Mothers being forced to agree to shared parenting or lose their child
- Category: Court Ordered Abuse
- Created: Friday, 23 September 2016 17:44
- Written by Maurice Kriss ASM, Barrister (ret)
Mothers are being blackmailed into shared parenting in the Family Court 'Magellan List'.
My name is Maurice Kriss and I am the President of the National Child Protection Alliance of Australia. (NCPA) The National Child protection Alliance is a registered charity and nonprofit organisation dedicated to the protection of Children and Young people from abuse and neglect. It was formed by researchers, academics, child welfare/ protection professionals, advocates for children, children's lawyers and parents to promote the Rights of the Children under the UN conventions.
I was first admitted to The New South Wales Bar as a barrister in 1988. I predominantly practiced in the Criminal field of Law. Until, in 2007, when I was asked to appear for a mother who was appearing in the Family Court in Canberra. She alleged that her 3-year-old son had been anally assaulted by the child's father. The mother in this case lives on the South Coast of New South Wales. This case launched me into a new pathway in law.
From that time onwards, my life took on a new direction. I joined the NCPA where I was asked to assist a number of mothers who had their children taken from them by the Family Court after reporting that their children had been sexually abused by their husband or partner and handed to the abuser. I was asked to assist mothers in all States of Australia excluding the Northern Territory. For the following eight years I appeared in these states mostly pro-bono. It was during these Court cases that I noticed a distinct pattern of corrupt conduct of the Family Court whereby the mothers were treated with abuse and disrespect. They were called liars and accused them of coaching their children to lie. The fact that very young children at the time were bleeding from the anus or vagina did not move police or Child Protection Authorities into doing proper investigations into the complaint of child sexual abuse.
The Family Court Judges, were more concerned with discrediting the mothers and supporting the abuser. The conduct of the court in most of the cases in which I had appeared, were abominable.
Mothers are being forced into shared care in Family Court.
I was shocked to realise that conduct of the Family Court 'Magellan List' was an orchestrated corrupt system that was designed to discredit mothers and remove their children from them. What was puzzling to me was what was their motivation for acting in such an inhumane manner. This question can be answered on another occasion.
The mothers that I have represented are only the tip of a very large iceberg. Over the years we are talking of thousands of mothers who have been described by the Judiciary as having had a "parentectomy" not appendectomy but a "parentectomy" the forcible removal of a mother from her child for the crime of reporting sexual abuse of her child by her husband or partner and in some cases the grandfather. It took me some time to realise that the mothers had lost their children from the moment they filled in a form 4 reporting sexual abuse. I endeavoured to report the conduct of the Family Court to friends and acquaintances, but was met with disbelief and their belief that mothers lie to stop their husband from seeing their children. I was accused of being obsessed and crazy. The Myth of lying mothers was deeply entrenched in the community.
It is reasonable for the community at large to ask why if what I am saying is correct, why have they not heard of the forcible removal of mothers from their children and the children handed to their sexual abusers? Why is not written in the newspapers or magazines or on the TV? The reason is that the Family court has a complete gag order which can punish anyone who breaches this order of silence with 12 months' jail. It is s121 of the Family Law Act.
The Chief justice of the Family Court, Dianne Bryant. Maintains that these draconian orders are to protect children. Nothing could be further from the truth. S121 is for the protection of Judges, employed selected psychologists, and the so called Independent Child Lawyers in their immoral and illegal conduct in removing mothers from their children. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to raise these issues of this corrupt system because of a gag order in the preventing them from doing so. So their conduct cannot be revealed to the general public. No newspaper will write about it, no radio station will report it and no TV program will cover it. They are warned off. Failure to comply can result in a jail sentence. However, articles are starting to appear about the dysfunction of the Family Court and complaints by mothers as to their treatment.
The NCPA presents the case against the Family Court of Australia to you on behalf of literally thousands of mothers and children around Australia who have suffered no less than war crimes against humanity. You will read a number of claims against the Family Court which include: Breaches of the United Nations Rights of the Child, Denial of Natural Justice and Human Rights. The misuse of equal parenting provisions in the Family Law Act to punish mothers and allow sexual abuse of their children. The appointment of the Independent Child's Lawyer (ICL) by the Court to be used as a tool in supporting the destruction of the mother and in the conduct of the proceedings, support the father of the child or children. Most of them have never seen the children or the mother, but support the removal of the child from the primary carer.
For those who have had the misfortune of appearing in 'The Magellan List' of the Family Court The ICL's obvious bias against mothers during the court's proceedings is patently obvious. In some cases, I would consider their conduct immoral. They cross the floor and openly support the father. The incestuous relationship between the ICL's and the Judges in removing of, or, restricting the parenting of children by their mothers, is often quite obvious.
The Court's selective appointments of psychiatrists or psychologist that are hired for the specific purpose of making false or negative reports against the mothers.
Mothers are being forced into shared care.
The Fraudulent reports by psychologists or psychiatrist claiming the mothers are suffering from serious mental illnesses, for the purpose of removing the children from their mother and handing them to their abuser. The bias of psychologists that use a template of mental disorders for the purpose of recommending to the court the removal of children from their mothers. The exorbitant fees charged by the selected psychologist as much as $27000 or more for 3 one hourly interviews. It is not unusual for a mother to have to find $150,000 to try and protect their children from sexual abusers, only to find at the end of the day that the result was pre-determined from when the mother walked into the Court and filed a form 4 complaining of sexual abuse. It is quite amazing that the Psychologists and the Family Court maintain the mothers are delusional, in addition to every known mental illness known to man, and yet these mothers have provided every last cent in legal fees to protect their children from abuse. Neither would a mother lie, and go to such lengths to maintain that lie.
The NCPA charges the Family Court, with consistent breaches of the 'Denial of Natural Justice', 'Breach of human rights', and knowingly and 'consistently committing mental torture, to mothers and children. This is a most serious statement, It, is not made lightly. This claim is not uniquely an Australian problem but a world-wide problem, at least in the UK and the USA, Denmark and Ireland, where children are removed from their mothers for doing what they are mandated to do, care and protect their child,
It is the intention of the NCPA to provide sufficient evidence to support a Senate Inquiry of the corrupt and inhumane practices of the Family Court that have brutally removed children from their mothers and sent their children to live with those whom have sexually assaulted, raped or abused them. Unfortunately, it may be a little time before we can convince enough politicians to 'bite the bullet' and do what they are mandated to do, serve the people. Unfortunately, many mothers are too scared to put pen to paper lest they reap the wrath of the Family Court.
We ask how in the name of humanity in the 21st century can a civil court remove a child from its primary carer and hand that child to its abuser. Some have been convicted of major crimes, sexual abuse and even Paedophilia. Yet the Family Court would prefer the child or children to be in the hands of a rapist than a caring mother.
One Australian mother who now lives overseas was raped by her husband and awarded criminal compensation of $10,000 - even she lost her child to the abuser in the Family Court. The Court found this fact not relevant. We ask what in heaven's name could possibly have justified such an inhumane act? I wish to raise the issue of consistent torture conducted by the Family Court.
Most people have an idea of the meaning of "natural Justice and the denial of human rights, but torture is another matter. Many people consider torture to be a physical action usually to force out a confession that is not the case. Torture is described as; Dec 9, 2005 - The full UN definition of torture in the convention is: "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of committing.
Mothers are being forced into shared care.
It is the NCPA's charge that the family Court when removing children from their primary care and handing them to those who have abused or sexually abused them is "torture". The Court can and does refuse the mother to see her children until the child is 18 years of age. The Court also makes shared parenting orders which can also be described as torture. The mental distress on both children and mothers can be rightfully described as torture, as a result many children and their mothers, suffer serious illness as a result. Members of the NCPA have witnessed the suffering of both mothers and children over the years.
You may or may not be aware that the Family Court has no mandate to investigate criminal matters, and totally relies on the respective states Police and Child Protection professionals to investigate claims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Experience has taught us that if the child is not old enough to be cross examined, very little if anything is done. On the few occasions when a report substantiates the child has been abused, the Family Court has been known to dismiss the report. Once it is known that The Family Court is involved in an investigation, Police and protection officers lose interest and more often than not report "unsubstantiated" - a code word for the mother is a liar and the child has been taught to lie.
Young children have no concept of adult sexual activity, and no matter how you try to put such concepts into a child's mind, it would not work. Even older children cannot maintain a sexual lie under investigation. You may ask if there is no proof that the mother is lying, on what basis can a Court order the child to live with the abusive father? If the mother can be shown to suffer from a mental illness, the best interest of the child can be best served by removing the child from the mother, 'a parentectomy' to do this requires the assistance of a Psychologist or Psychiatrist [like Dr Rikard Bell, who openly boasted that he has done at least 2000 reports for the Family Court and has found 90 percent of mothers were liars]. The result is that the mother may have to accept shared parenting or total removal of the child (on the basis of these reports), in the best interest of the child.
Many mothers, are forced to sign consent orders agreeing to shared parenting with the abuser or lose the child for many years. What evidence do I have to such corrupt conduct? In one case I was asked to join the ICL in a room within the court. She said to me:
"your client is a most disgusting mother"
I asked "her have you met my client" she said "no"
I asked have you met the child? She said "no"
She then said to me "the judge will give your client three chances to agree with his orders. He will raise his hand and show three fingers - after each time - he will ask you the same question three times, if your client does not agree she will lose her child, do you understand me?". The father after an initial period of supervised contact was given shared parenting. The man was accused of anal penetration of his 3-year-old child, had one computer with 7,800 pornographic images on his computer and 82,000 on another computer. The selected images submitted of the children were aged by ANU as between 12-13 years old. His Honour dismissed the pornographic material and other evidence, Raised his three fingers as the ICL stated, and made the above orders.
A painful choice, have your child abused for only half the time or all the time. It has been reported that some mothers are forced to admit that they were delusional when they reported the sexual assault. Having now admitted that they were delusional, the mother is given a gag order preventing them reporting further sexual abuse to the police or any other authority. Ordered that the mother cannot take the child to a doctor, hospital, or Psychologist without the father's approval.
Unfortunately, the conduct of the Family Court cannot be completely covered in this article. The question is what can we do about making change? Woman make up approximately 50% of the population that is approximately 11.5 Million. For more than a hundred and thirty years' women fought for the rights for equality. We need women to support the NCPA to make change. We need a lot of women to support us. Without women fighting for change, the same abominable conduct will continue for years to come.
The support should not only be from mothers who have been abused but from across the general community. I believe a lot of honest men would join you if we can get the message out.
Maurice Kriss ASM
(hon)President of the NCPA
Source : http://familylaw.singlemum.com.au/mothers-in-magellan-family-court-24092016-maurice-kriss.html#