Written by Joyana Silberg - The Leadership Council
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
According to a conservative estimate by experts at the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (LC), more than 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States. This is over twice the yearly rate of new cases of childhood cancer.
Experts at the LC consider the crisis in our family courts to constitute a public health crisis. Once placed with an abusive parent or forced to visit, children will continue to be exposed to parental violence and abuse until they reach 18. Thus, we estimate that half a million children will be affected in the US at any point of time. Many of these children will suffer physical and psychological damage which may take a lifetime to heal.
The legal presumption in the Courts of Australia is that the evidence given by children is reliable and truthful. This is embodied in various ways in the Evidence Acts of the Commonwealth and the respective States and Territories.
The presumption is not rebuttable and only a judicial officer can determine whether the evidence given by a particular child or young person may not be reliable in a particular case.
It's a shame that mainstream medias’ (so-called) journalists followed suit like a bunch of lackeys, when they all jumped on the "criminal syndicate kidnapping children" bandwagon - instead of doing their own homework.
Though we are sick of hearing both women and men actually believing the rubbish mainstream media dribbles, it is a tad frustrating when people aren't smart enough to consider for one moment that what they're being told is a blatant lie, or refuse to budge from their perception of "it's another nasty woman getting back at her ex-husband".
While you're considering not reading the end of this article because it doesn't suit your current thoughts on things, here's a few points to mull over whilst the real story gets hidden.
One mainstream media wrote “Pensioners and professionals are believed to be part of the syndicate, which allegedly used encrypted messages in order to avoid detection”. "Syndicate"? Really? If the family court sent your children to live with or have unsupervised access with a paedophile, what would you do to help them? Any decent human being would help, and criminalising the good guys and covering for the real criminals is an absolutely gutless act.
If mainstream media weren't so pathetic, they would do the research the staff at Alecomm have and discover, that the Australian Government and Family Law Courts routinely give paedophiles and convicted sex offenders access to their child-victims. ,,,,,. And let’s not forget Abbey who commit suicide after her father was charged for sexually assaulting her friend – That man had been convicted and jailed for molesting her friend - but had proclaimed his innocence and had been granted regular unsupervised access to Abby, in which he was able to repeatedly rape her. 
Operation Noetic is not about a "Criminal Syndicate Abducting Children". It is about paedophilia and the family court supporting it, instead of keeping our children safe. It's about magistrates and court experts and independent independent children's representatives continually making recommendations that a child spend time with a person who has been convicted of child sex abuse, or where the court has found overwhelming evidence of it, or where the paedophile has already admitted it.
It's about placing children in hostile situations, where they have already disclosed being sexually abused, and the protective parent told that if they do not encourage the relationship between the paedophile and their child-victim, that they will be seen as an uncooperating parent - and lose custody of their child.
It is about the public ignorantly believing, that after all these royal commissions, that the government actually cares about children and would never put them in harms way. It is about children being disbelieved and called liars or kids with great imaginations, because the magistrate has an overwhelming desire to place the child in harms way with a good chance they will be repeatedly sexually assaulted by those in power purporting to care and protect them.
The reason we are still having royal commissions and apologies these days, is because we ignored the children those adults once were. We called them liars and punished them for making up stories about such wonderful people (priests, scout-leaders, nuns etc).
The Australian Federal Police arrests of Patrick O'Dea and Dr William Russell Pridgeon and the protective mothers’ is an absolute abomination.
Patrick and Russell have risked everything including their freedom to help prevent children from being sexual assaulted. They're not a criminal syndicate, they're wonderful human beings acting with much humanity that our governments have never ever shown it's victims. NOBODY I mean NOBODY would risk a 25 year prison term just to get back at asomeone else's ex.
Written by Sahar Adatia and Jimmy Singh - Criminal Defence Lawyers Australia
Last week, the Australian Federal Police cracked an underground parental abduction ring following a two-year investigation into the group that allegedly helped jilted mothers to abduct and hide their own children across Australia. Three men and a woman were arrested and charged for their alleged role in the kidnapping syndicate, which organised and financed the children’s snatching with plans to even use a yacht to smuggle them to New Zealand. The network managed to evade detection for a decade.
Among those charged include William Russell Massingham Pridgeon, a 64-year-old doctor from Grafton in NSW who is reported to have founded the Australian Anti-Paedophile Party. The party ran senate candidates in the 2016 federal election.
Family Court “Infinitely Worse”: “Small Army of Kids…Helpless to Escape”
“[E]ven while [Prime Minister Morrison apologizes], there is a small army of children who…are living with someone of whom they are terrified...[T]here are systemic failures [in Family Court] that break the chain of protection around each child, leaving them not only vulnerable to sexual abuse but also helpless to escape it.” - Amanda Gearing, journalist and broadcaster
On Monday, October 22, 2018, six years after parliament decided to hold a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Australia’s new prime minister, Scott Morrison, is going to make an apology to the many victims.
However, even while he is speaking, there is a small army of children who even today are living with someone of whom they are terrified.
Ten years ago, a child of seven left a phone message on my answering machine, delivering a plea so heart-breakingly desperate that it still resonates in my ears.
The M list referred to by the family Court is not about truth or justice. It is not about protecting abused children. It is a game, designed to create money for the people working there.
The court is the meeting place that hand delivers children to abusers and pedophiles.
The court is like an ocean, the independent children's lawyers, barristers, judges are sharks 🦈 They look for the small fishes, the ones who are bleeding and devour them.
If a child is under the age of twelve, it doesn't matter how much faith you have or how hard you fight to protect them you can't. Our law does not allow protective parents to protect their children. This is a game you can't win.
If I didn’t witness what happens behind these corrupt walls, I wouldn't of believed it.
Wolves do hide in sheep's clothing. And their lair is the courtroom.
COURTS are giving alleged sex abuser fathers custody of their children in Tasmania, a child protection expert says.
Mothers alleging such abuse are being declared mentally ill or delusional and to be the "dangerous parent", according to Professor Freda Briggs, a former Scotland Yard child protection officer who visited the Coast in September.
"Having recently spent time in Tasmania, I am concerned that no-one appears to be protecting very young children from father-child incest when there is a case pending in the Family Court or a Family Court order is in place," Prof Briggs said in a letter to Premier Lara Giddings in December.
There is a very frightening reality these days for moms considering divorce. It’s a reality that numerous women assembled at the Monmouth County Superior Courthouse in New Jersey today are determined to raise awareness about, in hopes, of inciting change while calling the competency of judges such as Judge Paul Escandon in question.
Like Judge Paul Escandon, a number of judges are on the hot seat for being allegedly biased against mothers and ruling in the favor of fathers in divorce and custody proceedings. And whereas, in some cases, such rulings are warranted, in others, they are not.
The peaceful protest rallying together in Monmouth County Monday was doing so to protect “Abused Children Of Divorce and Separation.” These moms are seeking to have courts dig deeper into cases and become more educated in determining divorce and custody rulings that meet the optimum needs of the children involved. The claim is that the manner in which Family Court handles these cases is not only archaic but in certain “high conflict” situations, the manner is barbaric. High conflict cases comprise many meanings, folks, including granting custody to documented abusers and pedophiles.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation party went to last year's federal election with a policy of abolishing the Family Court and replacing it with a tribunal of "mainstream Australians".
The Turnbull government is expected to shortly commence the biggest review of the Family Law Act since it was introduced in 1976, amid pressure from Pauline Hanson to address the rights of fathers under the Act.
Questioned by Senator Hanson at a Senate committee hearing on Friday, Attorney-General George Brandis indicated the terms of reference for a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission would be released shortly, saying that the government wanted to hold the widest possible review of the workings of the Act.
The price for a mothers own safety and freedom in 1996 was an imposed, unnatural and unwanted separation from my eight children, including my nursing infant. The injustice committed against her is not just the physical separation from her children, but the willful desecration of the mother-child relationship and bond, a sacred spiritual and emotional entity.
Many mothers who seek safety from abuse are routinely prohibited from having even the most basic contact with their own children, not because they were unfit parents, but because they were outspent, out represented, and out-maneuvered in a court atmosphere that seems to favor those who inflict domestic violence.
These orders were made by a Newcastle Judge against an innocent man who just wants to spend time with his children and who made it quite clear that he has no faith in our court systems ... Gee, I wonder why. Loughnan gave everybody reason to be scared of injustice in our family courts after seeing this :
You see, for the lovely little chump to do this, he can then prevent the father from bringing any more matters into the court without a Legal Appointed Guardian, who is at no obligation to do what he asks. This man MAY pay for his own lawyer but Loughnan has prevented him using anything but government paid crooks which will not help him.
But wait ... and to add insult to injury, there's more :
CHILD protection campaigners say women who accuse their former partners of sexually abusing their children are being unfairly labelled as mentally ill in the Family Court.
Child sex abuse researcher Freda Briggs and child protection advocate Charles Pragnell say recent cases show the emphasis on shared parenting responsibilities is putting Professor Briggs and Mr Pragnell are part of the Safer Family Law campaign and argue that amendments to the Family Law Act in 2006 were geared towards the rights of parents rather than those of children.
We are sick and tired of the family courts making statements without evidence, or proof. Sadly most people by now have forgotten about Hayley Gascgoine, the young mother who died five minutes before the judge gave the verdict. Many professionals said her death was not caused by stress, it was other factors, or something else, - or even down to using drugs because she went to the toilet, previous to her collapse.
The toxicology report proved that she was clear. Our professionals cannot be trusted, not in any aspect, not one word. No one who has not witnessed, or been a part of the family court process has a clue about just how abusive these environments are.
Study: About 32,000 pregnancies result from rape each year
The Rape Survivor Custody Act would encourage states to strip parental rights from rapists
When an Ohio judge denied a request for Cleveland kidnapping suspect Ariel Castro to visit the 6-year-old girl he fathered with one of the women he kidnapped and raped, the reason seemed pretty clear cut.