could say that the courts are applying the 2006 ammendments to the Family Law Act quite vigourously. It is true. Better still, put some time aside, Log on to

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

or

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

being the web sites of the Family Court of Autralia and the Federal Magistrates Court respectively. Find the link that says "Judgements" which are not hard to find, nor to follow. This will lead to a list of recent and new Judgements in both cases. The FCoA site also lists recent Appeal Judgements.

While the FCoA and FMC do not recognise PAS, they certainly do recognise Parental Aliention for what it is. And in most cases treat it for what it is - ABUSE of a high order. Relocation is also very difficult to get approved. Put the 2 together and the court generally allows the allienating parent a chance to change their attitude. Failing that, residence is usually reversed.

Two further points. The best response to an ongoing bluff, is to call that bluff.
In the family law situation, (as with most others) doing nothing means nothing changes. Yes there is a chance of failure. But to a certain extent, that is better than being in limbo.

The Last Word
In the family law context, the "last word" has no meaning unless it belongs to a judge!