PHILADELPHIA — When Miltreda Kress came before family court Judge Lyris Younge, she hoped to explain why the city’s removal of her three minor daughters over allegations of neglect had been a mistake.
What Kress got instead was a stern reprimand — “Do not talk while I’m talking” — when she uttered the word “I.” Kress apologized, and Younge scolded her again for opening her mouth, then refused to allow her to speak at all. Younge barred the Philadelphia mother from seeing her children — then ages 11, 14 and 15 — which lasted close to a year, and Kress felt helpless as they bounced around foster and group homes; it would take another judge to pave the way for her to retain full custody.
Kress’ experience in Younge’s courtroom had unsettled her. Disturbed by her treatment, she said she would sit outside courtroom 5A and approach other parents about their experiences. She realized she wasn’t alone.
- Abuser Name or Alias::
Family Court Judge
- Abusers Organisation::
Family Court
- Type of Abuse::
Financial, Emotional, Psychological or Mental
- Matter Resolved?:
Yes
'Reasonable fear of violence' unreasonable
- Details
-
Category: Court Ordered Abuse
-
Created: Thursday, 30 March 2006 22:39
-
Written by Patricia Merkin, Barrister
In the classic To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout recounts how her father explained, “… you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them”. In the politics of divorce and the government’s response, a masculine perspective drives reforms. These reflect a persistent attitude by a federal government that refuses to “walk in the shoes of victims of family violence”. Overwhelmingly, these are women and their children.
This is exposed in the new family law amendment by changes to the definition of family violence. It is proposed that the wording will be changed from the victim’s “fear” of violence to a “reasonable fear” of violence when considering evidence presented to the court.
The current climate in family court is fraught with disturbing cases where children have paid a gut-wrenching price when judges have overlooked or trivialised violence and abuse to mothers. The deaths of three brothers last September during a court ordered access visit, and the deaths of Jesse and Patrick Dalton at the hands of their father, placed in his care by the family court are forgotten, swept under the carpet and ignored. Instead, the government continues to bend to the pressure by father’s rights advocates.
Protecting children from parents
- Details
-
Category: Court Ordered Abuse
-
Created: Tuesday, 15 July 2008 22:36
-
Written by Patricia Merkin, Barrister
The adaptation of Jane’ Austen’s Mansfield Park (1999) by Patricia Rozema has some interesting commentary pertinent to the crux of this article. Mansfield Park is Austen’s tale of Fanny Price, who is basically given away to rich relatives by her poor family, an occurrence Rozema states happened quite frequently in those days. She says, “I think that people were somehow less connected to their biological origins back them”.
This would seem to indicate that people are somehow more connected to their biological origins these days or that poverty-forced parting of children is no longer as prevalent in western countries. Given the child abuse cases that have emerged recently, there is good evidence that it when it comes to parental rights, the biological connection is powerful.
Take for example, the recent child abuse case in Canberra. It is reported that the child protection authorities tried three years ago to remove the children, but the Court was not convinced by the evidence which was presented.
Fathers and bias in the Family Court
- Details
-
Category: Court Ordered Abuse
-
Created: Friday, 26 March 2010 22:32
-
Written by Patricia Merkin, Barrister - One of the Good Guys
A recent decision by the Family Court of Australia suggests that it is out of touch with general community standards and reveals that the law needs further amendments.
A father who was charged and convicted of downloading child pornography has been granted weekend overnight access to his two young daughters. He was previously found guilty in a criminal court of downloading internet material that by its nature is produced from the actual abuse of children. Furthermore, he was found guilty of “reproducing” child exploitation material.
The judge ordered that during the weekend overnight contact, he must have a friend present in the house and that the children’s bedroom door needs to be locked at night. In the comments section to the news article about this decision, comment number 69 asks, “What is it about the Family Court that keeps doing this? This is NOT the first time it has happened. Why is the court giving sex offenders access to children?”
Family Law Act: too little, too late
- Details
-
Category: Court Ordered Abuse
-
Created: Tuesday, 07 December 2010 22:29
-
Written by Patricia Merkin, Barrister - One of the Good Guys
On Monday, March 26, 2006, Senator Santoro presented the Second Reading Speech (PDF 1.83MB) on the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill. These amendments introduced several key features into the Family Law Act 1975 (the Act). These included continuing priority of post separation contact, compulsory out-of-court processes before filing, the rolling out of the Family Relationship Centres and strengthening of the enforcement regime dealing with breaches of court orders.
However, these key features did not address the serious child protection concerns from the experts in family law and people trained in social and legal analysis. For example, the Family Law Council reported in 2002 that, “There is no greater problem in family law today than the problems of adequately addressing child protection concerns in proceedings under the Family Law Act. Since 2002, the amendments to the Family law Act have done little to address the “this serious [child protection] problem and gap in services.”
Mischief in the Family Law Act
- Details
-
Category: Court Ordered Abuse
-
Created: Thursday, 30 June 2011 22:24
-
Written by Patricia Merkin
On January 29 2009, an unimaginable act took place on the West Gate Bridge in Melbourne. Horrified motorists reported seeing a man throw a little girl from the bridge into the river below like a piece of unwanted garbage. The latest family law inquiry was generated by this crime because this little girl was killed by her own father after the Family Court made an order that led to the opportunity for him to commit this crime. This event revealed an unintended consequence or "mischief" in family law processes may be that a parent who is a risk to their children is not being adequately identified during family law processes.
The information generated by the inquiry into this event identified that a broadening of the definition of domestic or family violence in the Family Law Act is one way that a parent who is a risk to their child may be better recognised during the family law processes and this sort of event may be avoided. It has been well established that where domestic violence is extant in a family, it is a 'red flag' to the safety and well being of children. The amendments to the Family Law Act are now before the Senate Committee.
It has since emerged that the mother in this case tried to raise her fears about the safety of the children with the father at various points along the process, but it is apparent her fears were not heeded.