Stop Talking About Fathers Rights – Start Talking About Children’s Rights.

 

I’ve been keeping an eye on a “Fathers Rights” facebook page (Fathers Rights Ireland) for about six months now, and reading some of the posts of the person who appears to be “in charge” of this page I have come to the conclusion that this person is not only ill-informed, but is definitely NOT someone to whom a father in the distressing situation of being alienated from his child(ren) should be listening to, taking “advice” from or supporting. At all. This person if I may use the vernacular is a lunatic – an ill-informed, hysterical, ranting lunatic.

Having said that – he (I presume the person of charge of this facebook page is a he) does post links to relevant newspaper articles etc. – his problem is simple though – he reacts emotionally and subjectively to practically every item and lacks the ability or the will to analyse OBJECTIVELY and calmly the CONTENTS of these “links” with a view to furthering, in any meaningful way, the recognition and APPLICATION of the CURRENT law in any case, or use any “judgement” as supportive of an application in ANOTHER case – i.e. YOUR case.

Therein lies the problem with these kinds of groups – they are so blinded by their rage and self-referential “hurt” that they have a tendency to just fling accusations of “conspiracy” and “fraud” and malfeasance against…..well everybody and anybody – most especially judges, solicitors, state agencies – in particular – TUSLA. (What I am saying here is that these are unproven, unsubstantiated allegations and that they are counter-productive and irrelevant and will not HELP you in any meaningful way when YOU are the one standing in Court in front of a judge pleading YOUR case, unless you have actual EVIDENCE to support these allegations specific to YOUR case)

I might add, if you do go into Court ranting and raving about “conspiracies” or “fraud” in a random and unhinged manner (and yes, I have seen this) you will come across as unhinged. Let me be blunt – if the object in “going to Court” is to do with access/custody of your children – first familiarise yourself with the law regarding children, second INVOKE your Children’s Rights – third – make a rational, intelligent, INFORMED argument – supported by case law – and make it all about YOUR CHILDREN. What actually pisses me off about a lot of these so-called Fathers Rights Groups is this – there is always a “leader” a loud-mouthed arrogant egotistical arsehole who is so enraged at what he perceives as how hard done by he is that EVERYTHING is about his ego-driven agenda – and yes I know – I’ve heard all the bullshit that “it’s all about the kids” – it isn’t – that he then manages to gather a group around him and they follow like sheep – sometimes, genuinely distressed fathers – genuine fathers who are floundering as to what to do about the awful situation they find themselves in, and end up listening to and reading the utter tripe these idiots spout out.

Guys – just because YOU don’t know what to do, just because you’ve found this loud mouthed arsehole pontificating about “Fathers Rights” just because, in a million years you never thought you’d find yourself in this position – it doesn’t mean that first loud-mouthed arsehole you come across, on the internet or at a “Fathers Rights” meeting has all the answers or ANY of the answers.

The clue is this – if you have to go to Court to try and get access/custody of your children – then what you need to inform and arm yourself with IS THE BLOODY LAW. From the source – not from some idiot on the internet, or some loudmouth running “Fathers Rights” meetings.

If you actually believe that some loud-mouthed arsehole on the internet ranting and raving about “conspiracies” or “fraud” to a bunch of sheep-like “followers” on a facebook page is going to have ANY impact at all when YOU are the one standing in front of a Judge in a Court then you are sadly mis-informed.

To put it bluntly – you don’t get to choose the battleground (The Court) you don’t get to dictate how the Court operates – its been operating for several hundred years – what YOU get to do is choose which weapons you bring onto the battleground – those weapons are THE LAW – both legislation and case law – both of which you are free to use in your presentation – and present the Court with an interpretation of either or both (preferably both) that supports YOUR APPLICATION.  You have an array of legislation, of Human Rights Instruments and CASE LAW to choose from – it is up to you to ARGUE your case and persuade the Court that your argument is SOUND.

Now – before I go any further with this – let me make my position clear.

I am absolutely totally and adamantly NOT a feminist – I loathe feminism, in all its putrid, toxic manifestations with a passion – I absolutely endorse without equivocation the presumption IN LAW that parents are jointly endowed with EQUAL responsibilities to their child (ren)

I absolutely and unequivocally endorse the presumption IN LAW that children are entitled to maintain without interference, conditionality or “ranking” a parent/child relationship (with all that this entails) with BOTH parents.

I absolutely and unequivocally endorse that it is CHILDREN who are endowed with RIGHTS and parents who are endowed with RESPONSIBILITIES – to the children.*

*I will post the skeleton argument that “Joint Legal Custody” of Children is already presumed in Law – in a day or two – with supporting case law.

The legal nuance here is this – the parental “Rights” that are being violated are the “Rights” of parents to be allowed to fulfill THEIR obligations and duties AS A PARENT to their child.

Ergo – to speak of “Fathers Rights” or for that matter “Mothers Rights” is to ignore a fundamental basic fact – you CANNOT “be” a parent unless you have a child – your “Rights” as a “parent” are absolutely and solely dependent on the existence OF A LIVING CHILD.

Ergo your “Rights” are secondary and subservient to the innate and inherent “Rights” of the child as a vulnerable person entitled to the full and absolute protection of THEIR human rights – one of which is to have the protection, guidance and benefit of A PARENT taking full responsibility for the health, welfare, safety and well-being of that child.

Your “Rights” as “a parent” or “Legal Guardian” are that YOU be allowed to fulfil and exercise YOUR obligations and duties in ensuring the health, welfare, safety and well-being of THAT CHILD.

If – you are prevented from fulfilling your obligations and duties to your child – it is NOT “Your Rights” as an individual human being that are being violated – IT IS YOUR CHILDS HUMAN RIGHTS THAT ARE BEING VIOLATED.

So please – shut up about “your rights” shut up about “Fathers Rights” SHUT UP about how hard done by you are, SHUT UP ranting and raving about “conspiracies” and “fraud” and whatever other ridiculous nonsensical and IRRELEVANT matter that appears to ignite and trigger innumerable badly written, ill-informed and hysterical “posts” on various different facebook page and blogs.

It might sound obvious, though I sincerely doubt it – but the area of LAW all you so-called “Fathers Rights” groups and coalitions are enmeshed in is FAMILY LAW, and while for these purposes The Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 primarily addresses the LEGAL issue of dissolving a lawfully constituted MARRIAGE in Ireland – one can be married without having children. The Judicial Separation and Family Law (Reform) Act, 1989 addresses issues when two legally married people wish to dissolve and divest themselves of any legal obligations to the other spouse.

The canon of “Family Law” that addresses issues with regard to CHILDREN only, are primarily contained in other legislation, (Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964) in effect the only substantive legal issue directly impacting upon ADULTS in the context of “Family Law” is simple – dissolving a marriage/ending a marriage BETWEEN ADULTS. And yes, children and issues around children are contained in these two pieces of legislation – the point I am making here is this – draw a distinct line between issues that ONLY effect ADULTS and issues that affect CHILDREN.

No longer being married to the other parent of a child should only impact ON THE ADULTS – not the children – no longer living with the other parent of a child should only impact on the ADULTS – not the children – in other words – your “living arrangements” should absolutely NOT impact on the parental relationship between a child and BOTH his/her parents – at all. Ever. Any person who uses a change in their living arrangements with the other parent as an excuse to interfere with the child’s relationship with that other parent is violating THE CHILDS RIGHTS.

And no – I’m not getting into a discussion about spousal support, division of assets, etc. – again – WITHOUT children IN the mix – those are legal issues BETWEEN ADULTS, and yes involve a separate but connected area of the toxic culture engendered by an endorsement of the “feminist” perspective on how “strong and independent” and “you go girl” wimmin are. Sigh.

Though I have often thought that “wimmin” of a certain type (which is most of them) should really be treated as having the same lack of mental/legal capacity as children – and dealt with accordingly – a discussion for another time.

Moving on.

What triggered this response? First, though I rarely respond or comment on other people’s blogs, or posts on facebook (never) in particular blogs or posts by Fathers Rights activists I have, to be blunt, a low opinion of most of the content – in particular content that bangs on and on about “the law” or erroneous “judgements” yet do not link or reference the law or judgement they are – banging on about with one notable exception – ExInjuria https://exinjuria.wordpress.com/about/ Nick Langford writes and analyses with clarity and precision any issue of law he addresses. I highly recommend a visit to his site.

So, the first “post” that irritated me was posted on the 25th December 2018 and contained a link to this article Abducted by a parent: Heartbreaking cases of the Hague Convention Mon, Dec 24, 2018, 02:00

Colm Keena

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/abducted-by-a-parent-heartbreaking-cases-of-the-hague-convention-1.3740959?fbclid=IwAR3FgzFr6u-IL07kQSG-aSnp2W1x3_05uCaPaZfnR6uFKj0MI6BfrQbAozw

Before I get into dissecting this article – this is what irritates me – if you are purporting to “advise” people about a specific topic, or equally are purporting to be “helping” other people – in particular with regard to a legal issue, and ever more particularly with regard to a family law issue – and you actually want to help the people you are purporting to help – here’s a bit of useful ADVICE.

Reference the goddam Law – post a link to the bloody JUDGEMENT(S) – so that people can read for themselves – so that people can download the judgement or the piece of legislation and DO THEIR OWN BLOODY ANALYSES.

But to pontificate and spew out ill-informed rubbish about what you think it means or even worse simply regurgitate what another ill-informed idiot on the internet has concluded this or that ruling/judgement/determination means is beyond arrogant, beyond vanity, beyond egotistical bullshit – it is venal and self-aggrandizing in the extreme.

So, lets take this article and see is there anything in it that could possibly be useful for a person in that situation to know?  Is there anything there that could direct or guide a person in that situation in the preparation of their case?

Several things.

First the name of the Judge tasked with dealing with “Hague Convention” cases is Ms. Justice Ni Raifeartaigh – at this juncture I would point out that at various times different judges are assigned different areas of law. In this instance – to repeat – Ms. Justice Ni Raifeartaigh was assigned “Hague Convention” cases – abduction cases – that is children abducted FROM this jurisdiction to another jurisdiction by one parent.

The next thing I would point out is this – the vast majority of Family Law hearings are in camera – i.e. the public is excluded from the court with a few exceptions – which we will get into another time.

But – the JUDGEMENTS- in particular those that may have a public interest element – are PUBLISHED with all identifying information anonymized. On the court’s website – www.courts.ie

So, this constant bleating about “secret courts” is nonsense – it is the IDENTITY of the parties that is “hidden” NOT either the nature and facts of a particular case or the issues of LAW being determined.

Are all judgements published? Nope – not all – but most.

Try this – google www.courts.ie

On the right-hand side underneath “online” the third option down is “Judgements and Determinations” click on it.

Across the top on the first menu line you will find three options:

1. Judgements by Year, 2. Judgements by Court and 3. Judgements by Judge.

Underneath you will find three more menu options – the first is “Determinations” these are rulings of the Supreme Court – the next two are “Judgements Help” and “Disclaimer and Copyright”

Click on “Judgements by Judge” and scroll down and search for Ni Raifeartaigh J.

What you should notice is that EVERY judge of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court is listed – all you have to do is click on the little blue triangle beside each judge’s name and a FULL list of their published judgements comes up.

Try it – click on any judge’s name – and then scroll through the list of judgements – on the right-hand side of this list you will see WHICH Court any particular judgement was given in – High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court – what you should also notice is that ALL judgements to do with ANY aspect of Family Law or to do with children is listed with INITIALS ONLY.

E.g.:  if you right click on the DATE 11/21/2018 R.B. -v- D.K OF THIS LISTING and click “open in a new tab”. (the reason for doing this is to keep the list OPEN.

What comes up is this: the judgement is the case of R.B – v – D.K neutral citation [2018] IEHC 728:

The “Title” with ALL identifiers anonymized is:

“THE HIGH COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL

ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF COUNCIL REGULATION 2201/2003

AND

IN THE MATTER OF N. B., A CHILD

BETWEEN:

R.B.

Applicant

-AND-

D.K.

Respondent

Judgment of Ms. Justice Ní Raifeartaigh delivered on the 21st day of November 2018

Nature of case

  1. This is a case in which the applicant (the father of a child) seeks the return of the child to England and Wales pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter “the Hague Convention”) and EU Council Regulation 2201/2003. The child, N, who is three years old, is currently living in Ireland with his mother, the respondent in these proceedings. The date upon which they came to live in Ireland is the core matter in dispute in the case. Counsel on both sides of the case agreed that there was a single net issue in the case, namely as to where the child had its habitual residence at the relevant time, and that the Court was required to resolve a conflict of fact in this regard.”

What follows is the judgement – in full – in detail. Study it.

I will confine myself to just posting the Conclusion here paras 34 – 36

“34.     In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the child N has been the subject of a wrongful retention in Ireland because the applicant has satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the child’s habitual residence had not changed as of the end of April/beginning of May 2018 when his mother refused to return him to England. For completeness, I also find that, insofar as the respondent relies upon the defence of consent, she has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the father gave his consent either to a permanent removal or retention of the child in Ireland. I will therefore make an order for the return of the child to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

  1. In order to allow for an appeal, I will place a stay upon the execution of this order pending the expiry of the time limit for an appeal, with time of course running from the date of the perfection of the relevant order for the child’s return.

 

  1. I would like to refer this judgment to the Irish immigration authorities for further investigation, having regard to some of the evidence in the case. However, as this is an in camera matter, such a move needs to be approached with caution and I will not take any step in that direction without alerting the parties in the first instance and giving them an opportunity to address me on any relevant law. This should not prevent the perfection of the order and the progress of any appeal with regard to the Hague Convention issues.”

(emphasis added)

As you can see Her Honour Judge Ni Raifeartaigh ordered the child abducted from the UK by his mother, who re-located in Ireland RETURNED to the UK.

I strongly suggest to study this judgement and some of Ni Raifeartaighs other judgements in detail to get a clear grasp of the legal principles that are applied in these kinds of cases.

Moving on. If you look up to the top of the page – the one with the judgement on it – you will see another menu bar: above the dark blue line that says Judgements and Determinations: Homepage – just above that you will see a button that says “Printable Version

So, whatever judgement you have decided to look at – you then think to yourself – “I’d like to have a printed copy of that”

Ok so – click on “Printable Version” and voila – a small print box opens and all you have to do is decide, for example, how many copies of this judgement do I want? Do I want it in black or white or in colour – then click print.

One thing to watch out for – if you click on “Printable Version” and the print preview just shows blank pages – this means the judgement hasn’t downloaded properly – close the print box and click the “Printable Version” button again until you see the message “loading preview” what happens – as far as I know – I have a tendency to leave all the little “print boxes” open and the thing seems to get stuck – as soon as I close those open boxes it seems to “unstick it”

I would suggest that you take your time and explore the courts service website – EVERYTHING you need to know about how the courts function in this jurisdiction is literally there at your fingertips – Rules of the Court – Court Forms – Practice Directions* – EVERYTHING.

*HC051 – This is Practice Direction 051 – the HC stands for High Court – click on the blue link on this page and a word version of this Practice Direction – FOR FAMILY LAW IN THE HIGH COURT – will download for you.

http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/16c93c36d3635d5180256e3f003a4580/bec9deb0b6dae2a980258121003f3720?OpenDocument

If you click on “Home” on the left-hand side of the Courts website, you will see a list – the list is headed in bold “For Court Users” click on the links and they bring you to different areas. Court Rules, Court Forms, etc. THAT’S where you can find everything you need to know about how the Courts works, what the rules are, and what “Forms” you need to use for different kinds of Applications/Motions – not from some twat on the internet or on facebook.

You really don’t need some idiot on the internet pontificating and blustering and talking shoite about “how the courts work” or giving you his “version” of how to go about doing something in court – it’s all there – and yes I appreciate that for a lay litigant it can be very difficult to get your head around some of the “Rules” or figure out how to use the various “Templates” for different kinds of applications – but – if you just take your time – any reasonably intelligent person can – with a little hard work figure it out, least anyone opines that I am just another idiot pontificating – you might note that I am directing you to independent OFFICIAL sources where you can find out for yourself what the law is, what the Rules of the Court are and where they can be found, and where to find judgements.

For EVERYTHING to do with “going to Court” there is a Law or a provision of Law, there is a “Rule” and there is a Form, on top of all that, there are ways of doing something, and that is contained in the Practice Directions – they all function together.

Let me give you some unsolicited “advice” advice I was given in law school – every judgement has some discussion about how this or that rule or law works or is applied – EVERY judgement – it is in effect a practical demonstration of how the law operates or in some instances doesn’t operate – read them – read them thoroughly and LEARN how the inert words of the written law come to life in a practical way by studying how those “words” are brought to life and applied in real life situations.

READ the judgements – and read them again – until – hopefully a light bulb goes off in your head and you have a “eureka” moment.

Whatever you do – do not base your case on the ill-informed rantings of some idiot on the internet or most definitely not on the idiots “interpretation” of a “judgment” or commentary on an article about a “judgement” find and read the judgement YOURSELF – make up your own mind – apply the facts of the case (in the judgement you are reading) to your situation and see if there is something in there that is applicable IN YOUR CASE. And no, the facts in the case do not have to be exactly the same as in your case – you are looking for areas of general commonality – not an exact replica – similar NOT the same.

THAT’S how you ‘Do law”

Because here a fundamental basic fact.

If you are embroiled in a Family Law case in this jurisdiction – Ireland – you will end up in an IRISH Court – and you can bitch and moan and rant and rave all you like but – it is the Law as it stands NOW – it will be the Rules of the Court as they stand NOW that will be applied – NOT what some idiot on the internet “thinks” the law should be, or believes it to be or claims is ought to be – it is the law as contained in Acts of the Oireachtas, Statutory Instruments, ALL available to you at www.irishstatutebook.ie at the click of a mouse.

Your “argument” or your “pleadings” should be grounded on how the current law is being applied – and if it is being applied or “enforced” arbitrarily, prejudicially or unfairly then MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

Finally – if you want to “talk about rights” then I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself thoroughly with the text of these documents – and again, not on some idiot on the internet rantings about “rights”

European Convention on Human Rights*

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

*Transposed into Irish Domestic Law with; The European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003 – found at www.irishstatutebook.ie

Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the European Union

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

UN Convention on The Rights of The Child

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf

To start with.

Then do some study on these:

Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, Children and Family Relationships Act, 2015, Family Law Act, 1995, Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996, Judicial Separation and Family Law (Reform) Act, 1989.

I’m not giving you a link to these – you can easily find them and ALL amendments to any provision of these Acts at www.irishstatutebook.ie it will be good practice – if you are serious about addressing YOUR legal ISSUES in a clear, INFORMED and intelligent way.

If you do decide to “look up the law” then read the whole Act – yes – all of it – no piece of legislation exists in a vacuum – you might read in section 6 (a) (i) something that applies directly to your case – BUT – if you see the phrase “subject to the provisions of section 14, then there is a proviso – i.e. this section ONLY applies if the provisions of the other section are fulfilled AS WELL.

Having said all that – I am perfectly aware that in provincial circuits – in particular the Midland Circuit – which is the one I am most familiar with – the law is NOT applied either with fairness or without prejudice – to fathers in particular.

I am also perfectly aware that most if not all Family Law proceedings begin in either the District Court or the Circuit Court – and the Orders made in some instances are…………………. staggeringly bad law.

Again, I strongly suggest you familiarise yourselves with The Rules of The Court with regard to two distinct legal process’s – An Appeal from the Circuit Court to the High Court (bearing in mind if the Order in dispute was originally granted in the District Court you will have to Appeal to the Circuit first) and the Rules governing Judicial Review.

Please note: There are THREE sets of Rules of the Court – Rules of The Superior Court and Rules of The Circuit Court and Rules of The District Court

See here: http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/webpages/bb9a582b582f736880256d2b003f6633?OpenDocument&l=en&p=042

Before “moving” on any matter – in other words before making an application/motion etc. or launching an “Appeal” from the Circuit Court to the High Court – READ THIS.

ORDER 61

Rules of the Superior Courts Order: 61; Appeals from the Circuit Court

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/d5629e64d4c7cae680256d2b0046b3ae?OpenDocument

Pay particular attention to the emboldened parts:

  1. In this Order:

“the Act” means the Courts of Justice Act, 1936:

“County Registrar” includes any deputy County Registrar and any person appointed to act as such Registrar or deputy and also where the context permits, any person appointed to act as Registrar to the High Court on Circuit.

  1. Every appeal under Part IV of the Act shall be by notice of appeal which shall be served on every party directly affected by the appeal within ten days from the date on which the judgement or order appealed from was pronounced in open court. The notice shall state whether the whole or part only of such judgement or order is appealed from and in the latter case shall specify such part. The notice shall, in the case of appeals to the High Court sitting in Dublin, be for the first opportunity after the expiration of ten days from the date of service, and, in the case of appeals to the High Court on Circuit, be for the next sitting of the High Court on Circuit after the expiration of the said ten days. Such notice of appeal shall be either in the Form No. 1 or the Form No. 2 (as the case may be) in Appendix I.

 

  1. The appellant shall, within the said period of ten days from the date on which the judgement or order appealed from was pronounced,

(a)        in the case of appeals to the High Court sitting in Dublin lodge two copies of the notice of appeal,”

NOW – Print out (printable version – look up) and study Order 61 – including the links above the body of this Order – they contain amendments made to the Order.

Click on EVERY link in the body of the text of this Order and study ALL of it. The above is ONLY an EXTRACT from Order 61 – of – The Rules of The Superior Courts.

The second procedure I strongly suggest you familiarise yourselves with is Judicial Review.

Order 84 – Judicial review and orders affecting personal liberty

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/a53b0f76ffc6c5b780256d2b0046b3dc?OpenDocument

Last but not least – if you are claiming that the “other side” has failed to adhere to a provision of any Rule of The Court – this is how you might state it:

Example of how to phrase and cite a provision of an “Order of The Court – in this instance Order 61, Rule 2.

“Pursuant to the provisions of Order 61, Rule 2, The (Applicant/Respondent] delete whichever one is not applicable – i.e. if you’re “The Applicant” delete the brackets, the forward slash and the word “Applicant” ) Respondent failed to serve a Notice of Appeal within ten days of the pronouncement of the Order granted on the………day of……….20…..granting Joint Legal Custody of the two minor children [……] and […..] to me, their Father and Legal Guardian. Her attempt to now Appeal said Order is out of time, being 18 months since the Order of the……. day of……….20….. was granted.”

(This an example of how you could cite a Rule of the Court – do it your own way – as long as you correctly cite whichever “Rule” of whichever “Order” you are invoking/relying on)

Before you all go mad and rush out to lodge Appeals or Applications for Judicial Review of a lower courts decision that affects you – READ THE RULES FIRST then READ THE BLOODY CASE LAW.

You are NOT automatically “entitled” to succeed on an Appeal or an Application for Leave to file a Judicial Review just because you are aggrieved by a decision of a lower Court – YOU MUST HAVE STATEABLE GROUNDS.

You must have an “arguable case” and that “argument” MUST be grounded in law – supported by previous CASE LAW – so again – read the bloody case law – read the law – familiarise yourselves with The Rules of The Court.

The second time this group/person really pissed me off and irritated me, triggering this response was a post on the 26th January 2019 linking to this article.

Mum loses custody of three children after coaching them to badmouth her ex husband; Nic Brunetti; Thursday 24 Jan 2019 1:54 pm

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/24/mum-loses-custody-of-three-children-after-coaching-them-to-badmouth-her-ex-husband-8385971/?fbclid=IwAR2xxTV-1L70EtThWW61CZQsVAVbnb2x5qJMQKML2gBLqasGzQqUvW5KkZc

The “comments” to this posting of this “article” are inane in the extreme – what surprised was no-one asked for a link to the judgement itself! Nor I might add this the “leader” of this group Fathers Rights Ireland supply a link to the judgement!

Perhaps this idiot thought he or his sheep-like followers could just stroll into Court with a copy of the Metro article clutched in their hot sweaty hands and they could just wave it around in front of the judge and he/she would be overcome with the brilliance of their “presentations” hmmmmm.

At that point I knew this guy was a pure gobshoite, a self-serving egotistical arsehole with zero real interest in “helping fathers” a ridiculous fool ranting and raving from behind his keyboard to massage his own inflated ego.

Here is the link to the judgement https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2018/B83.html&query=(ZE17C00740)

Here is the printable PDF version  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2018/B83.pdf

It is Case No: ZE17C00740 in the Family Court at Croydon on Wednesday the 22nd August 2018.

It is an extraordinary judgement for its clarity, for the depth of analysis of the substantive issues by His Honour Judge Charles Atkins and for his grasp of the fundamental damage done to children by “Parental Alienation”

What this judgement also is – is something YOU can use in an Irish Court to lend weight and AUTHORITY to YOUR case.

Download this judgement – study it – and study it again. Now you have something of substance to get your teeth into – and stop listening to or reading bullshit from gobshoites.

With regard to ‘Hague Convention” cases – download this judgement – study it – and study it again.

G.T and K.A.O and The Attorney General [2007] IEHC 326

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/768d83be24938e1180256ef30048ca51/e77d90ebb1cd0ca88025739900341ef8?OpenDocument

When I get a bit more time, I will post a list of cases that address different issues in “Family Law” cases both Irish, UK and other common law jurisdictions.

DISCLAIMER: Just in case some petulant arsehole gets the hump and decides that I am “unlawfully” giving “legal advice” here’s my disclaimer.

  1. Bite me
  2. I am NOT purporting to give anyone legal advice – I am pointing you to legitimate and accredited SOURCES of information that if you chose to access, will assist you greatly in applying the law to whatever “Case” or legal difficulty you might have.
  3. You are perfectly free to chose to click on any link I have posted here – what you do with it after that is entirely up to you – if you then go ahead and use any of the information I have linked to here and it goes pear-shaped for you – your problem, not mine.

Now – if the person or persons I have “had a go at” decides to get all “internetty” and post shit about me or engages in the usual…what do feminists call it……. whatever it is that feminists are always whining about……amounts to saying mean things about them on the internet.

My response? Bite me.

But – if you do step over the bounds of normal rational or acceptable behavior and it impacts me personally and out here in the real world – I will come after you – I will drag your sorry arse into Court – and I WILL personally rip you a new one – in Court.

Just so you know – as far as I am concerned – you do NOT represent the vast majority of fathers who are being put through the ringer in Family Courts in this jurisdiction, you are NOT a spokesman for any of them – you are NOT evolved enough, competent enough, informed enough, intelligent enough or decent enough to speak for anyone – especially NOT fathers.

You are an ignorant ill-informed arsehole who just wants a platform who spew out his self-serving bullshit, bullshit and mis-information that will actively sabotage, de-rail and damage the case of a DECENT father struggling with the toxic effects of being alienated from his children. So.  SHUT UP you idiot.

Slainte

Never Ask A Question……….

 

One of the “Golden Rules” if you like of questioning/cross-examining a witness in a trial situation is this “never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to” the reason is obvious and speaks directly to the purpose of examining said witness – to confirm KNOWN and provable FACTS or in the alternative to dispute and disprove an alleged fact.

The object of the exercise is not to “have a chat” and figure out what this witness may or may not know and/or say but to CONFIRM or dispute something FACTUAL and provable.

Standing up to question someone and ASSUMING you already know that this witness will either confirm/dispute whatever it is you wish them to confirm or dispute is beyond stupid and arrogant. In other words, assuming this witness/person is going to give you the answer you require to PROVE your case – or at least advance your case in the right direction.

There is one group/class of persons who represent the very essence of stupid and arrogant – feminists and their acolytes/hangers on/enablers/useful idiots – pick one (or all)

No-where is this stupidity and arrogance more prevalent than when feminists et al seek to PROVE the validity of their oft and tediously articulated diktats on……..everything to do with men, women, society, culture etc – in particular what and how people THINK – in other words the mantra of feminist speak could best be summarized by this “when we want your opinion, WE will give it to you” in essence, feminists claim to KNOW not only what people think and feel about everything, but what they SHOULD think and feel about everything – so in Australia they conducted a survey on “attitudes’ very particular ‘attitudes’ towards ‘violence against women’

Now, please bear in mind that feminism has been “educating’ (brainwashing)the world on what the right ‘attitudes’ towards this topic should be – ie. The feminist perspective – all men are bad, all women are victims – ergo it follows, from the feminist perspective, that this ‘survey’ will reflect the right ‘attitude(s)’ – in other words, the persons asked to respond to this survey will give them the RIGHT answers and endorse, validate and confirm what feminists have been indoctrinating you, me, us, the whole world with for decades, or at least striving to do so.

Alas and alack – it backfired on them – spectacularly, and notwithstanding that the persons “questioned” with a view to confirming the correct feminist paradigm failed to give the right answers – the reaction to these WRONG answers is even more illuminating with regard to the global feminist project to brainwash the entire global population into the correct feminist mindset.

So, what are we talking about?

This:

2017 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS)

http://apo.org.au/system/files/207066/apo-nid207066-1057761.pdf

The mainstream media reaction to the above, in the form of an article by Laura House for The Daily Mail.

2017 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS) By LAURA HOUSE FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6445405/The-harmful-disturbing-views-women-domestic-violence.html

garnered this response.

“A new study has uncovered a number of disturbing and harmful views many Australian men and women still have towards domestic violence and rape.

The National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey, led by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety was released on Friday.

The survey was taken by 17,500 Australians aged 16 and over and highlighted that many hold outdated views despite wide-spread education campaigns and greater community awareness.  

Some of the most worrying findings were related to blame, with many Australians continuing to shift the blame away from men in violent and dangerous situations.

The survey found 21% of men and women believed that ‘sometimes a woman can make a man so angry he hits her when he didn’t mean to’ and one in three thinks ‘rape results from men not being able to control their need for sex’.”

Emphasis added

Now, in the interests of full disclosure I admit I haven’t read this 182 page Report, other than focusing on this:

“Concerning results

  • There continues to be a decline in the number of Australians who understand that men are more likely than women to perpetrate domestic violence.

  • A concerning proportion of Australians believe that gender inequality is exaggerated or no longer a problem.

  • Among attitudes condoning violence against women, the highest level of agreement was with the idea that women use claims of violence to gain tactical advantage in their relationships with men.

  • 1 in 5 Australians would not be bothered if a male friend told a sexist joke about women.”

Emphasis added

Taken From a 20 Page Summary of the above mentioned 182 page Report, my main interest at the moment is two-fold, commenting on the reaction to the results from” feminists” and being heartened BY the results – a small but significant percentage of persons have REJECTED “feminist” indoctrination/propaganda/lies/and bullshit.

Summary here:

Are we there yet? Australians’ attitudes towards violence against women & gender equality

https://ncas.anrows.org.au/findings/4-attitudes-to-violence-against-women/

What appears to be causing problems for feminists and their acolytes is something they have no control over – WHAT people believe and WHO they believe, or in this instance DISBELIEVE – and that the rate of disbelief is growing, notwithstanding the almost ongoing relentless campaign of misinformation being peddled by feminists.

For example – taken from the summary of the main survey results are these statements, headed “What Australians Believe”

“WHAT AUSTRALIANS BELIEVE

While most Australians (64%) recognise that mainly men, or men more often, commit acts of domestic violence, the percentage who recognize this has dropped 7 percentage points since the 2013 NCAS. This decline has been occurring since 1995, when 86% recognised this fact. In 2009, recognition was down to 74% and it dropped a further 3 percentage points to 71% in 2013.”

“Less than half (49%) of Australians recognise that levels of fear from domestic violence are worse for women, and there has been no statistically significant change since 2013. This is a 6 percentage point decline from 2009, when 55% of respondents recognised that levels of fear are worse for women.”

Under the heading “Attitudes that support violence against women” is this little gem:

“Mistrust women’s reports of violence by suggesting women lie about or exaggerate reports of violence in order to  ‘get back at’ men or gain tactical advantage in their relationships with men. Such attitudes have been referred to as part of a ‘backlash’.”

Emphasis added

The results of this report have caused feminists to describe those results as “worrying” and “concerning” and from Laura House in The Daily Mail as “disturbing and harmful views”

Hmmmmm, except these are not “views” not according to this survey – these “attitudes” are based on WHAT and WHO people BELIEVE.

Let’s go back to the analogy of a court room situation, shall we?

One side presents their case, submits their evidence, presents and questions witnesses, some of them “expert” witnesses whose function is to validate and endorse a particular piece of “evidence” the other side does the same.

In the context of what we are discussing here -almost ALL the “evidence” to support the all domestic violence is committed by men upon women “side” of the domestic violence “case” has been presented by feminists, endorsed by feminist “experts” and received a substantial amount of attention and funding to support that “view”

In other words massive amounts of money has been spent preparing this “evidence” paying these “expert” witness and presenting this “case”

Here’s where feminists completely lose the plot – after you’ve presented your “evidence” YOU don’t get to decide WHO the jury believes – especially if the other side has been able to present compelling evidence DISPUTING your “view” of what the “evidence” shows – or if YOUR evidence IS SHOWN TO BE FLAWED.

In a nutshell this is more or less what has happened here – in this “survey” the recipients/hearers/readers of the “evidence” presented by feminists over the last several decades of the “view” that all domestic violence is committed by men against and upon women, formed a BELIEF and rendered a verdict. And the verdict?

THE JURY DON’T BELIEVE YOU. THEY DON’T BELIEVE YOUR “EVIDENCE”.

From a cultural perspective – the feminists are beginning to lose control of the narrative – look at the reaction – according to this Report, more and more people are NOT believing what feminists are peddling – and the reaction from feminists to NOT being believed?

These “non-believers” hold “disturbing and harmful views” and those persons who DO NOT believe the utter tripe peddled by feminists have culminated in the “Concerning results” described above.

I can hear the gnashing of feminist teeth from here 😊

Some of those “disturbing and harmful views” that Laura House highlights in her article are these:

“What are the attitudes to violence against women in Australia?

A fifth believe that ‘a lot of what is called domestic violence is really a normal reaction to day-to-day stress and frustration’

  • 32% believe that a female victim who does not leave an abusive partner is partly responsible for the abuse continuing

  • Half believe that women mistakenly interpret ‘innocent’ remarks or acts as being sexist

  • 40% think women exaggerate how unequally women are treated and 36% believe many women fail to appreciate all that men do for them”

Emphasis added

As I said I am actually heartened by not only the results of this survey – which Laura House refers to as “A shocking new study……” but by the fact that these feminists are shocked.

Based on the above results – half (50%) of respondents reject the hysterical overreaction to remarks/comments etc that apparently the vast majority of sensitive little snowflakes are too thin-skinned to either shrug off or respond to LIKE A GROWN UP – with a smart-arse comment of their own – or do their brains not function at the same speed as “misogynists” 😉

The last two figures give me even more hope – 40% seem to realise that everything feminists have ever peddled about “inequality” is complete and utter bullshit and LIES.

THE 36% articulating the sheer lack of normal decent gratitude for the sacrifices that MEN make FOR women is hopeful – perhaps by the time they do the next “survey” there will be a “do you believe that the vast majority of wimmin are whiney, hysterical, ungrateful, vindictive and manipulative wretches?” and that 36% will look like a blip compared to the overwhelming majority who will answer that question with a resounding – YES.

One can only hope.

Slainte

Michael Kimmel: Welcome to The Real World.

 

I actually feel a tiny bit sorry for Michael Kimmel, really, I do – he is doomed. Do I think he is a complete arsehole and full of shit? Yep. Absolutely. But – he is a human being, and from my perspective he is deserving of all the rights of due process that any other human being is entitled to – he won’t get it, but he is still entitled to it. His problem is that he has along with his feminist overlords worked to strip ALL men – all other men – of that entitlement.

Kimmels’ biggest mistake is in believing that as a self-declared male feminist he would be immune from the kinds of witch-hunting that his movement is not only famous for, but has become a parody of itself.

“Revolutions eat their children.” This observation, by a journalist during the French Revolution, was only partly true. In reality, revolutions eat their parents. In particular, history’s left-wing revolutions eat the left-wing intellectuals who made them happen. By “left-wing” here I mean revolutions that explicitly aim to use government power to reshuffle society. To remake society so it matches whatever version of “justice” strikes its promoters as attractive.”

Revolutions Eat Their Parents

https://mises.org/library/revolutions-eat-their-parents

Kimmels’ ticking time bomb of self-destruction and inevitable targeting by feminists is so self-evident, that the fact he has never considered it is a searing example of his innate stupidity.  He has a penis.

Unfortunately, his belief that he had the right kind of penis, a benign, worshipping at the feet of womynhood, let me pierce a hole in it so you can lead me around by a chain, my penis is at your service and command, was and is an exercise in monumental stupidity.

He could have chopped it off, encased it in one of those things that you encase stuff in, presented it to Hilary Clinton, along with his testes dipped in gold and made into earrings, and he was still living on borrowed time.

Kimmel in his stupidity and arrogance and hubris believed he could cook up some, how to build a better man acceptable to feminists, manual/programme/guidebook, whatever, and they would love and worship him forever.

Nah.

Apart from the fact that every single word he has ever written is complete and utter garbage, his problem was and is this.

He wrote about MEN, he took up space, time and oxygen pontificating about MEN.

HE BECAME THE GO TO GUY FOR OPINIONS ABOUT MEN

– and he did it AS A MAN.

He gave them what he believed they wanted, a turgid treatise on men and masculinity, he polished it, honed it, tied it up in a big bow and on his knees, presented them with it and waited for the accolades. He forgot. He is a MAN.

Perhaps the biggest mistake he made was in believing the oft trumpeted, tediously quoted “dictionary definition” of feminism so beloved by feminists who have run out of rational arguments (usually takes about 13 seconds) “feminism is about equality” duh.

He forgot – he is not entitled to define men, to define masculinity, to express an opinion. He forgot, while they would tolerate his views and opinions – for a while – that was never going to last – because those views and opinions were being expressed – BY A MAN. About men.

I read his monumentally stupid statement – his expectation that he would be afforded the due process he has singularly failed to endorse for other men. I rolled my eyes and while I don’t normally talk to myself, the words “you stupid stupid idiot” just popped out.

Whatever belief he has/had that they will treat him fairly, reasonably, or with even a modicum of restraint because of his “feminist” credentials, perhaps this will illustrate for him the absolute futility of believing that.

There are groups, covens, sects of so-called reasonable feminists, the type of feminist who abhors the rabid feral feminists that we all know and despise.

One of them is Laura Kipnis – this is what they did to her. And Michael – she had a vagina.

The feminist revolution is eating its own

https://nypost.com/2015/06/01/the-feminist-revolution-is-eating-its-own/

“The revolution always eats its own. That’s the lesson from a recent essay by Northwestern University’s Laura Kipnis.

Two students were so offended by her article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on why banning romantic relationships between faculty and students was silly that they filed a Title IX complaint against her.

Yes, that’s right, legislation that was originally supposed to combat sexual discrimination in public education and athletics is now being used to silence professors who write essays that contradict progressive wisdom.

The charges against Kipnis were dropped over the weekend, but not before she submitted to what she referred to as her “Title IX Inquisition.”

A law firm hired by Northwestern to investigate at first even refused to reveal the nature of the accusations against her. Lawyers told her they wanted to ask her questions but she wasn’t entitled to have her own lawyer present.”

So, who the hell is Laura Kipnis?

Well, she is a feminist, with a vagina, therefore one would assume she is immune from the worst rabble rousing, chop off her head a la Revolution Francais, style of feminist baying mob tactics!

In 2004 she wrote an article for Slate called “The Anxiety of (Sexual) Influence: Are onetime “unwanted advances” really a feminist issue?”

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2004/03/the_anxiety_of_sexual_influence.html?via=gdpr-consent

In this article she appears to be proposing that the over-reaction by feminists to “unwanted sexual advances” needs to be dialed back – fair enough – she takes a few pot shots at professional victims such as Naomi Wolf who apparently was so traumatized by an “unwanted advance” that:

“Wolf also says this one-time advance by Bloom caused her grades to drop, caused her faith in herself and her work to plummet; it devastated her sense of being valuable to Yale as anything but a sex object, and it corrupted her entire educational experience.”

Hmmmm, while ostensibly Kipnis appears to be advocating for a reasonable and rational response to someone putting the moves on you (you, being a delicate special flower of vulnerable femininity) this comment is much more illustrative of her impeccable feminist credentials.

“Just to be clear, we’re not talking here about cases of ongoing unwanted sexual advances—or threats, or quid pro quo demands—otherwise known as “sexual harassment,” which should be subject to the most severe punishment, including loss of livelihood, property seizure, and potential incarceration. Here we’re speaking strictly of the one-time unwanted advance, as in the Wolf-Bloom contretemps.”

(emphasis added)

THIS is what awaits you Michael, you have been accused of “sexual harassment” and as such you are now………………doomed.

Did you do it? Irrelevant.

Frankly, I have no opinion on that, NONE – because I have not seen any evidence, not been privy to any detail whatsoever with regard to the substance of this accusation ergo, you are innocent of the charge.

Do I still think you’re a smarmy, up your own arse idiot? Yep?

The only “safe space” for Kimmel now is the one “space” he has consistently derided, dismissed and castigated – the Men’s Human Rights Movement.

Take a look Michael.

Michael Kimmel. Just another Harvey Weinstein #MeToo

https://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/michael-kimmel-just-another-harvey-weinstein-metoo/

Every last one of them, including your “nemesis” Paul Elam, will defend to the end your right to due process, your right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty – as for the piss-taking, and general glee at the situation you find yourself in – you deserve it – you are an arsehole – but – you are a human being – a male human being – and you have rights – now – lets see you try and exercise those rights.

Methinks, that would be a step too far for Michael Kimmel – he will be bleating, whimpering and sobbing out his continued allegiance to the “feminist movement” as they lead him to the guillotine.

 

Slainte

 

 

 

 

 


 

You can be a feminist OR a Decent Human Being – BUT – You Can’t be Both!

 

 

Its been a while since I’ve had a good ole rant about feminism – mostly over the last few years I’ve just ignored the wretches, better things to do, couldn’t be arsed, not like there are not more than enough capable and committed people out there doing everything in their power to draw attention to the toxic malignancy of feminism in all its forms.

But, shit happens, as they say, and the toxic ingredients of the particular kind of shit that I encounter is absolutely informed by toxic feminist “perspectives” and by the complacency, stupidity, moral laziness and ignorance of those who work in this particular area and those who give tacit approval to the shit.

Anyhoo – here goes. Being a feminist, any kind of feminist, including being unaware that you are a feminist, excludes you from the right to claim to be a decent human being

And no – before all the “well there are different kinds of feminism” crap starts getting spewed out – it is irrelevant whether you are one of the foaming at the mouth, has stopped taking the medication, kill all men, who let this bitch out of her cage feminasty, to the “I’m not a feminist……..but……..I just want ewqual wrights for womens ‘cos men are sooooooooooooooo mean and hworrible….” Femibarbie doll.

Even if you can’t spell F.E.M.I.N.I.S.T , live in a cave, up the top of an inaccessible mountain but deep in your heart and soul know, and I mean KNOW, in your twisted little soul, that your vagina is the gateway to heaven, your possession of ovaries endows you with a ‘special” type of humanity and ergo your needs, whims, passing fancies and desires are to be indulged…………..immediately, then you are a feminist because you ascribe either consciously or subconsciously, by your attitudes and behaviours, to the notion that being female is somehow a privileged type of human being.

If you primp and preen, engage in obvious, in your face MATING behavior (i.e. behavior specifically designed to draw attention to YOUR availability for sex) then scream blue bloody murder because the target of this behavior declines to PAY for access to your magic vagina, with money, access to ALL his worldly possessions, or declines to prostrate himself in worship at your feet, which you will then use to stomp all over him – you’re a bloody feminist, if you shed your clothes at the drop of a hat to highlight nonsensical imaginary “injustices” perpetrated against women – all women, everywhere – no matter what political, economic, social or cultural power these “disadvantaged, victims of global patriarchy’ have, then not only are you a feminist, duh, you’re a gobshoite, an attention seeking, brain dead numbskull with serious mental health issues.

But above all else – if you fit in at any place along this range of dysfunctional behaviours, if you have engaged in ANY form with any of these behaviours then – not only are you a feminist you are a rotten human being.

Because no decent human being sneers at, dismisses, ignores, pours scorn on, tries to bury, or in any way treats the suffering, distress or pain or trauma of another HUMAN BEING as a joke, as irrelevant, as a nuisance.

No decent human being lays claim to being a “special” type of human being, a human being who is entitled to be treated in exceptional ways, based on one and only one criteria – they happen to be a female human being – or  in the alternative – is a human being who has passed the shit test, a shit test whose terms are set by that “privileged” and “special” group of human beings – i.e. feminists.

But, but, but……..(I hear all the nice women say) I am  a decent human being, I’m kind to people, I’m not one of those crazy women ranting about stupid irrelevant shit, I love my father, my brothers, my nephews, my other half – I don’t “do” “believe” or endorse any of that awful stuff.

Really? And no doubt you are all of the above, nice, kind, wouldn’t hurt a fly, give to charity, help old people across the road, teach your children to be kind and courteous etc etc – of that I have absolutely no doubt – I have met and spoken to hundreds of women just like you. Mothers, grannies, aunties, sisters, nieces and friends of………………………..some man up to his eyes in toxic shit.

What characterizes you all, is your total bewilderment and disbelief that there are people, women in the world who are NOT LIKE YOU.

What also appears to be an almost universal trait as well, is a belief that “oh I’m sure the government, the authorities, the Courts, the people in charge……etc. wouldn’t let such horrible things happen!”

These would be the “I prefer to see the good in people” contingent – it is, in my opinion, a form of moral cowardice, a deliberate and conscious CHOICE to screen out any knowledge or real consciousness of the sheer nastiness, corruption, mendacity, cruelty and sheer bloody EVIL that lies at the very core of the feminist belief system, and those who ascribe to it, who take advantage of the privileges it endows them with, who use it as a political, legal and cultural screen and weapon behind which they are safe to act like complete and utter arseholes.

Feminism, in all its manifestations, forms, cabals, covens, types, waves or whatever the hell they want to call or identify themselves as have engineered, created, fed and perpetuated a moral crisis in the world, yes, THE WORLD, because if all social, political , legal and institutional policy is underpinned by an acceptance of any “feminist perspective” and it bloody well is – then it is inherently corrupt, twisted, malign and EVIL and amoral.

So yes, feminism has created a moral crisis that affects the globe, a moral crisis that has allowed, given tacit approval to, endorsed and sanctioned a zeitgeist that DE-HUMANISES one half of the worlds population because they happen to be a particular type of human beings – MALE HUMAN BEINGS.

So, if you are standing by and NOT questioning, querying, looking askance, or even feeling uncomfortable by the underlying hum of toxic gynocentric white noise that permeates every single aspect of global cultural, political, legal and social discourse, on any level – then you are standing by and endorses and giving credence to the perpetuation of this moral crisis.

 

“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.”

Dante Alighieri

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/dante_alighieri_109737

 

Slainte

 

Caitlin Moran: A Woman with No Conscience – i.e – a feminist

 

 

I get a lot of stuff coming in on the “Reader” thingymabob on my site (not very tech minded) one popped up yesterday from J4MB about an article by the has-been feminist Caitlin Moran, apparently Moran had something to say about the upcoming abortion referendum here in Ireland. To be honest, I don’t read feminist crap anymore, same shoite different decade, but, I read the excerpt from this.  I do tend to read the comments, if there are any, and invariably, they are very negative towards the “feminist perspective”, obviously peoples bullshit detectors have become more finely tuned. Anyhoo, I went and subscribed to the Times so I could read this piece of drivel. Sigh

If you want to read it, or a synopsis of it, either read J4MB https://j4mb.org.uk/2018/05/12/an-open-email-to-caitlin-moran-columnist-the-times/ or subscribe to the Times

Conclusion: Caitlin Moran is a self-serving, egotistical ignorant, ill-informed attention seeking media whore.

She penned this piece of putrid garbage and the Times published it – therefor it would seem that the Times has no problem publishing ill-informed hysterical and self-serving ego boosting diatribes by has-been feminists.

Particularly when said has-been feminist, true to form doesn’t have even a passing or nodding acquaintance with either the truth or facts – it would appear that “feminist” and “facts/truth” remain mutually exclusive terms.

The gist of this piece of garbage is that Irish women (of which I am one) are living in abject fear and terror, every minute of every day. She appears to be claiming/asserting/breathlessly declaring that all “unwanted” pregnancies are the result of a crime – rape/incest. She also appears to be peddling some ridiculous tripe about ‘respecting motherhood’ !

There is also some sideways attempt to castigate the “country”

“It is a cruel and unusual stance for a country to take – to insist that its women must, legally, grit their teeth and cope with whatever a single crime or mistake hands them.”

“This is not a risky change Ireland considers this week. It does not face potential economic or social peril. It is a small consequence, really: to finally, properly, respect motherhood and women.”

To be honest this garbage is so badly written, that having to wade through it and analyse whatever the hell she is blathering on about gave me a headache. It is a mish mash of hysterical bullshit and ignorant and arrogant unfounded assertions. So, lets deal with facts, shall we.

I’m going to start with “the country” on the basis that it will be Irish Citizens exercising their democratic right to vote, who will ultimately decide whether or not to repeal the 8th amendment which states:

“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

This became law in 1983.

On foot of a Supreme Court Judgement in 1992 the goalposts shifted in an extraordinary and unexpected way.

“The Supreme Court rules in Attorney General v X that a 14 year old girl, known as X, pregnant as a result of rape, faces a real and substantial risk to her life due to threat of suicide and this threat can only be averted by the termination of her pregnancy. Therefore, X is entitled to an abortion in Ireland under the provision of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution that requires the State to have “due regard to the equal right to life of the mother”.

The Court does not consider that abortion can be permitted only where the risk is of immediate or inevitable death of the pregnant woman, as this would insufficiently protect her right to life.

The law is now clear that termination of pregnancy should be considered a medical treatment whether the risk to the life of a pregnant woman arises on physical or mental health grounds. Risk to life does not have to be a virtual certainty. But risk to physical or mental health alone is not sufficient.”

https://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Abortion-in-Ireland-Timeline

In 2013

“July 2013: President Michael D. Higgins signs the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act into law. The Act is intended to implement the 1992 judgment of the Supreme Court in the X case and the 2010 ECtHR in the case of A, B and C v Ireland and provide for lawful access to abortion where a pregnant woman’s life is risk. 25 public hospitals are listed as appropriate institutions where a termination can be carried out”

See Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf

Chapter 1 Section 7, 8 and 9 deal with situations when a lawful medical procedure may be carried out on a pregnant woman that results in the loss of life of an unborn child.

  1. Risk of loss of life from physical illness

“Risk of loss of life from physical illness

  1. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where—”

  2. Risk of loss of life from physical illness in emergency

“Risk of loss of life from physical illness in emergency

  1. (1) Notwithstanding the generality of section 7, or any determination made or pending pursuant to section 13 of an application under section 10(2), it shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where—”

  2. Risk of loss of life from suicide

“Risk of loss of life from suicide

  1. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where—”

In each section, there is no mention of abortion, or of terminating a pregnancy, the phrase used is ‘…….in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended…..’

In the spirit of the Constitutional equal protection given to both the life of the woman and the life of the unborn child, and in compliance with the judgement in the X case, the legislation balances the life of both in certain specified situations and where the life of the mother is in jeopardy allows medical treatment to go ahead lawfully to save that life, even if in the course of that intervention the unborn child dies.  It other words, in those situations the life of the unborn is sacrificed to save the life of the woman.

THAT is the legal situation in Ireland at the present time.

But, apart from the nutcases on either “side” of this issue, what do ordinary Irish Citizens think?

https://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Public-Opinion

Generally – that abortion should be “allowed” in cases of rape, foetal anomaly, risk to health/life, including suicide. What should be noted is this, that ordinary Irish Citizens, not idealogues, not has-been attention seeking feminists, not political opportunists actually consider this ‘debate’ to be a matter of conscience, they are very conscious of the less than savoury history of this country, the vast majority of Irish Citizens in this country, on this issue want to do what they genuinely believe is the right thing.

So, using scare tactics, misinformation, or penning obnoxious screeds is self-defeating – what this will all come down to is this – is that foetus an unborn human child or not? If so, does that unborn human child deserve the protection of the law?

A tiny miniscule percentage of “unwanted pregnancies” are the result of rape/sexual assault. Of that tiny miniscule percentage an even tinier miniscule percentage of women finding themselves in that situation choose to terminate those pregnancies – the vast majority of these unfortunate women actually choose to give birth and parent these children.

The vast majority of abortions obtained by Irish women in mainly the UK over the period of 2010 – 2015 are obtained for reasons OTHER than that pregnancy being the result of rape/sexual assault.

 

These are the facts 

The RCNI (Rape Crisis Network of Ireland) collects and collates statistics on rape and sexual assault in Ireland, as part of that remit the RCNI also publishes statistics with regard to the number of pregnancies that result from rape/sexual assault.

Those advocating for a repeal of the 8th amendment to Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 (Constitution of Ireland 1937) generally use two highly emotive devices to propel this agenda. Scare stories about thousands of Irish women being made to (forced) to carry pregnancies as a result of rape to term, and even scarier stories about Irish women’s lives being in danger if they are pregnant and are refused an abortion – the tragic case of Savita Halapanavar is trotted out, notwithstanding that the official inquiry into this woman’s death concluded she died from failure to diagnose and treat her promptly for Sepsis.

 

“A post-mortem examination was performed on the 30th of October, 2012. The cause of death established by the Coroner’s Inquest in this case in April, 2013 was:

“1(a) Fulminant septic shock from E. coli bacteremia.

1(b) Ascending genital tract sepsis.

1(c) Miscarriage at 17 weeks gestation associated with chorioamnionitis.

(2) There were no co-morbidities”.

The Report Continues

“Sepsis is a common cause of death in the general population. In the United States, sepsis contributes to more than 200, 000 deaths per year. Sepsis is also the most common cause of maternal mortality identified in the UK Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiry (CMACE)2006-2008 report (2011).

Sepsis is a systemic illness that complicates severe infection which is caused by the invasion and multiplication of microbes in normally sterile sites in the body. Sepsis causes a systemic inflammatory response with evidence or suspicion (pending the results of tests) of an underlying infection. When accompanied by evidence of organ/tissue hypoperfusion or dysfunction, sepsis becomes severe sepsis. When severe sepsis is accompanied by hypotension (low blood pressure) despite adequate fluid resuscitation, a patient is considered to have septic shock. Progression from sepsis to severe sepsis to septic shock can occur within hours and correlates with increasing mortality. Early diagnosis and management is essential to reduce the mortality rate.

Sepsis is difficult to diagnose in pregnancy due to the associated natural physiological changes and this calls for efficient assessment and monitoring of the patient by the clinical team to enable them to promptly recognise and respond to the signs of infection and clinical deterioration”.

“Key Causal Factor 1:

Inadequate assessment and monitoring that would have enabled the clinical team to recognise and respond to the signs that the patient’s condition was deteriorating due to infection associated with a failure to devise and follow a plan of care for this patient that was satisfactorily cognisant of the facts that:

→ the most likely cause of the patient’s inevitable miscarriage was infection and

→ the risk of infection and sepsis increased with time following admission and especially following the spontaneous rupture of the patient’s membranes.

Key Causal Factor 2:

Failure to offer all management options to a patient experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to the mother increased with time from the time that membranes were ruptured.

Key Causal Factor 3:

Non adherence to clinical guidelines related to the prompt and effective management of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock when it was diagnosed. “

Report is here. http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/06/savita-halappanavar-hse-report.pdf

 

These are the actual figures from the RCNI for pregnancies that are the result of rape – as well as the choices that these women made.

 

2010http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/Pregnancyandsvedition2.pdf

In 2010 1,545 survivors of sexual violence attended Rape Crisis Centres (RCCs). Of these, a small number became pregnant as a result of rape (75 girls and women).

Range of outcomes of pregnancy for survivors attending RCCs in 2010 who became pregnant as a result of rape (%) n = 75

Of the 75 females who became pregnant as a result of rape there were a range of outcomes:

Ten survivors of rape had their pregnancies terminated

Ten survivors who became pregnant had their child placed for adoption or fostering

Forty three survivors of rape went to term, gave birth and parent their children

Nine survivors of rape miscarried or had stillbirths

Three survivors became pregnant more than once as a result of rape and had different outcomes in each pregnancy

 

2011http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/RangeOfOutcomesOfSurvivorsOfRapeWhoArePregnantAsAResultOfRape2011.pdf

In 2011 2,036 female survivors of sexual violence attended Rape Crisis Centres (RCCs). Of these, 90 girls and women became pregnant as a result of rape.

Range of outcomes of pregnancy for survivors attending RCCs in 2011 who became pregnant as a result of rape (%) n = 90

Of the 90 females who became pregnant as a result of rape there were a range of outcomes:

Seventeen survivors of rape had their pregnancy terminated

Twelve survivors who became pregnant had their child placed for adoption or fostering

Forty eight survivors of rape went on to give birth and parent their children

Eleven survivors of rape miscarried or had stillbirths

Two survivors became pregnant more than once as a result of rape and had different outcomes in each pregnancy

See also – http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/RCNI-AR+National-Statistics-2011.pdf

 

2013 – Graph 21: Pregnancy outcome for survivors (%) n = 75

8% of females attending RCCs in 2013 became pregnant as a result of rape. RCNI and RCCs support survivors’ choices, whatever they may be.

The majority of these survivors went on to give birth and parent their children (46%)

25%of the se survivors had their pregnancy terminated

15% of survivors who became pregnant had their child placed for adoption or fostering

13% of these survivors miscarried or had stillbirths

1% of survivors became pregnant more than once as a result of rape and disclosed different outcomes for each pregnancy

See also – http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/RCNI-National-Statistics-2013.pdf

 

2014 –  21: Pregnancy outcome for survivors (%) n = 53

Of the female survivors attending RCCs in 2014 who were raped when they were aged eight or over,

8% became pregnant as a result of the rape. RCNI and RCCs create a safe place for survivors to support them in making choices, RCCs support survivors’ choices. Pregnancy outcomes cannot be taken as an indication of survivor choice as the circumstances of those choices, emotionally, legally and financially often constrain rape victims’ freedoms to choose.

The majority of these survivors went on to give birth and parent their children (40%).

26% of these survivors had their pregnancy terminated.

23% of these survivors miscarried or had stillbirths.

11% of survivors who became pregnant had their child placed for adoption or fostering.

See also – http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/RCNI-National-Stats-2014.pdf

 

2015 – Graph 21: Pregnancy outcome for survivors (%) n = 53

Of the female survivors attending RCCs in 2015 who were raped when they were aged eight or over, 5% became pregnant as a result of the rape. RCNI and RCCs create a safe place for survivors to support them in making choices, RCCs support survivors’ choices. Pregnancy outcomes cannot be taken as an indication of survivor choice as the circumstances of those choices, emotionally, legally and financially often constrain rape victims’ freedoms to choose.

The majority of these survivors went on to give birth and parent their children (37%).

24% of these survivors had their pregnancy terminated.

11% of rape survivors who became pregnant had their child placed for adoption or fostering.

28% of these survivors miscarried or had stillbirths.

See – http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/RCNI-RCC-StatsAR-2015-2.pdf

 

See also: Women From the Republic of Ireland Accessing Abortion Services in England and Wales 1980 – 2016

Source: UK Department of Health https://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Statistics

The total number of terminations obtained as a result of rape/sexual recorded by the RCNI FROM 2010 – 2015 (excluding 2012)  is c.61

Over the five years when I could find the figures, the average number of terminations obtained per year is 12.

I would posit that the majority of those terminations was obtained in the UK, bearing in mind the official statistics published the UK /government with regard to abortions in England and Wales.

Comparison of Official Statistics of Irish Women obtaining terminations in both the UK and the Netherlands with Official figures of women terminating pregnancies as a result of rape from the RCNI (Rape Crisis Network Ireland)

 

UK                              Netherlands     Total                     RCNI – (Rape)

                                                                                                Termination

2016 – 3,265                n/a                  3,265                           n/a

2015 – 3,451                n/a                  3,451                           13

2014 – 3,735                16                    3,751                           14

2013 – 3,679                12                    3,691                           19

2012 – 3,982                24                    3,996                           n/a

2011 – 4,149                33                    4,182                           11

2010 – 4,402                31                    4,433                           10

 

NB – Figures for 2016 and 2012 (RCNI) not available.

*3982 persons declared themselves residents of the Republic of Ireland in official UK Gov. figures from 2012

Putting these two figures together and comparing them statistically creates a problem – the number of abortions obtained as a result of rape/sexual assault is so small in relation to the number of abortions obtained by women declaring themselves Irish residents that the percentage is minuscule – leading to only one conclusion – of all the reasons why Irish women go to the UK for an abortion – pregnancy as the result of rape/assault is too small to produce a significant percentage.

In every year, of the small numbers of women whose pregnancy was as a result of rape/sexual assault, the majority of those women chose to give birth and parent those children. A brave and selfless decision by these women that I applaud. A decision that took courage and compassion.

To be absolutely fair to those small number of women who chose to terminate these pregnancies? I am genuinely sorry that you felt you had to do this, and I in no way condemn you for that choice. For these women I have no problem seeing or understanding the reasons for their decisions.

What I have a problem with are rabble rousing has been-feminists hi-jacking the genuine traumas of this very small number of women to propel their “abortion on demand” “abortion is a right” bullshit.

Abortion is and should be a medical solution to a medical (and yes I do include psychological trauma) crisis. End of.

A ‘crisis pregnancy’ is a pregnancy that presents a risk to the life and health of the pregnant woman – getting knocked up after a night on the razz is NOT a crisis pregnancy.

Finding out that the baby you’re carrying will not survive, or has such severe foetal abnormalities that the chance of survival is miniscule is a crisis pregnancy.

Finding out that the baby is the wrong gender is NOT a crisis pregnancy.

Anyone who has a problem with either sets of figures can take it up with either the RCNI or the UK government.

If you want a clear picture of Abortion Statistics in England and Wales, from 2012 – 2016 see below:

2012https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/statistics-on-abortions-carried-out-in-england-and-wales-in-2012

2013https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319460/Abortion_Statistics__England_and_Wales_2013.pdf

2014https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/433437/2014_Commentary__5_.pdf

2015https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/570040/Updated_Abortion_Statistics_2015.pdf

2016https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/abortion-stats-2016-commentary-with-tables.pdf

 

Those are the facts – do with them what you will.

The 8th amendment declares in effect that the life of the unborn child and the woman are of equal value, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 provides that in certain circumstances where those equal rights to life must be balanced against one another, that it is the unborn life that may be sacrificed to save the life of the mother

“On Friday 25th May 2018, you will be asked to vote on a proposal to change the Constitution of Ireland. The proposed change to the Constitution concerns the regulation  of termination of pregnancy.

Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, means that it is lawful for a pregnancy to be terminated only where the pregnancy poses a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. This includes a risk of suicide.

The proposal on 25th May is to delete Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and to insert in its place that

“Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.”

(emphasis added)

https://refcom2018.refcom.ie/refcom-guide-2018-english.pdf

So, thats it – “Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.” no safeguards, no caveats, no limits, no guidance – the proposed wording allows whoever is in power (on the advice of whoever exerts the greatest influence) to put into place laws that WILL NOT be amenable to Constitutional Challenge – EVER.

So, while Irish Citizens genuinely want to do the right thing and alieviate genuine suffering in certain specified circumstances, this proposed wording will leave unfettered power in the hands of legislators, lobbyists, special interests, and those who demand “special treatment” for only one half of humanity.

Ultimately it will be up to each individual to put their mark beside either Yes or No on the ballot paper, all I would ask is that you follow your conscience, and I will follow mine.

 

Is Mise Le meas

 

Edit: I added another paragraph to this article (a sleepless night notwithstanding) including the text of the proposed replacement wording to the Constitution, because I realised that without this information to consider I would be remiss.

I know from my own experience of discussions with various people over the last few months, that many people are genuinely at a loss as to how to vote, that there are more people who genuinely want to do the right thing than there are loud-mouthed, (some frothing at the mouth) nutcases screaming incoherently for one side or the other.

Repealing the 8th amendment and replacing it with the proposed wording (see above) in NOT the right thing to do – in MY opinion.

 

In The Best Interests of the Child…..Getting it Wrong: A Pyrrhic Victory Creating Conflict to “Win” Custody of Children. Part 1

 

 

How women manipulate the legal system and rely on judicial ignorance, judicial reliance on faulty and unsupported assumptions and “mother myths” to sever, disrupt, poison and damage Father/Child Relationships by creating a toxic conflictual environment, (which for convenience I will refer to as Toxic Parental Alienation Conflict TPAC)I contend that it isn’t the manufactured “conflict” that damages children the most – it is losing their Fathers through Family Law Judges relying on and applying the above mentioned judicial ignorance, faulty research and unsupported assumptions and “mother myths”  in judicial decision making in contested “custody” cases that causes the worst outcomes for children.

In effect – Family Law Judges who make custody decisions “in the best interests of the child” by allowing TPAC to influence erroneous decisions to award “sole custody” to the mothers creating the TPAC and “limited” or “supervised access” to Fathers are entrenching, endorsing and supporting the continuing negative psychological damage being inflicted on children.

How? By giving TPAC mothers permission to continue to cause psychological damage to children BY PREVENTING THESE CHILDREN FROM HAVING A FULL MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR FATHERS.

To reiterate – it isn’t the “conflict” that ultimately causes the most damage to the children – it is losing their fathers.

Which is not to say that that the TPAC isn’t damaging – it is – but there are two negative processes interacting here – children being used as pawns in TPAC, and the RESULT of children being subjected to TPAC – losing their Father – and yes, I acknowledge that mothers have also been the victims of TPAC – but the vast majority of parents being targeted are Fathers.

The Nature of Conflict

It is, for want of a better expression, human nature to disagree with or dispute the opinions, views or positions of other people – we are betimes in conflict with the stated opinions of other people, we express that disagreement and put forward an alternative opinion and/or view. We debate. We argue.

My mother used to say “it would be a boring world if everybody agreed with everybody else all the time” and I concur. No doubt you have all either been involved in, or observed two people in heated exchanges – usually because there is passionate disagreement – if one is unable to convince the other of the validity of your point of view, despite your best efforts, the normal adult thing to do is to “agree to disagree”

On a more mundane everyday level, human life is peppered with small micro disagreements, small incidents of conflict – I want to watch Babylon 5 (Duh!) someone else wants to watch Top Gear (Huh!) ooops – conflict. The solution is glaringly obvious……………for grown ups that is. Get another bloody television.

The point is human life is about conflict, disagreements, disputes, large, small and microscopic – we manage them, we resolve them, usually on the fly and we MOVE ON. This happens in all human relationships – ALL – including parental relationships – obviously some parental relationships are more argumentative, more tetchy, more conflictual than others – but – in the context of those parental relationships, the issue isn’t and shouldn’t be about the level of parental conflict BETWEEN the parents – the issue is – are the children dragged into these conflicts and how do the courts view this “conflict”

There is of course another more insidious underlying process in play – in TPAC the conflict is manufactured, engineered, deliberately instigated, for one purpose and one purpose only – to sever the parental relationship between the child/ren and the targeted parent – usually the father, and the children are manipulated into becoming involved in, part of, and enmeshed in this manufactured “conflict”

The fact that there is “conflict” in particular where one parent is actively engaging in behaviour’s that disrupt, prevent, impede and/or damage the other parents relationship with his child/ren, is actively seeking judicial endorsement of a curtailment of the other parents relationship with his child/ren is, in my opinion an immediate red flag – and should be. Any parent who demands that the Court sanctions and endorses a “gate-keeping” role, authority, position over the other parents relationship with his children is immediately suspect.

I’m going to pause here for a moment for a little aside and quote from Re-examining the Research on Parental Conflict, Coparenting, and Custody Arrangements: Linda Nielsen Wake Forest University: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2017, Vol. 23, No. 2, 211–231

Empirical Basis for the Conflict Hypothesis

The assumption that, unless parents have a low conflict, cooperative relationship, the children will fare more poorly if they have frequent contact with their father or if they live in a JPC family seems to have originated from five studies in the 1980s. Twenty five to 30 years ago when these studies were conducted, it was generally assumed that children benefitted most from maximum mothering time while their parents lived together, as well as after they separated. From this perspective, restricting the children’s time with their father would have a less negative impact than exposing them to the parental conflict. The assumption was that, unless the parents had a friendly, low conflict relationship, the more time fathers and children spent together, the more conflict would likely arise. These beliefs are reflected in custody laws which have historically restricted children’s time with their fathers to every other weekend and occasional vacation time (DiFonzo, 2014). The earliest of the five studies (Johnston, Kline, & Tschann, 1989) garnered nationwide attention when cited in Wallerstein’s bestselling book on divorce (Wallerstein, Lewis, & Blakeslee, 2000) to support the view that,

Joint custody arrangements that involve the child in going back and forth at frequent intervals are particularly harmful to children in a high conflict family. Children who are ordered to traverse a battleground between warring parents show serious symptoms that affect their physical and mental health. The research findings on how seriously troubled these children are and how quickly their adjustment deteriorates are very powerful. (Wallerstein et al., 2000, p. 215)

Wallerstein’s books received national media attention for well more than a decade (Kirn, 2012). Prioritizing conflict and recommending against JPC or frequent “visitation” unless conflict was low gained further momentum in books written for family court and mental health professionals (Garrity & Baris, 1997; Hodges, 1991; Johnston & Campbell, 1988; Stahl, 1999). Johnston et al. (1989) was a pioneering study that for many years was misinterpreted and cited as evidence that joint physical custody was only suitable for parents with little to no conflict. Given its longstanding influence and the fact that its author (Johnston, 1995) has expressed regret about how the study has been, and continues to be (e.g., Shaffer, 2007) misunderstood and misused, it merits careful attention.”

NB JPC means Joint Physical Custody.

A summary of Dr. Neilsen’s research is available here and the full text of her research paper is here. Dr. Neilsen reviewed 54 studies conducted over an extensive period of time, including the one quoted from above, which has been relied on extensively to support SPC (Sole Physical Custody) decisions and more importantly, the assumptions that Family Law Judges use and are consistently trotted out to support SPC arrangements – Dr. Neilsens research empirically discredits (in my opinion) ALL previous assumptions in relation to SPC decisions, and the erroneous and flawed thinking upon which those decisions have, and continue to be made with regard to the custody of children.

From:

10 Surprising Findings on Shared Parenting After Divorce or Separation: Linda Neilsen

  1. In the 54 studies—absent situations in which children needed protection from an abusive or negligent parent even before their parents separated—children in shared-parenting families had better outcomes than children in sole physical custody families. The measures of well-being included: academic achievement, emotional health (anxiety, depression, self-esteem, life satisfaction), behavioral problems (delinquency, school misbehavior, bullying, drugs, alcohol, smoking), physical health and stress-related illnesses, and relationships with parents, stepparents, and grandparents.
  2. Infants and toddlers in JPC families have no worse outcomes than those in SPC families. Sharing overnight parenting time does not weaken young children’s bonds with either parent.
  3. When the level of parental conflict was factored in, JPC children still had better outcomes across multiple measures of well-being. High conflict did not override the benefits linked to shared parenting, so JPC children’s better outcomes cannot be attributed to lower parental conflict.
  4. Even when family income was factored in, JPC children still had better outcomes. Moreover, JPC parents were not significantly richer than SPC parents.
  5. JPC parents generally did not have better co-parenting relationships or significantly less conflict than SPC parents. The benefits linked to JPC cannot be attributed to better co-parenting or to lower conflict.
  6. Most JPC parents do not mutually or voluntarily agree to the plan at the outset. In the majority of cases, one parent initially opposed the plan and compromised as a result of legal negotiations, mediation, or court orders. Yet in these studies, JPC children still had better outcomes than SPC children.
  7. When children are exposed to high, ongoing conflict between their parents, including physical conflict, they do not have any worse outcomes in JPC than in SPC families. Being involved in high, ongoing conflict is no more damaging to children in JPC than in SPC families.
  8. Maintaining strong relationships with both parents by living in JPC families appears to offset the damage of high parental conflict and poor co-parenting. Although JPC does not eliminate the negative impact of frequently being caught in the middle of high, ongoing conflict between divorced parents, it does appear to reduce children’s stress, anxiety, and depression.
  9. JPC parents are more likely to have detached, distant, and “parallel” parenting relationships than to have “co-parenting” relationships where they work closely together, communicate often, interact regularly, coordinate household rules and routines, or try to parent with the same parenting style.
  10. No study has shown that children whose parents are in high legal conflict or who take their custody dispute to court have worse outcomes than children whose parents have less legal conflict and no custody hearing.

These findings refute a number of popular myths about shared parenting. One among many examples is a 2013 study from the University of Virginia that was reported in dozens of media outlets around the world under frightening headlines such as: “Spending overnights away from mom weakens infants’ bonds.” In the official press release, the researchers stated that their study should guide judges’ decisions about custody for children under the age of four. In fact, however, the study is not in any way applicable to the general population. The participants were impoverished, poorly-educated, non-white parents who had never been married or lived together, had high rates of incarceration, drug abuse, and violence, and had children with multiple partners. Moreover, there were no clear relationships between overnighting and children’s attachments to their mothers.

My review of 54 studies on shared parenting finds that, independent of parental conflict and family income, children in shared physical custody families—with the exception of situations where children need protection from an abusive or negligent parent—have better outcomes across a variety of measures of well-being than do children in sole physical custody. Knowledge and understanding of these findings allow us to dismantle some of the myths surrounding shared parenting so we can better serve the interests of the millions of children whose parents are no longer living together.

Dr. Linda Nielsen is a professor of Adolescent and Educational Psychology at Wake Forest University. She has written numerous articles on shared parenting research and is frequently called upon to share the research with legislative committees and family court professionals. For copies of her research articles contact nielsen@wfu.edu

So, TPAC creates, manufactures, engineers and feeds the conflict, damaging the children subjected to it, and the Courts sees this “conflict” and award SPC to the perpetrator, the instigator, the manipulator, further causing psychological distress and damage to these already burdened children, and the circuit is complete.

The alienator has achieved her object – destroyed the relationship between the children and his/her father, and basking in the glow of victory, sweeps out of Court with a smirk – the children are……..collateral damage. She won!

Family Law Judges believe they have achieved a “reasonable and just outcome”………………..in the best interests of the child.

Feminists, their twisted acolytes and enablers cheer yet another victory over “the patriarchy” and all’s well with the world, alternatively they pen this rubbish. Sigh. I know.

From: “… HE’S JUST SWAPPED HIS FISTS FOR THE SYSTEM” THE GOVERNANCE OF GENDER THROUGH CUSTODY LAW Author(s): VIVIENNE ELIZABETH, NICOLA GAVEY and  JULIA TOLMIE Source: Gender and Society, Vol. 26, No. 2 (April 2012), pp. 239-260 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

“In Anglo-Western countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, state interventions to “assist” parents who cannot agree on postseparation care arrangements are informed by the welfare principle, better known by the seemingly simple phrase “the best interests of the child.” As others have pointed out, the welfare principle is notoriously indeterminate; what is in the child’s best interests is open to interpretation and contestation (Boyd 2003,2004,2006; Collier 2006; Coltrane and Hickman 1992; Fineman 1988; Kaganas and Day Sclater 2004; Rhoades 2002, 2006; Smart 1997; Smart and Neale 1999a).

Partly as a result of attempts by a global fathers’ rights movement to reassert entitlements to children, the welfare principle is currently defined in terms of an ongoing relationship with both parents. This understanding of a child’s best interests is associated with a shift to joint legal custody, which accords the rights and in theory the responsibilities of parenthood to both parents irrespective of the nature of their relationship, and the rise of joint physical custody—a situation that includes a wide variety of care arrangements for children, all of which generally involve children spending time in the physical care of both parents.

In Australia and an increasing number of U.S. states, emphasis is placed on equal shared parenting, which entails children spending approximately 50:50 time in the physical care of each parent.

In this article, we treat the intervention of custody law, framed by both custody legislation and the actions of various family law professionals, including judges, lawyers, mediators, psychologists, counselors and social workers, in the lives of separated parents as an instance of the governance of gender (Brush 2003).”

Though one of my favourite quotes from this “research” is this:

“Indeed, Rekha Mirchandani (2006) on the basis of her research on a domestic violence court in Salt Lake City, Utah, claims that state institutions can be transformed into feminist regimes that challenge “male dominance in the home” by undermining men’s prerogatives in relation to their partners and children.”

The irony of the authors use of the words “entitlements” and “men’s prerogatives” has not escaped me, nor you I would imagine.

So, “best interests of the child” is to all intents and purposes the new mantra of Family Law Courts, notwithstanding the authors of HE’S JUST SWAPPED HIS FISTS FOR THE SYSTEM” THE GOVERNANCE OF GENDER THROUGH CUSTODY LAW………etc  contention that “……what is in the child’s best interests is open to interpretation and contestation…….”

“In Anglo-Western countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, state interventions to “assist” parents who cannot agree on postseparation care arrangements are informed by the welfare principle, better known by the seemingly simple phrase “the best interests of the child.” As others have pointed out, the welfare principle is notoriously indeterminate; what is in the child’s best interests is open to interpretation and contestation (Boyd 2003,2004,2006; Collier 2006; Coltrane and Hickman 1992; Fineman 1988; Kaganas and Day Sclater 2004; Rhoades 2002, 2006; Smart 1997; Smart and Neale 1999a).”

Actually – it isn’t – in contention – by legitimate unbiased and responsible persons working in the area of child welfare. But, feminists do so love their vague wishy washy, woozly, “what the hell is she talking about” “research” “I’m just going to pull a load of figures out my ass and present them as legitimate research to support whatever twisted and ideologically driven “theory” I have subscribed to”

Nor, I might add, is it a vague and ephemeral concept in law.

In The Best Interests of the Child…..How The Courts Get it Wrong. Part 2.

Part 2 on Monday.

 

 

 

Rory Hearn on Austerity

“Ireland’s austerity ‘success’ is no model for Greece

GREECE is being told to follow Ireland’s crisis solution of harsh austerity and acceptance of bank-and-bailout debt. This narrative conveniently ignores that the Irish ‘recovery’ has been built on major human rights violations and the undermining of long-term social and economic development.

Health spending has been cut by 27% since 2008, resulting in an 81% increase in the number of patients waiting on trolleys and chairs in emergency departments.

There is a dark side to Ireland’s ‘success’ that requires discussion about the most effective responses to financial and fiscal crises.

The eight austerity budgets between 2008 and 2014 involved €18.5bn in public-spending cuts and €12bn in tax-raising (revenue) measures. Key public services, in particular health and housing, have been weakened as a result.

Public service staff have been reduced by 10% (37,500). Health spending has been cut by 27% since 2008, resulting in an 81% increase in the number of patients waiting on trolleys and chairs in emergency departments. One-third of all children admitted to hospital suffering with mental-health difficulties have been put in adult wards and the waiting lists for youth mental-health services have increased to 2,818 people.

Funding for local authority housing was cut from €1.3bn, in 2007, to just €83m, in 2013. This meant a loss of 25,000 social-housing units. This is a major contribution to the homelessness crisis, with 1,000 children and 500 families now living in emergency accommodation in Dublin. Because of the decision to prioritise bank recapitalisation and developer debt write-down, homeowner mortgage arrears have escalated.

There are 37,000 homeowners in mortgage arrears of over 720 days, and legal repossession notices were issued to 50,000 homeowners.

The cuts to welfare have had devastating impacts.Affected areas include lone-parent supports, child benefit, youth payments, fuel, back-to-school clothing and footwear, rent supplement, and disability and carers’ allowance.

But charges were introduced where they did not exist before — putting a further burden on lower-income households. These charges are ‘regressive’, in that they were not tailored to income level. These include water, property, school transport, prescription, A&E and chemotherapy charges. Fees have effectively been reintroduced at third-level (increasing from €1,000 to €3,000). This will have major implications for participation rates from lower-income households.

Funding for local community development, youth organisations, drugs prevention, family support, and to combat rural and urban disadvantage was disproportionally hit. Programme funding was reduced by 50%.

We are likely to see the long-term social impacts of these cuts in the further exclusion from the labour force of youths in disadvantaged areas. Issues of drugs and crime will surely worsen.

An EU report on the impact of austerity showed that the quality of secondary- and primary-level education has also been reduced, with fewer teachers, rationalisation of teacher/student support services, and the abolition of school grants.

The report links early school-leaving to austerity measures, which are highly concentrated in low-income areas. This, along with the cuts in funding to third-level, will seriously damage our education system, the core of the country’s economic development.

Hundreds of thousands of families and children have been pushed into poverty. The child-poverty rate rose from 18%, in 2008, to 29.1%, in 2013.The deprivation rate increased from 26.9%, in 2012, to 30.5%, in 2013, while for lone-parent families it has risen to 63%. Food poverty affects 600,000 (up 13.2%). Austerity has also devastated rural areas and small towns, with unemployment levels remaining much higher in the south-east.

In one of the most disturbing pieces of research into the impact of austerity, UCC and the National Suicide Research Foundation found an increase in self-harm rates of 31% in men, and 22% in women, between 2008 and 2012, while the male suicide rate is 57% higher (that’s 500 additional deaths). They cited a number of factors, including reductions in public expenditure, cuts to welfare, substantial healthcare cuts, falling house prices and personal debt.

Capital expenditure on important public infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, roads, transport, broadband, water and wastewater was drastically reduced, by 60%, between 2008 and 2014.

Such spending on infrastructure is the bedrock of sustainable and competitive economies, and the lost decade of investment in these will leave Ireland’s economy much more vulnerable into the future.

Don’t forget, also, €17bn of our national pension reserve — which was available to fund infrastructure development and future pensions — was put into the bailout.

The commitment by Irish governments to pay all the bank- and crisis-related debt will damage our long-term social and economic development, and result in ongoing crises in health, housing, and mental health, and in rising poverty and inequality. This is because funding that should be going to these much-needed public services will, instead, be going on debt interest payments. Debt interest payments rose from €2bn (3.4% of tax revenue), in 2007, to a staggering €7.5bn, or 18% of all tax revenue, in 2014. These interest payments will enforce a form of permanent austerity in the coming decade.

Then, there is the often-forgotten issue of forced emigration. Almost 10% of Irish young people emigrated during the recession and emigration worsened as austerity intensified. It rose from 20,000, in 2009, to 50,000, in 2013. Without emigration, the unemployment rate would be 20%.

Finally, almost half of Ireland’s dramatic increase in GDP is from multinational activity, which does not take place in Ireland.

Thus, much of Ireland’s growth is based on facilitating some of the most profitable global corporations and financial services in reducing the tax they otherwise would have to pay to countries across the world. This is an unethical, unfair, and ultimately unsustainable form of economic activity.

It is clear, as highlighted by a recent assessment by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, that austerity hit the most vulnerable and marginalised the hardest in Ireland. But there was, and remains, a choice about how countries such as Ireland and Greece, and the Troika, respond to debt and financial crises. Debt relief is an important option, as is taxing the wealthy, financial services or higher incomes, rather than taking it from public services, the poor and middle-income earners. The Troika and Irish governments favoured the latter and we can see the human misery and economic damage caused, as a result.

The Irish austerity-and-recovery model is being misrepresented on the international stage and should not be followed by Greece or other crises countries.

The Irish case actually points to the human and economic necessity of debt relief and alternative approaches to fiscal crises.

Dr Rory Hearne is a lecturer in the department of geography and faculty of social sciences at Maynooth University

© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved”

 

 

 

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/irelands-austerity-success-is-no-model-for-greece-340662.html

 

 

 

 

 

My Note – What he said 🙂

Previous Older Entries