The real criminal syndicate kidnapping children for paedophiles in family court

It was all over the news for weeks.  People were jumping up and down and congratulating the Australian Federal Police for capturing this intricate network of people accused of child abduction. 

The media absolutely crucified these people and are naïve enough to believe what they read regardless of how literally absurd the allegations are. Mothers getting even with fathers, and people throwing their lives down the drain along with every cent they have to help children they never knew.  But surely something must be nagging at you, a well-respected doctor, Australia’s most foremost professional in dealing with child sexual abuse – a former Scotland Yard detective, and pensioners – all risking going to jail for people they never knew.  

Maybe there actually is something to this story, afterall why would so many people risk so much. 

Maybe they knew something we did not, and even after going public refuse to say they did the wrong thing.  Arrogance?  Or Morals?  You decide.

Unfortunately for the majority of Australian’s the mainstream medias’ (so-called) journalists followed suit like a bunch of lackeys, when they all jumped on the "criminal syndicate kidnapping children" bandwagon - instead of doing their own homework. Some of the atrocious headlines included: Parental abduction ring smashed after two-year AFP investigation.   Man arrested as part of alleged abduction syndicate.   Three women charged for assisting two mothers to abduct their children.   Doctor accused of masterminding child-stealing syndicate granted bail in Brisbane.   AFP bust alleged child-stealing ring in NSW, Queensland and WA.   Federal Police hunt secret network helping women abduct kids.   Inside the 'child-stealing syndicate': Three men including a vigilante paedophile hunter accused of hiding mothers and kids in $140,000 yacht to secretly ship overseas are arrested.   Abducted Australian children 'sent to New Zealand, South Africa'. 

Fortunately, the Australian Legislative Ethics Commission did do their homework and have taken the time to provide you with some more detail – that both the Australian Federal Police and state police in both Queensland and New South Wales – have conveniently kept to themselves. So here's a few points to mull over whilst the real story remains hidden from the public.

1.One mainstream media wrote “Pensioners and professionals are believed to be part of the syndicate, which allegedly used encrypted messages in order to avoid detection”.  "Syndicate"?  Really?  If the family court sent your children to live with or have unsupervised access with a paedophile, and not one professional or agency responsible for the protection of children was interested, what would you do to help them?  Any decent human being would help and criminalising the good guys and covering for the real criminals is an absolutely gutless act.  

2.If mainstream media were a bit sharper, they would do the research the staff at Alecomm have and discover that the Australian Government and Family Law Courts routinely give paedophiles and convicted sex offenders access to their child-victims.  , , , , , .  Let’s not forget Abbey who commit suicide after her father was charged for sexually assaulting her friend – That man had been convicted and jailed for molesting her friend - but had proclaimed his innocence and had been granted regular unsupervised access to Abby, in which he was able to repeatedly rape her.  

3.In fact, while we’re on the topic of paedophiles having access to their child victims, here’s a quote direct from the mouth of Justice Carmody. “There is no presumption or a priori rule that even gross misbehaviour such as child sexual abuse or family violence disqualifies the offending parent or puts up an insurmountable barrier in the way of having contact with a child victim”.    

4.But wait, there’s more.  He then went on to [very ignorantly, or not] state, “Carmody J at 388 also ignorantly stated “Child sexual abuse is a crime and thrives in the darkness of childhood silence. Once detected the crime is much harder to repeat”.  YES, these are the people making decisions about the best interests of a child – and your child could be next.  

5.Grafton’s local doctor of many years has been charged with “Dealing with Proceeds of a Crime” – even though he literally went broke trying to help those children the government continued place and leave with those whom they disclosed as sexual abusers.

6.Dr William Russell Pridgeon - who was arrested at his home in Grafton, New South Wales on Wednesday - is a GP and founded the Australian Antipaedophile Party.  He allegedly used Commonwealth money to create a network of 40 people which were part of the operation.  Police allege O'Dea, who was also arrested on Wednesday, was given the job of driving around Australia for days at a time to pick up women and their children.

7.It is alleged Pridgeon ran a Facebook page where women would send messages asking to escape from men they claimed to be paedophiles.  Surely the mainstream media is aware that one in four girls is sexually assaulted by the time they are sixteen. The figures aren't much different for boys.  In fact, one in three girls and one in six boys are sexually abused before the age of 18.   Nevertheless they were happy to be the family courts propaganda machine so that paedophiles could once again have access to their sex toys (the children).  

8.Given that 24% of abuse cases in the family court are allegations of sexual assault,   we believe the figures match the overall general statistics.  This means it isn't statistically possible that all these women are lying and or jilted.  What it does mean is that every time a magistrate calls a protective mother a liar in the federal and family courts, and gives access or custody to the alleged perpetrator, there’s literally a hundred percent chance that child is going to be put at risk. 

It also backs up evidence by Professor Freda Briggs’ claim that “1 in 3 girls are sexually abused before they leave school”, and these statistics have nothing to do with family court.    

8.Was it planned by the “jilted” mothers, that the children allegedly “disclosed child sexual abuse” after the mother and father separated?  No it was not.  But there were no options left available to prevent their children from being raped by their abusers.  

9.But what about other legal avenues?  Surely when there’s a mistake made, the higher courts are there to ensure that transparency and accountability remains a fundamental right when dealing with children?  No.  In fact one mother that the federal police have linked to this so-called criminal syndicate took their case all the way to the high court and the high court refused to deal with the matter quoting it was the judges prerogative under a particular section of the Australian Constitution that gives them this type of discretion.  

10.There are no options left for protective parents when the police, the courts and those linked to the courts turn a blind eye to child sexual abuse.  There is no system in Australia that will protect a child who discloses sexual abuse in family court matters and it is also well known now, that any mother (or father) who brings to the attention of the family court that a child has been sexually abused by the other parent risks losing that child altogether because they are apparently alienating the child from their disclosed abuser.

11.Australian Institute of Criminology states “Children often delay reporting sexual abuse for substantial periods of time. One study (cited in Lewis 2006) found that 75 percent of children waited at least a year to disclose abuse and a further 18 percent waited more than five years,”   so claiming that these are lies made up by jilted women does not match the data available the by AIC.  And here’s the kicker …

12.The sceptical paradigm (of family court) typically understands child sexual abuse as rare, and allegations as being the product of a mother, child or professional erroneously making an allegation. This is contrasted with the 'child protection' paradigm that conceptualises child sexual abuse as a common occurrence (Foote, W).

13.While false allegations of child sexual abuse are rare, there is a fixation in the literature on false allegations. This literature focuses on the mother and child, with the father escaping scrutiny despite his role as alleged perpetrator (Foote, W).  Example?  In 2007 Carmody J, in Murphy and Murphy rambled on and referred to an unpublished report about “false accusations of child sex abuse” at 154.   

9.The psychiatrists developed a family law model of the alleging mother who made allegations as a result of mental illness or vindictiveness in order to prevent contact with the father (Gardner, 1987, 1994; Green, 1991, 1986; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1981; Blush & Ross, 1987).

10.The psychiatric conceptualisation, and scepticism, about child sexual abuse allegations in family law disputes is challenged by recent research into family court populations that finds the majority of allegations of child sexual abuse raised in the Family Court are based on valid concerns. Indeed, fathers (rather than mothers) have been found to be the group of persons who make the highest number of false complaints about child abuse (Trocme & Bala, 2005)

11.These findings counter the widely held belief that child sexual abuse allegations are made at a much higher rate in the Family Court than statutory child protection jurisdiction (Foote, W).

12.Mothers made allegations of sexual abuse against fathers in slightly less than half of the cases, which challenges the notion that mothers always make allegations against fathers. In addition, fathers made allegations against mother's partners in 75 percent of the cases where fathers were the source of the allegation (Foote, W). What about family court protecting children? According to research, "the federal government has created an environment in which mothers are discouraged from bringing allegations of abuse unless there is objective proof, and there is punishment for parents who do not comply with the new legislation (Ruddock, 2005c). The dominant view found within the professions (psychology and psychiatry) with respect to child sexual abuse in family law matters is that of a deeply held sceptical belief that women and children who make allegations of sexual violence are likely to be liars who are hysterical, mentally ill or vindictive (Freud, 1986; Hale, 1736; Scutt, 1997). This view has been woven into the contemporary forensic assessment models used by experts in family law disputes including Gardner, 1987, 1994; Lucire, 2000; Turkat, 2002). Children who are assessed as being 'at risk' of sexual abuse by their fathers in the child protection sector have been sent on contact with their fathers as a result of family law involvement (Family Law Council, 2000). In 1997 at a State CASAC conference, Foote and colleagues identified a number of cases where children had disclosed sexual abuse and had begun counselling and the family was subsequently involved in Family Court proceedings. A number of these cases resulted in court-ordered reports being prepared. These reports did not confirm the allegations, and concluded that the children were lying or the mother had created the allegations. In a number of cases this resulted in the young child being returned for contact to their fathers, the alleged perpetrators.

These experiences underlined the different approaches being taken in the two jurisdictions: what was abuse in one jurisdiction was considered to be a lie in the other. The focus shifts in the Family Court arena to a psychiatric assessment of the mother's motives for bringing the allegation, her mental health and her capacity to promote a relationship between the child and father. When a mother stops making the child available for contact so the father, in order to ensure the sir safety, this may be construed as 'interfering with contact' (Turkat, 2002) in the family law jurisdiction while the same action might be seen as proof of protective capacity in the child protection jurisdiction. In such a complex situation with many systems involved, it is understandable that parents may try unsuccessfully to secure protective intervention by contacting a number of professionals and jurisdictions (Myer, 1989). However, these attempts may be interpreted as the parents attempting to create evidence (Neustein & Goetting, 1999). Addressing the myths of false accusations of child sexual abuse in family court

Mothers frequently invent allegations of child sexual abuse to win custody.  Incorrect. Child sexual abuse allegations in custody cases are rare (about 6%), and the majority of allegations are substantiated (2/3).  

False allegations are no more common in divorce or custody disputes than at any other time.   

Among false allegations, fathers are far more likely than mothers to make intentionally false accusations (21% compared to 1.3%)   Abusive fathers don’t get custody.

Abusive parents are more likely to seek sole custody than nonviolent ones  …

And they are successful about 70% of the time. 

Allegations of domestic violence have no demonstrated effect on the rate at which fathers are awarded custody of their children, nor do such allegations affect the rate at which fathers are ordered into supervised visitation (i.e. abusers win unsupervised custody and visitation at the same rate as non-abusers).    Children are in less danger from a batterer/parent once the parents separate.

Many batterers’ motivation to intimidate and control their victims through the children increases after separation, due to the loss of other methods of exerting control.   If a child demonstrates no fear or aversion to a parent, then there is no reason not to award unsupervised contact or custody.

Children can experience “traumatic bonding” with a parent who abuses the child or their other parent, forming unusually strong but unhealthy ties to a batterer as a survival technique (often referred to as “Stockholm Syndrome”).   Child sexual abuse.  Retrospective studies show that only a small percentage of adults who were sexually abused as children reported the abuse at the time (Berliner, 1988). In families where the parents are separated, as in Family Court populations, there is even more unfettered opportunity for an incest perpetrator to have access to their victim as the presence of a second parent is removed as a protective factor when a child either resides with the perpetrator or has contact with then (Foote, W).  Fathers sexually abused their daughters more often than other abusers (38 percent abusing them 11 times or more compared with 12 percent of other abusers), and they were also more likely to force vaginal intercourse on their daughters. In short, they caused the most severe effects when measured in terms of the type of abuse, the use of force, frequency and the effects reported by the victims.  Family Court paedophile sympathiser judgements •In 1976 McCall J, at 7 D’Agostini v D’Agostini, stated “The conviction of the husband was admitted by him; however, an affidavit sworn by the eldest daughter upon whom the sexual assault took place was to the effect that the assault was not an isolated act and had occurred on at least three occasions.”    McCall at 12 states “I also accept that, following the sexual incidents referred to earlier this year, there has been some difficulty with the children settling down.” McCall J, at 24.2 makes orders that “The husband is to have access to the three said children on alternate Saturdays and Sundays”.    This is the beginning of the judicial attack on women and children in that it is one of the very first cases used to make excuses so that a paedophile can have access to their “child victim”. •1986 FLC 91-758 on 19 December 1984 in at 4 & 5 the husband pleaded guilty before Loveday J. in the District Court to a charge of committing an act of indecency involving the child, who deferred the sentence.  At 21 The husband agreed that there were three occasions when he behaved in an indecent manner in relation to the child J.   At 27 Bee J stated “I am not reasonably satisfied that the wife has established that on 12 July 1984 the husband sexually interfered with J to the extent alleged by her and I am not satisfied that he sexually interfered with the children otherwise than as admitted by him in evidence yesterday”.   This case is used to discredit the mothers opinion that the children have been sexually abused and to label children’s statements of sexual abuse as children's imaginations are sensitive and immature instruments, for good or ill and that they were so forced to believe they were sexually abused when in reality it was “nothing as extreme as stated” and was because of the mothers beliefs that had turned into “reality” at 32.   Bee J, also stated that the psychologist report that supported the children and the mother’s evidence was not as preferred as other psychologists – because he didn’t interview the father.  Please note here that the father had already admitted it the previous day in cross examination and to the Loveday J, when he was first charged. No contact was ordered however this is another case where magistrates are minimising sexual abuse of a child that the perpetrator has already admitted to and parts of this judgement are used for that specific purpose. •In 1988 Nicholson CJ in M & M , quotes “In Hinch v. The Attorney-General (Vic.) [1987] HCA 56; (1987) 61 A.L.J.R. 556. Mason CJ in referring to the requirement that a publication must be shown to have a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice expressed himself in terms of the necessity for showing that there was a real risk of it doing so (p. 560). Although the case involved a different subject matter, it is clear that his Honour considered that in that context it was necessary to qualify the word ``risk''.   The M & M case is interesting in that it orders custody to the mother and supervised access to the father – but throughout the statements backing up the sexual abuse of the child, Nicholson CJ routinely claims there is no evidence which he sees gives him the opinion that there was definitely sexual abuse.  There was medical evidence, there were psychologists and doctors’ evidence, there was the child’s disclosures, there was the child's regressing into bed wetting, etc.  But the magistrate keeps coming back to there wasn’t enough evidence to substantiate the child sexual abuse.   The first references to Hinch may be of use in the argument of defeating justice as it can be proven that there’s a pattern of judges sending kids to either live with or spend time unsupervised with their child victims – including when there are child sex offences.   It is in the public interest that we know that judges and their “court experts” routinely recommend contact between child victims and their fathers.   •In 2001 W and W FamCA 216 14 March before Nicholson CJ, Kay and O’Ryan JJ,   The Department of Family and Children’s Services sought to intervene in this case, seeking leave to admit into evidence of an affidavit sworn by a counsellor who had interviewed the Husband. The Department said that the evidence of the Counsellor contained alleged admissions by the husband of “inappropriate sexual behaviour”.   Nicholson CJ stated “The fact that the husband may have made admissions of inappropriate sexual behaviour to Mr Katsibardis” at 47 and “The evidence of Dr Cecchini supports the view that the husband had made admissions of some inappropriate sexual behaviour” at 50.   Nicholson CJ then states “The problem with this submission is that it overlooks the fact, that the wife did not provide anyone with the complete picture. In particular the wife did not acquaint anyone with the fact, that both she and the child had entertained belief systems which, on her own admission, were in some respect bizarre.”   And then gives custody to the father – whom admitted inappropriate behaviour, stating “13.6 In the result I conclude that the husband, more likely than the wife, to be able to promote a positive relationship between the children and the non-residence parent.”   And 15.6 For so long as the wife continues to maintain her beliefs in relation to sexual abuse of the child [T], not only is it unlikely she will do anything to persuade the child from believing she had been sexually abused, I think it more likely than not, that she will provide positive reinforcement for the child’s beliefs.   At 212 Dr W thought the child [T] was desperately in need of attention. The child liked being in a fantasy world, or having an active fantasy life. Dr. W thought it remarkable, the extent to which the child [T] had been drawn into the wife’s beliefs concerning New Age philosophies.    *** This case is quoted many times to discredit child sex abuse and enforcing that because a mother will not adopt an idea that the judges have come up with (ie the child was not abused), that she will harm the child in the meantime and as such custody is awarded to the abuser.    This W and W case been referred over 50 times presumably to discredit allegations of child sexual abuse.    What is interesting though is there is an Austlii report by the Melbourne University that state 24% of family court claims where there are claims of abuse, are of sexual abuse.  This resonates with the statistics that roughly one in four girls are sexually assaulted / or abused before they turn 15.    It also gives rise to the fact that discrediting mothers whose children have disclosed sexual abuse is spiteful and vindictive because the government’s own figures back up what the mothers and children are claiming anyway. •In 2007 Carmody J, at 86 in the Murphy and Murphy case of 2007, stated that “There is no presumption or a priori rule that even gross misbehaviour such as child sexual abuse or family violence disqualifies the offending parent or puts up an insurmountable barrier in the way of having contact with a child victim”.    He also rambled on and referred to an unpublished report about “false accusations of child sex abuse”.   Carmody J then states “I doubt that either of the girls could be persuaded to make false accusations against him at the instance of the mother or anyone else,” at 600.   Carmody J then states “Despite the possibility of past abuse and therefore the risk of future harm, there is no best interests basis for a finding justifying the termination of contact between these children and their father” at 603.   In this case M and A made statements to the mother, police, departmental officers, M’s paternal grandmother and the maternal grandmother about sexual abuse by the father.    However, the two family reporters and a psychiatrist recommended increased time with the father in the event of a no risk or negative finding on the abuse issue.   Carmody J then stated, “The best interests’ solution was a graduated re-introduction of unsupervised time with safeguards including a short period of supervised contact and post-order monitoring and review”.   Carmody J at 388 also ignorantly stated “Child sexual abuse is a crime and thrives in the darkness of childhood silence. Once detected the crime is much harder to repeat”.     Statistics show that 48% of paedophiles reoffend within four years of being released, and the AIC stated 52 percent of child sex offenders reoffended during the 25-year at-risk period.     It further stated the 52% recidivist figure should be considered as a conservative approximation of the true base rate for sex offense recidivism in previously convicted child molesters...[it]...represents the lowest approximation for extrafamilial child molester sexual recidivism.   His judgements and statements are made on absolutely incorrect statements about paedophiles and his thoughts on the crime and as such this case should not be referred to at all.   This case refers to M & M and W & W and B & B and D’Agostino – which all support contact with child victim.   •2007 Rivas and Rivas before FM Roberts LNC 795 of 2007     Child X disclosed to the mother about the father sexually assaulting her, and not long after she [mother] found child pornography photos taken by one sibling of another on her phone.  She brought this to the attention of the solicitors and shortly after at 29 Roberts FM made orders restraining the parties and [X] from discussing the existence of the child pornography photographs found on the child X’s camera.   At 97 the psychologist stated “A factor mitigating against the risk of harm described above is the possibility that, because the father formed an attachment relationship with [Y] and [Z], he may be less likely to incorporate them in any sexualised ideas. A further factor reducing the risk of harm is the likelihood that, once detected, sexual abuse is much harder to repeat. The direct attention to the father’s sexualised behaviour in these proceedings may be a powerful deterrent to any further inappropriate sexualised behaviour”.   At 151 Roberts FM states he “accepts that the father has abused [X] at a time when she was a member of the family”.   And at 162 Roberts FM orders the father to have (supervised) contact with the younger two children.  This case again refers to M & M and B & B Alecomm recently reviewed sixty more recent (random) family law judgements which were selected from the Austlii database according to keywords including “child sexual assault allegations”.  The most relevant judgements are detailed in this document and a summary of the findings are detailed here below: ╸In the majority of cases, the child was labelled a liar, or it was said that he/she had a fanciful imagination which the protective-parent indulged in and the children were sent to either live with the person whom they disclosed abuse of, were given unsupervised access to or shared parenting with. ╸Many times, the protective-parents were labelled delusional, liars, borderline, psychotic by judges who had no clinical experience or qualifications.   and   ╸Judges overrode substantiations of child sexual abuse by state child protection services and or police and claimed they seen no “evidence of paedophilia or paraphilia” in said parent - and then gave the father sole custody. ╸On other occasions judges announced that the sexual abuse of the child was not “as bad as the child or protective-parent had stated”. ╸Judges also made claims that because the father has been caught red-handed sexually abusing the child, that it would be more difficult for them to sexually abuse the child in the future and then gave the father regular overnight access to the child-victim. ╸Some judgements included an order that the protective parents to destroy the evidence of sexual abuse that was obtained ie a disc and or video of a child’s disclosure of sexual abuse. ╸Independent Children’s Lawyers and Family Court Experts often encouraged that children who had disclosed sexual abuse should be sent to live with the perpetrator and that all contact with the protective-parent be ceased for a period of three months (or more).  Due to the nature of these judgements and our indepth experience within the family law arena, we do not believe that any type of review could possibly change the ingrained culture and inadequacy in managing abuse of children ordered by family court judgements, as is demonstrated by the following case judgements.   This is exactly why we need a Royal Commission into the Family Law Courts of Australia. More judgements where paedophiles are protected and rewarded by the family court Sole custody awarded to father after the child disclosed sexual abuse: •Watson & Burton [2015] FamCA 549 (16 July 2015)   - Tree, J. The children disclosed sexual abuse by the father, repeatedly, including anal abuse.  The protective-parent repeatedly disclosed what the children told her.  The psychiatrists claimed she was delusional and the father was given sole custody.    In an offer of Consent Orders, the mother was offered extra time with the children - so long as she withdrew allegations of sexual abuse by the father.  She did. But then she was crucified for why she withdrew them - even though it was a condition of extra time.    The family reporter then wrote she couldn’t be trusted not to continue with her beliefs that the father sexually abused the children and the father then got sole custody with the mother being given extremely limited supervised contact.  This case is interesting in that they promised the mother more time if she recanted the allegations, and when she did, they gave her less time and called her a liar.  This is a Townsville matter. •Stapleton & Hayes [2009] FamCA 437 (25 May 2009)   - Moore, J. E disclosed vaginal and anal digital penetration by Ms S’s sons B and T, said to have occurred several times at their father’s home, usually when playing games including the monster game using a blanket and the vacuum game when the girls are dragged into the bedroom, but she was unable to particularize a time frame. N disclosed digital penetration of her vagina and penetration of her anus by B using a stick while she was tied to a bed and she also made reference to games using a blanket and the vacuum game. Both children gave information that O had been present at the time these acts occurred and possibly was a victim of similar acts by B and T.  Sole custody was awarded to the father. •Bilney & Brisco [2013] FamCA 561 (9 May 2013)   - Benjamin, J. The mother made numerous notifications between 2008 and 2012 that her children were being sexually abused [by the father] and or at least facilitated the sexual abuse. She was repeatedly ignored and custody was given to the father.  In 2010 the Court Expert said the mother was delusional and prone to beliefs that the children were abused when they were not.    *** In 2012 the neighbour of the father [N] was arrested and charged with sexual abuse of children who were in the care of the father who still managed to retain sole custody. •Prentice & Wilfred [2017] FamCA 290 (11 May 2017)   - Carew, J. “The difficulty is the child’s age (20 months) and what interpretation one can place on these behaviours. She is too young to tell what is happening (if anything).  The child is at an age where she would be highly suggestible. ... Pre-school children lack most of the techniques to minimise the creation of false memories, have the slowest processing speed and are greater risk for forgetting, failing to retrieve and having their original recoding of events altered by misleading suggestions. It is a possibility the child’s disclosure have come about due to suggestibility, along with the mother’s and maternal family’s topical discussions around their belief the father has sexually abused the child”.  Sole custody to the father. •Hartford & Ansilda [2009] FamCA 23 (22 January 2009)   - Brown, J. Child disclosed sexual abuse by the father.  The mother was restrained from taking child to disclose further sexual abuse.  Sole custody to the father. •Licha & Wunscher [2008] FamCA 147 (11 March 2008)   - Brown, J. Child made disclosures of child sex abuse by the father, to state child protection agencies.  Courts ordered unsupervised access for the father, and the protective mother refused.  Sole custody was then given to the father. •Dalziel & Belladonna [2009] FamCA 254 (7 April 2009)   - Brown, J. The judge discredited the contact supervisor - because she listened to the child disclosing sexual abuse by the father.  Sole custody to the father. •Tyler & Sullivan [2014] FamCA 178 (26 March 2014)   - Watts, J. Child disclosed sexual abuse by the father.  A gag order was issued against the mother and the mandatory reporter stated child suicidal due to the father.  Sole custody awarded to the father. •Surnam & Cromie [2010] FamCA 470 (11 June 2010)   - Dawes, J. During the interview A was described as having made “clear disclosures of alleged sexual and emotional harm”.  Both parties were restrained and an injunction granted restraining them from permitting the child [A] to attend counselling at the [W] Sexual Assault Service - or any other therapy or counselling - without the written consent of the other parent AND the Independent Children’s Lawyer.  Sole custody to the father. •P & D [2001] FamCA 1197 (29 August 2001)   - Lindenmayer, J Child disclosed sexual abuse by the father.  Dr Gardner’s “Parental Alienation Syndrome” was used to attack the mother’s credibility, and sole custody awarded to the father. •Pollock & Breen-Pollock (No. 3) [2014] FamCA 1026 (19 November 2014)   - Hannam, J. The mother and children moved out of the family home, immediately after the child abuse allegation was raised.  The mother was ordered to attend counselling by the courts and sole custody was awarded to the father. •Tothill & Crowther [2017] FamCA 460 (30 June 2017)   - Hannam, J. Child disclosed sexual abuse.  Sole custody awarded to the father because the mother refused to encourage a positive relationship between the child and father after allegations of child sexual abuse were brought to light.  •Somers & Somers (No. 2) [2010] FamCA 1152 (17 December 2010)   - Cronin, HJ. Child disclosed sexual abuse by the father.  Dr E thought that the mother was not paranoid but had discrete paranoid delusions. He said there was no treatment for an adult who believed without there being any foundation, that their child had been sexually abused.  He further said that there was low success rate for any treatment of such problems (about the protective-parent) - because once the belief was soundly accepted, it was difficult to change. He gave examples of treating people for long periods of time. “Those problems were not amenable to reason”.  Sole custody to the father. •Rilak & Tsocas (No 8) [2015] FamCA 1235 (13 November 2015)   - Loughnan, J. Child disclosed sexual abuse by the father.  The mother’s mental health and credibility was attacked.  Sole custody to the father. •Matthews & Bender (No. 2) [2013] FamCA 740 (27 September 2013)   - Macmillan, J.  Child disclosed sexual abuse by the father.  The mother was restrained from taking child to disclose further sexual abuse, and sole custody to the father. •Seaver & Seaver [2015] FamCA 194 (24 March 2015)   - Cleary, J. Child disclosed sexual abuse by the father.  Sole custody was awarded to the father.  “The mother is restrained by injunction from spending time with the children for a period of three (3) months”.   •Rose & Douglas [2007] FamCA 251 (23 March 2007)   - Benjamin, J. The mother be restrained from bringing the child into contact with her siblings J, R and S, except upon giving seven (7) days notice to the father. •Habib & Ibrahim [2018] FamCA 633 (19 July 2018)   - Foster J. Child disclosed sexual abuse by the father.  Judge orders that the child spend no time with the mother for a period of four (4) months.  Sole custody to the father. •Gomez & Gomez (No. 2) [2007] FamCA 1391 (30 November 2007)   - Rose, J. ICL: The manner in which the mother has been involving the child further in the mother’s delusional beliefs (that sexual abuse has occurred), have resulted in him concluding that there should be an immediate change so far as the child living with the mother and moving to live with the father.  JUDGE: On the basis of the evidence of Dr V and Dr R psychiatrists I find that the mother suffers from a serious mental illness the diagnosis being schizo effective disorder.  Sole custody to the father. •Earles & Highsmith [2016] FamCA 1012 (25 November 2016)   - Foster, J. Judge at 288 “It is my view that the child’s disclosures likely did occur more-or-less as described”. Judge then said, “I saw in the father no direct symptoms or attributes suggesting paedophilia or any other paraphilia”.  Sole custody to the father.   •Tamarovic & Gillard [2014] FamCA 532 (11 July 2014)   - Watts, J. In undertaking this exercise, I, of course, immediately acknowledge that the resolution of allegations of sexual abuse is “subservient and ancillary” to this Court’s determination of that parenting order which is in the child’s best interests.[4] However, a consideration of such allegations – and those asserting physical harm – is clearly necessary when the legislation imposes an imperative of protecting the child from harm.[5]  Sole custody to the father. •Sony & Hansell (No. 2) [2008] FamCA 810 (11 September 2008)   - Benjamin, J. “Restraining [the mother] from seeking medical treatment for [the child] without consulting an objective third person, such as the independent children’s lawyer”.  Sole custody to the father. •Donaghey & Donaghey [2011] FamCA 13 (19 January 2011)   - Murphy, J. Child disclosed sexual abuse by the father.  Father acknowledged having a memory of one occasion when the child was in the bed that he may have been naked and had an erection.  Sole custody to the father. •Shireman & Katsaros [2015] FamCA 896 (23 October 2015)   - Rees, J. Child disclosed sexual abuse by the father.  Sole custody to the father. •Faden & Faden [2014] FamCA 1182 (19 December 2014)   - Le Poer Trench, J. Child disclosed sexual abuse by the father.  Mother restrained from making medical appointments without the agreement of the father.  Sole custody to the father. •Segur & Segur (No. 2) [2010] FamCA 801 (10 September 2010)   - Bennett, J. The child made repeated credible disclosures of child sex abuse by the father, to the police - but judge overrode acceptance of that it occurred and awarded sole custody to the father. •Webber & Hatton [2013] FamCA 150 (12 March 2013)   - Benjamin, J. Child disclosed sexual abuse by the father.  Sole custody to the father. •Senn & Jolimont [2007] FamCA 1740 (28 August 2007)   - Flohm, J. It is argued on behalf of the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer that the mother has raised unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father, and that unless there is a change of residence the child's relationship with the father will forever be sabotaged by the mother raising further similar allegations and continuing to align the child with her position. *** *** It should be noted that the in majority of cases involving child sex abuse, the ICL supports the father.  Sole custody to the father. •Goldman & Goldman (No 2) [2017] FamCA 531 (23 June 2017)   - Cleary, J. Child disclosed sexual abuse by father.  Sole custody to father. •White & White and Anor [2012] FamCA 804 (20 September 2012)   - O’Reilly, J. Child disclosed sexual abuse by the father.  Sole custody to the father. •Langmeil & Grange (No. 4) [2011] FamCA 605 (3 August 2011)   - Stevenson, J. There was also an order that the protective-parent undertake psychiatric counselling to address “her near-delusional beliefs concerning what she perceives to be the father’s sexual abuse of the children”.  There was video evidence of the children disclosing sexual abuse by the father, and Freda Briggs intervened to substantiate the video and sexual abuse.  The judge dismissed her evidence and the fathers counsel repeatedly tried to discredit her to no avail.  No wonder they wanted her out of the family law courts – she was amazing.  R

You must be logged in to comment due to spam issues.