Dads in Distress Inc

Phone: 1300 853 437
Email: didsadmin@bigpond.com
Internet: www.dadsindistress.asn.au
Postal Address: PO Box 2333, Coffs Harbour NSW 2450, Australia

29 October 2008
Herald Sun (Melbourne)

Break-up kids hurt by family court
By Susie O'Brien

The Family Court is forcing children of separated parents to have contact with violent fathers against their will, a new study of court judgments shows.

Some of the parents have threatened to kill or burn former partners, while others stalk, abuse and harass their former partners.

But research published in the latest Journal of Family Studies says such behaviour is excused or ignored by judges who are determined to ensure separated fathers continue to have a presence in their children's lives.

The study of 20 cases of contested contact of children involving domestic violence showed judges ignored the wishes of vulnerable children, and blamed mothers for failing to support access by violent fathers.

In nearly half of such cases the child was a direct witness to the violence, although in no cases was the child physically harmed.

Researchers Amanda Shea Hart and Dale Bagshaw concluded there was "little visible consideration of the potential or current effects of domestic violence on the children".

They said notions of the "idealised post-separation family" took precedence over the special needs of the children in the cases they analysed from a five-year period.

The 33 children involved in the 20 cases were aged between two and 16 at the time of the final hearings.

Many had a wide range of social and behavioural problems themselves, including violence, anti-social behaviour and emotional fragility. Some expressed a "wish to die".

Of the 20 cases, no final orders included supervised contact between parents and children.

The research also found:

- In all 20 cases, judges expressed concerns about the effect of the absence of the fathers on their children's lives, despite the presence of domestic violence.

- In seven cases judges expressed sympathy for the father, and the hurt caused by mothers who were seen as acting unfairly towards their former partners.

- In 13 cases violent husbands were described as "loving fathers".

Since 1995 an emphasis on shared parenting - which aims to give children a right to know both their mother and father - has been followed by the Family Court.

But Dr Shea Hart and Dr Bagshaw believe this has made life difficult for children and mothers in cases where the break-up was caused by domestic violence perpetrated by fathers.

"There can be concerning outcomes for children who are required to spend time with their violent fathers," they said.

"The safety and psychological needs of these children must be recognised and understood for their best interests to be served."

The researchers argued proof of domestic violence must also be seen as evidence of compromised parenting practices.

They argued it must be taken into account and given considerable weight when making an order for a child to spend time with a violent parent.

23 October 2008
The Sydney Morning Herald

Daughter discovered murder-play synopsis in diary of father's killer
By Harriet Alexander

Just days after Amber Rubenstein stood before mourners at her father's funeral and declared she would not be moved to hate the woman who had killed him, a disturbing discovery compelled her to reconsider her words.

While packing up her father's Rose Bay apartment, she came across a box of his wife and killer's writings, including diaries, poetry, creative writing and the synopsis of a play in which one character secretly wishes to kill her husband in a "murderous rage".

There were also study notes on life in prison, including prisoner attire, visiting hours and access to libraries and the gym.

One diary entry read: "Houses I would destroy like Drew Barrymore in fire starter. I would punish all those who had never lost anything . I would let the anger from my chest reach out and explode in spectacular violence, but I wouldn't kill them, the innocent."

Mrs Rubenstein had known her stepmother, Danielle Stewart, was susceptible to violent outbursts - including the one in which she killed Chaim Kimel with an antique knife - but had previously viewed them as anomalies. Suddenly those rages took on a more sinister hue.

"I couldn't believe my eyes. I was horrified and tormented by these revelations," Mrs Rubenstein said in a victim impact statement read to the Supreme Court yesterday.

"I realise that even when she wasn't highly aroused her thoughts were morbid. I had previously had so much compassion for Danielle . I felt cheated."

Earlier this year a jury found Stewart guilty of manslaughter for the fatal attack on Mr Kimel in August 2006, and not guilty of murder. But the jurors were not told about the play she had written or the details of her diary entries, which were deemed inadmissable because it could not be proved she was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol while she was writing them.

Yesterday, as the wind howled outside Darlinghurst Court, Mr Kimel's three children told Justice Jane Matthews they were frustrated by the trial, during which Stewart's defence team told the jury to take their evidence about the night of his death "with a grain of salt".

Mr Kimel's youngest son, who cannot be named, said: "My mother said my father's murder changed me - made me cold and forced me to grow up too fast."

Most of all, they despised the characterisation of their father during the trial as violent.

"He abhorred violence. He always taught me that words can be used to settle any argument," Mrs Rubenstein said.

Towards the end of the hearing, the wind died down and the sky lightened, Stewart began to cry and Mr Kimel's youngest son rested his head on his sister's shoulder.

23 October 2008
The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)

Convicted housewife Danielle Stewart writing play
By Byron Kaye

Killer housewife Danielle Stewart was writing a play about a woman who plots her husband's violent murder, a court heard yesterday.

The draft of the play was found by the children of the man Stewart fatally stabbed with an antique knife during a drunken fight.

They uncovered her dark writings while clearing out their father Chaim Kimel's Eastern Suburbs apartment soon after his bloody death.

Sydney husband killer guilty

Stewart had even made notes on the prison system including its architecture, inmate clothing, staffing levels and visiting hours.

"I couldn't believe my eyes," Mr Kimel's tearful daughter Amber Rubenstein yesterday told the Supreme Court in Sydney.

"I was horrified and tormented by these revelations. After reading her writings I felt cheated - I didn't know she had thoughts like this."

Stewart, 32, was convicted of Mr Kimel's manslaughter in August, two years after the incident.

Ms Rubenstein and her brother Fred Kimel revealed their grisly discovery in sentencing submissions to the court yesterday.

They told how they faced the painful task of cleaning out the home their father shared with his killer, only to find her dark writings.

"There is a synopsis of a play in which one of the characters has secret desires to kill her husband in a violent rage," Ms Rubenstein said.

"There are study notes on jail architecture, prisoner psychology, different cell classifications, prisoner attire, prison visiting hours and life sentences."

Fred Kimel said Stewart's notes included: "Prison security levels, the staff to inmate ratios (and) the access to libraries and gym". "How am I able to understand how someone could have perpetrated such a crime having already considered the potential ramifications?" he said.

Ms Rubenstein said the unfinished script was not allowed as evidence in Stewart's trial because "it was not known whether she was inebriated or under the influence of drugs whilst writing them".

Ms Rubenstein also quoted a poem by Stewart in which one verse began: "Houses I would destroy like Drew Barrymore in Firestarter.

"I would punish all of those who had never lost anything, those who had never had anything taken away from them. I would let the anger from my chest reach out and explode in spectacular violence."

The siblings said Stewart showed no remorse. Ms Rubenstein said: "She attacked my father's character rather than admitting culpability."

Fred Kimel said: "I worry that if she is not able to take full responsibility for her actions ... she will always present a threat."

Stewart will be sentenced at a date to be fixed.

21 October 2008
The Australian

Timing blowout for Family Court
By Nicola Berkovic

The Family Court missed all of its performance targets last year, causing delays and added stress for families involved in litigation in the court.

The court finalised just 31 per cent of applications for final orders within six months, according to its annual report released yesterday.

The figure was well below its aim of having 75 per cent of applications resolved within that time frame - although the report said this measure was not accurate because of changes in case management.

However, other key performance indicators were also missed.

The court finalised just 64 per cent of applications for interim orders within three months, significantly less than its aim of 90 per cent.

The timing blowout was consistent with the previous three years, but it came as the court's caseload plummeted. The number of applications for interim orders dropped 38 per cent from about 7930 to 4950.

However, individual judges faced increasing workloads as the number of senior and judicial registrars declined and judges were forced to take on their responsibilities.

"This aspect of the court's performance has been significantly affected by the changes in workload and resources," the report said.

21 October 2008
The Irish Times

Creating a new family dynamic
By Sheila Wayman

Sharing custody is often the best way of ensuring your child feels loved and secure.

When A relationship between two parents breaks down, there is still a general presumption that the children will stay with the mother and that the father will have visiting rights.

This outdated view is one that the National Federation of Services for Unmarried Parents and their Children, Treoir, is working to challenge. The much more positive and modern concept of "shared parenting" is the focus of its Family Links: Steps and Stages booklet which was launched in Dublin yesterday.

"Instead of the old formula where one parent has one custody and the other visiting rights, the idea centres on the concept of the original home dividing and multiplying like a living cell into two new families," it says.

"Each parent feels that s/he is heading a family and the child feels loved and a happy member of each."

No longer is there a "broken home", but rather two homes for the children, who then have time with each parent and the security of a stable arrangement between them.

"It is an idea we have to sell," says Treoir assistant chief executive Margot Doherty, author of the 95-page booklet, which was funded by the Family Support Agency.

"It is the more mature - for want of a better word - couples who can make it work."

It can be highly problematic, both on a practical and emotional level. Parents really have to be living close to each other, with children able to go to school from both homes, if it is going to be a week on, week off arrangement.

But shared parenting does not have to be 50/50 in terms of time or place; it is more about an attitude of mind.

Even if one parent is having the children only for a night or two at weekends, it is important to see it in terms of them "living" there at the weekends, not "visiting".

However, people coming out of a broken relationship are often so hurt and angry that they cannot even contemplate shared parenting.

Putting the child first is essential for devising any arrangement where the parents no longer, or never did, live together. "Everything flows from that," says Doherty.

The idea of two homes might seem disruptive and confusing for children, but experience shows that they cope well. They easily adapt to different rules in two different family settings.

"The main thing for them is knowing that both parents love them to bits," says Doherty.

The "real killer'' is when one parent puts the child in the position of being a spy in the other camp. What was your mother/father doing? Who was her/his friend in the house? What is he or she spending their money on?

A common flashpoint is when a new partner arrives on the scene, and Family Links advises on how to make step-families work. It requires a lot of maturity, on all sides.

For the other parent, and the children, it is a reminder that the original relationship really is over and that everybody has to move on.

Frances Byrne, chief executive officer of Open, a network of lone parent groups, has seen a "palpable shift" towards shared parenting, at a time when children's rights have come up the agenda. However, "with the best will in the world, it is very difficult and fraught", she says. For a start, it is often hard for both separating parents to get suitable accommodation.

For parents on social welfare, the fact that only one of them can claim the one-parent family payment, even if their time with the children is divided 50/50, does not support the notion of shared parenting.

However, where both parents are working, each can claim a one-parent family tax credit, provided the children stay overnight with them during the year.

Another organisation that works with one-parent families, One Family, anecdotally sees shared parenting as an increasing phenomenon, says its director Karen Kiernan. But there is no way of measuring it.

While shared parenting might be the ideal, she says it is what works for the children that matters and that you cannot be prescriptive about it for different families. In Sweden, she points out, there are cases where the children stay in the one house and the parents take turns to live with them.

One Family would always advocate mediation and negotiated settlements rather than letting a judge decide on the future parenting of children. It runs a parent mentoring service for individuals and a helpline, as well as providing group parenting training.

"We would like to see greater investment in helping parents to separate well," says Kiernan, "to support families going from a two-parent family to two one-parent families."

No legal rights for unmarried fathers

Many unmarried fathers do not realise that having their name on their child's birth certificate means nothing in this country when it comes to parental rights.

"In the UK, if a man puts his name on a birth certificate, it gives him parental responsibilities.

"In Ireland, putting your name on the birth certificate does not give you any legal rights relating to the child. It is a presumption of paternity, but nothing more," says Margot Doherty, assistant chief executive of Treoir.

She urges all unmarried fathers, whether in a stable, co-habiting relationship or not, to apply for guardianship rights.

If the mother is in agreement, it's a simple process of signing a form in front of a peace commissioner.

Where there is disagreement, the father can apply to the local District Court for joint guardianship rights for his child.

"It is making a commitment to be around until the child is 18," Doherty points out. It can be "messy" if the father then decides to head off to Australia when, at the very least, his signature is needed as joint guardian.

Positive pointers for shared parenting

- Parenting is a job for life, and for children there is no such thing as an ex-parent.

- Forget that you were a couple; your only relationship now is as a united parenting team.

- Don't let any unresolved hurts get in the way of your children's relationship with their other parent.

- Children need to know that it is all right for them to love both parents and to like or love step-parents.

- It is not adding people to children's lives, but taking important people away, that is difficult for children to accept.

- Try to come to terms with the fact that your children may have a relationship with their other parent over which you have no control.

- Even though your relationship with the other parent did not survive, this does not mean that either parent is a failure as a person.

From Family Links: Steps and Stages published by Treoir

19 October 2008
The Age (Melbourne)

De facto splits on a par with divorce
By Josh Gordon

People separating from de facto relationships - including same-sex partners - will be treated the same way by the court system as legally married couples getting divorced, under new laws to be finalised in Parliament this week.

The historic legislation means that de facto couples will have access to the federal family law courts to solve property disputes and maintenance issues.

Only divorcing couples now have access to family courts for property, maintenance and custody disputes. People in de facto relationships have to juggle disputes across different jurisdictions, with custody issues settled in the federal family courts and property and other issues settled by state and territory courts.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the reforms, which will pass through the House of Representatives this week, were long overdue.

"They will end current arrangements which place a huge administrative and financial burden on separating de facto couples," Mr McClelland said.

"Consistent with the Government's policy, the legislation will not discriminate between opposite-sex and same-sex de facto couples. Nothing in the legislation will alter marriage laws."

In 2006 there were 1,193,400 people in de facto relationships aged 15 years and over.

19 October 2008
The Sydney Morning Herald

Hell hath no fury like the 'ex' files
By Liz Porter

It was the wedding present from hell.

In the middle of his Pacific island honeymoon, a Melbourne finance executive discovered that a woman claiming to be his ex had branded him in cyberspace as a dud lover and serial cheat. Along with his name and picture, the anonymous "ex" posted his mobile phone number, address and car registration on the "love rat" site dontdatehimgirl.com.

The entry also named and mocked the man's new wife, a lawyer, for being "suckered" by him - and included her firm's name and work email.

The executive is one of more than 200 Australian men whose profiles have been posted on dontdatehimgirl.com or datingpsychos.com - US sites now being used by Australian women to post anonymous rants against men who have supposedly done them wrong, and to warn other prospective partners. Other women - also anonymous - then add "comments" which may include their own experiences of the same man. Men named - and often also pictured - in the profiles may deny the accusations.

While the sites might be of interest to women considering dating these men, the men named and shamed can find themselves powerless to take legal action to change or delete false and defamatory information. According to a Melbourne criminal barrister, Phil Dunn, QC, the main problem is that many men can't prove the identity of the person who has posted their name on the sites, and therefore have no one to sue for disseminating defamatory material. US laws protect the American sites from legal action.

The one simple legal avenue open to victims of malicious internet entries is an application for an intervention order under the Crimes (Family Violence) Act, which now covers harassment via internet posting. But to seek an order, a person needs to be able to prove the identity of the person harassing him.

"There is a gap in the law," says Mr Dunn, who worked on the Melbourne finance executive's case, as did criminal solicitor Brian Rolfe. The lawyers were unable to get the entry removed because the man was unable to identify the person who posted it. Investigators hired by the businessman found the initial posting was made at a St Kilda internet cafe used by hundreds of people a week.

Mr Dunn has since been contacted by two other Melbourne businessmen who have found their names, photos and unflattering descriptions of their sexual habits on the site. But he could only advise them to write to the people they believed responsible - and ask them to remove the listing. In both cases the women accused of posting the profiles denied it.

"As a lawyer, I'm pained to say it, but highly defamatory material can be posted on an internet site and an innocent person has no recourse," Mr Dunn said.

Barrister Robert Larkins says sites such as dontdatehimgirl. com were set up as a way to warn women about dangerous or predatory men. "It can be argued that the sites are a response to the growth in popularity of internet dating and they can have a protective role for women," Mr Larkins said. "But they may also be used in a predatory way by women who are using the protection of anonymity to attack men who may have done nothing more than fail to notice them."

According to Tasha Cunningham, the founder of dontdatehimgirl.com, sites such as hers are protected by the US federal Communications Decency Act - in the same way as other social networking sites. "While a poster can be sued for whatever they write on the site, we, as site owners, cannot be sued."

But Melbourne defamation lawyer Brian Walters, SC, said a US carrier could be sued for defamation in an Australian court. "Where damages are not likely to be an adequate remedy because the corporation does not have any assets in Australia, it might be one of the rare cases where a court might grant an injunction preventing the dissemination of the material. "But defamation is traditionally a rich man's game."

Caught in the web

- Barrister Robert Larkins was retained by a woman accused by a Melbourne man of vilifying him on dontdatehimgirl.com and datingpsychos.com as a lousy lover with poor hygiene and halitosis. The man's name, address and photo had been included. The man sought an intervention order. The case settled in the court foyer when the woman, while not admitting to having posted the man's profile, undertook to "make her best efforts to have it removed".

- A Melbourne finance executive's search for his harrasser cost him extra money in lawyers' fees when a woman he accused of posting the item applied for an intervention order against him. But the woman failed to turn up to court and the magistrate struck out the case.

- Alison Sumners, author Peter Carey's ex-wife, posted a profile depicting the novelist as a heartless manipulator who tried to turn their sons against her. The site's founder "J-dog", removed the listing after a request from Carey.

18 October 2008
The Australian

Most divorced dads want more time with children
By Patricia Karvelas, Political correspondent

Three-quarters of divorced fathers want to have custody of their children for at least 50 per cent of the time, while as many as 36 per cent wish they could have their children all of the time.

Based on a survey of 300 child-support payers, mostly fathers, and 300 payees, mostly mothers, the research shows that some women also want less time with their children and are willing to share the load.

According to the survey, conducted by the Child Support Agency, 61 per cent of parents (mostly women) receiving money from their former partners said they would ideally like to have their children all of the time.

But significantly, 36 per cent were happy to share their children 50 per cent of the time or more.

This is inconsistent with reality. At the moment, the overall main carer ratio is about 87 per cent women and 13 per cent men. The figures reveal that a lot would be willing to have shared arrangements, but do not currently have them.

Human Services Minister Joe Ludwig said it demonstrated that fathers wanted more to do with their children.

"The striking changes in the roles of men and women in Australian society are being reflected in parenting after separation," Senator Ludwig said. "Most separated dads are working hard to support their kids and the survey shows a large percentage want more to do in their children's lives."

The survey commissioned by the Child Support Agency charts that there were strong, positive changes in how parents viewed their relationship with their former partner, over a six-month period that included the introduction in July of a new system for calculating child support payments.

Under the new system, the greater the proportion of time the paying parent has custody of their child, the less their repayments are.

In August, 43 per cent of parents said they were very likely to deal with the other parent in a businesslike way - up from 26 per cent in February.

"That represents 250,000 mums and dads who now say they've improved the way they deal with each other," Senator Ludwig said.

The survey also shows a dramatic drop in the number of parents saying they were very unlikely to deal in a businesslike way with their former partner. That figure has fallen from 45 per cent to 26 per cent over the same period.

"The new child support system is designed to cement these social trends towards greater shared parental responsibility," the senator said.

"Some fathers are responding to the new child support system, which encourages a greater proportion of shared care."

As the new scheme is bedded down, Senator Ludwig expected these positive social trends to improve further.

11 October 2008
The Sydney Morning Herald

Worthy and unworthy winners

Revised child support rules have produced some odd results.

In the great shake-up of Australia's child support scheme, everyone knew there would be winners and losers. But in the three months since the dust has settled, Susan Smith*, a divorced mother of three, is still marvelling at how she came to lose $400 a month in child support. Her former husband had the chutzpah to produce an 11-year-old Family Court order that said he had access to his children every fortnight from Friday night to Sunday. It had been an ideal arrangement while it had lasted, but it had lasted only a year.

Mr Smith had moved down the coast, repartnered, and taken up a Saturday sport. And although the children were happy to visit, and she supported their contact and was keen for a break, he had taken them only a dozen times over the past two years. The visits are marked on her calendar.

Under the new child support rules, however, Mr Smith's court order puts him in the category of a "regular" provider of overnight care to his children, defined as at least one night a week.

And as part of the sweeping reforms, his assumed contribution and costs incurred have been acknowledged for the first time with a sizeable reduction in his child support obligations. It did not seem to matter to the Child Support Agency that he did not comply with the court orders.

"Before the child support rules changed on July 1, I got $1200 a month, and after I got $770," said Ms Smith. "I'd be even happy to lose the money if he took them when he's supposed to."

Since July, Mr Smith has made more of an effort to see the children but the overnight stays have been half what is stipulated in the old court order, and would not qualify him to pay reduced child support.

Ms Smith is studying full-time to be a nurse, and relies on the parenting payment (single). She has a wry sense of humour, and does not appear as bitter and angry as many caught in the maelstrom of child support wrangles. But she says, "It doesn't seem fair that money for the main care-giver has gone down when nothing much else has changed. We've had to tighten our belt."

The first major changes to Australia's path-breaking child support scheme since its inception in 1988 are starting to reverberate through the vast community of separated and divorced parents. Overall 50 per cent of parents who receive child support (payees) have lost income, 37 per cent have gained, and 51 per cent of payers are paying less, according to a study by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.

11 October 2008
The Sydney Morning Herald

Parents back new child support
By Adele Horin

MOST parents who pay or receive child support believe the new scheme implemented in full on July 1 is fairer than its predecessor, research for the Child Support Agency shows.

Based on a sample of 300 payers and 300 payees, the research shows that by August 63 per cent of parents who received support, and 76 per cent of payers, agreed the system used a more balanced formula to work out payments. The proportions in agreement had increased since May last year when the first survey was undertaken.

More than 1.4 million parents are in the child support scheme.

The Minister for Human Services, Joe Ludwig, presented the findings to a private meeting of the Child Support National Stakeholder Engagement Group on Thursday.

He told the meeting he understood the introduction of the new system had been a trying time for parents. But the research showed confidence in the system had been boosted by the new rules.

"We have a fairer child support scheme in place which should be allowed to be bedded down before we consider further significant changes," he said.

Groups representing child support payers and payees are both lobbying the Government to make further changes, especially for the high proportion of low-income parents who are worse off under the new system.

Research released in August by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs showed almost 50 per cent of child support recipients had lost some income under the new scheme.

The Howard government initiated the changes, the most significant in 20 years. It recommended a new formula that took into account for the first time the incomes of both partners on an equal basis, the costs of children, and the costs incurred by non-resident parents who have children for at least one night a week.

The telephone survey of parents' perceptions had a sample error of 5.5 per cent.

It shows that earlier this year paying parents were concerned with only 58 per cent expecting the new initiatives to make the system fairer. But after its introduction support rose 17 per cent.

Both payers and payees believe the agency is putting greater effort into delivering more money for children of separated parents, with 64 per cent of payees (up from 52 per cent last year) in agreement, and 70 per cent of payers.

However, Mr Ludwig told the meeting the hard numbers from the agency showed only 50 per cent of paying parents paid their child support in full and on time. A large number did not lodge tax returns within a reasonable time, and an estimated 30,000 may be deliberately avoiding child support through the use of income minimisation schemes. In the last 12 months an extra $73 million had been collected as a result of stepped up compliance by the agency. This would help offset the $70 million in reduced income to separated families that had resulted under the new rules.

Researchers at the Australian National University have begun a more detailed analysis of the impact of the new scheme over time involving 5000 parents.

06 October - 01 December 2008
Dads in Distress

Child Support Agency information nights

Dads in Distress, in association with the Child Support Agency, are conducting a series of information nights throughout South Eastern Queensland and North West NSW.

Non custodial parents are encouraged to attend to learn more about the legislative changes that took effect in July 2008.

More importantly, for Dads in Distress to be an effective advocate on fathers CSA issues we need your feedback. Only with that information can we take the issues to Canberra for the benefit of all noncustodial parents. If for some reason you cannot make it to a meeting then send your details by email to kga59956@bigpond.net.au or ring "Mac" on 1300 853 437.

Special Project Venues and dates

Ipswich, Queensland
Monday 6th October 2008, 7.00pm
University of Queensland, Salisbury Rd., Ipswich, Bldg 22 Community Meeting Room

Warwick, Queensland
Monday 13th October 2008, 7.00pm
Jackie Howe Motel, Cnr Palmerin and Victoria Streets, Warwick.

Tenterfield, New South Wales
Monday 10th November, 2008, 7.00pm
New RSL Pavilion, 94 Molesworth Street, Tenterfield

Glenn Innes NSW
Tuesday 18th November 2008, 7.00pm
Glen Innes Public Library, 71 Grey Street, Glen Innes

Inverell NSW
Monday 24th November 2008, 7.00pm
Inverell Public Library, 55-59 Campbell Street, Inverell

Armidale NSW
Monday 1st December 2008, 7.00pm
Kent House, 141 Faulkner Street, Armidale

03 October 2008
The Australian

One-stop shop for family law
By Michael Pelly

The federal judiciary has lost one of its top administrators in a clear sign the Rudd Government is preparing to create a one-stop shop for family law.

Federal Magistrates Court chief executive John Mathieson has joined the NSW Attorney General's Department only weeks after the report on the federal courts system by private consultant Des Semple was delivered to Attorney-General Robert McClelland.

Mr Mathieson had considerable input into the report, which is tipped to recommend that the court be dismantled only nine years after it opened its doors.

The family law division would become part of the Family Court and the general division - which includes immigration law - would be diverted to another forum, such as the Federal Court.

One court insider said Mr Mathieson had "seen the writing on the wall".

Mr Semple also considered a Courts Administration Authority for the Commonwealth, but likely streamlining reduced the chances of such a move.

Mr Mathieson could not be contacted for comment, but NSW Attorney General's Department director-general Laurie Glanfield was clearly delighted with his latest recruit.

Mr Mathieson would assume the role of court performance and support director and would co-ordinate the financial and staff services across all courts and tribunals supported by the department, he said.

"The position will be responsible for delivering key projects of court reform, including those flowing from quality improvement initiatives and the implementation of the JusticeLink electronic case management system running in the Supreme and District Courts for criminal matters," Mr Glanfield said.

"JusticeLink is being rolled out over the next 12 months and implementing process and service reforms to take advantage of the new technology will be part of John's responsibilities."

Mr Mathieson was also a former Federal Court district registrar for NSW and the ACT and a senior manager with the commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Family Court of Australia. Along with Chief Magistrate John Pascoe, he revamped the FMC after it suffered early growth pains.

"His considerable experience and expertise in court administration will ensure NSW maintains its position as the pre-eminent Australian jurisdiction in innovative court admin and reform," Mr Glanfield said.

He declined to comment on the Semple report or Mr Mathieson's departure.

01 October 2008
The Daily Telegraph

Kids in legal tug of war over dad's funeral
By Janet Fife-Yeomans

- Mum did not want kids to go to dad's funeral
- Insults fly as grandparents fight for them to attend
- Judge says the children's interests are paramount

Four young brothers and sisters have been placed at the centre of a Family Court row over whether they should attend their father's funeral.

While the 41-year-old teacher lay in his bed dying of an aggressive brain tumour, his estranged wife and parents were hurling insults at each other across a courtroom.

"There is no love lost here," Justice Paul Cronin said.

The children's paternal grandparents wanted them for 24 hours about the time of the funeral.

But their grandfather did little to help the situation with a stream of vitriol in court which included referring to their mother as "the so-called mother," the judge said.

Meanwhile, the mother, 36, a redundant marketing consultant, said her husband's family was aggressive, violent and repulsive and that she would "not willingly send the children".

Justice Cronin said the interests of the children, aged eight, six, five and three, were paramount.

The parents had an unhappy relationship, staying together for their childrens' sake.

The father was being cared for by his parents in their house, and there was evidence the children had developed a good relationship with their grandparents.

Justice Cronin said funerals were for the living, not the dead, and that the children would help ease their grandparents' pain.

"In my view, the children should be a part of that process because they represent the replacement of the joy and love lost in the death of their son," he said.

He ordered the mother to deliver the children to their grandmother at least 15 minutes before the funeral and said their mother must remain at a distance from them during the service and leave immediately afterwards.

Dads In Distress is funded by the Australian Federal Government.