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

20 November 2009
Tony Miller, Dads in Distress

Can you believe this???
Please tell me what is fair and equitable about this?

The Minister for the Status of Women, Tanya Plibersek, is calling for applications from organisations to form national alliances that will represent the broad range of views of women across the country.

The Australian Government will provide around $200,000 per year for each new national women's alliance over the next three years.

"We want the voices of as many women as possible to be heard, especially those who in the past have found it difficult to engage in advocacy and decision making," Ms Plibersek said.

"The national women's alliances will play a key role in ensuring that women become strong and effective advocates, able to engage with the broader community and influence government.

Establishment funding will also be available for successful new alliances to assist with the costs of setting up. The Australian Government Office for Women (OfW) is part of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA).

The Minister for the Status of Women, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP has called on men and women to start a new conversation about equality and identified three priority areas to support this vision: reducing violence against women and their children improving women's economic independence and financial security promoting women's equality and leadership in all aspects of society Why is it that we and many male support organisations have struggled over the years with either inadequate funding or funding that dilutes the actual purpose or direction or original idea and here we are the Australian Government will now make available very generous funding for women and for what? The very thing we have been asking you for years. While it is right and fitting to offer funding to women's organisations I am astounded that here we are ten years down the track and still struggling to find the golden basket that we can apply to for funding. And not only us, organisations such as the Lone Fathers Association Australia, the Shared Parenting Council of Australia, Fathers4Equality and many many other Men's advocacy and support groups that are being starved of funds by this Government.

Change the wording from women to men's and see if it still fits. Where is the Office for Men? Who is the Minister for Men's Issues? Where is the equality in this?

Once again men in this country have been let down and how ironic when yesterday was 'International Men's Day'. How do we look in the eyes of the International community?It is about time we all stood up and said enough is enough. We understand women need support, so do men. Why don't you offer exactly what you are offering here to men? This is the golden basket you have been promising for years. What is equitable and fair about this?

With male suicide rates through the roof, with the recent senate select committee Inquiry into Men's Health, hasn't anyone listened?

It is this countries shame that male advocacy has been diminished by lack of funding available while we offer substantial funds to women. Please understand that I am in no way suggesting that you shouldn't fund a national women's alliance, what I am suggesting is you should make the same available to men.God knows we all need it, wish we didn't but we do. In a perfect world there wouldn't be this gender division but to be honest who is fuelling it? As far as I can see sadly this Government has just thrown the first wood on the fire.

Tony Miller, Founder Dads in Distress

"Children who grow up without fathers are more likely to drop out of school and wind up in prison. They're more likely to have substance abuse problems, run away from home, and become teenage parents themselves... so there is a real crisis going on the African American community on this issue, but it is a more pervasive issue."
President Barack Obama. June 19th 2009

19 November 2009
Men's Health Australia

International Men's Day Special Edition - New campaign for male victims of family violence and abuse

Did you know that...

• Up to one in three victims of sexual assault is male?


• At least one in three victims of family violence is male?


• 435,000 Australian men have experienced violence from a current or previous partner?

17 November 2009
The Times (Britain)

It's too easy to blame dads
When separated families fall out of touch, it's easy to find fault with others. But there is plenty all parties can do.
By Suzie Hayman

When my stepson, Alex, was a child, he lived in Birmingham, and his father and I lived in London. My husband used to scour the capital every weekend for postcards - from museums, galleries, anywhere to send to him. For several years, almost very day, he'd compose some awful bit of doggerel about the picture and send it off - a way of saying "I may not be seeing you today but I'm thinking about you." Alex now has a child of his own; and a box on a shelf that contains every single one of those postcards.

When he fetched the box out last Christmas - postcard after postcard keeping the link - we were reminded how important it was to keep that contact. Adults may be able to hold on to a relationship many miles and many days apart, but it's far harder for children. They need their parents to be there for them.

This kind of regular contact between separated families seems to be getting harder to maintain. Most parents will say that their child's welfare is their main priority during a separation, but according to a new study of more than 4,000 people by the law firm Mishcon de Reya, more than a third of children lose touch with their father after their parents separate.

Whether it's a third who lose touch permanently, or the more frequently quoted 50 per cent (from a 1996 study) who stop contact in the first two years, clearly it's far more than it should be. But what makes keeping in touch so difficult?

One answer could be suggested by a finding of the Mishcon de Reya report - one in five divorcing spouses admitted to having the primary objective of making the experience as unpleasant as possible for his or her former partner.

Mothers may demand money and refuse contact if it's not enough; fathers may retaliate by playing fast and loose, changing arrangements at the last moment. It causes stress, anxiety and rage. And with their eyes on the "enemy", what both often forget is that the person who suffers most is the child, who is often used as an "emotional football", according to the study, feeling "used, isolated and alone".

There are two theories that might explain what happens even to those fathers who want to keep contact with their children. When Dan divorced from Louise, he swore that he'd never lose touch with his eight-year-old daughter and nine-year-old son. Three years on, he never calls, he never sees them. Mention children and his fists curl, his teeth grit and he changes the subject, fast.

His is a classic example of the discontinuity hypothesis, which suggests that fathers who have been highly involved with their children are more likely to become disengaged because of the pain of separation. Every time they see their child, knowing that at the end of the day or weekend they have to hand them back, they feel misery, hurt and guilt.

Children often act out their distress so that bad behaviour before, during or after time spent together places particular strain around the whole issue of contact. Both parents may come to believe that limiting or stopping meetings altogether will clear up the distress.

"It just got too much," says Dan. "Every time I saw him, I wanted to cry. Every time he stayed the visit would end in tantrums and tears - for both of us, frankly. I'd take him back and she'd look at me with such disgust as if to say, 'What are you doing to our boy?' So one day, I just stopped. But there's not a day when I don't think about him."

Other fathers duck out because the discomfort becomes too much for them to bear - they may rationalise it as doing the best for the child, but it may be their own anguish that drives them.

The continuity hypothesis suggests that post-divorce relationships correlate to pre-divorce contact. A father who, prior to divorce focused most of his attention on work, friends or his own interests, may find it hard to continue any relationship. This type of father often loves his children and wants to stay in touch, but what encouraged him to relate to them was always the child's mother. With her now fighting against him, he will be put off.

Bob is typical of some of the fathers who have come to see me in my capacity as a relationship counsellor. "I never knew what I had till I lost it," he says. "I used to make excuses not to have to play with him. Now I'd give anything to see him - I don't know, it's just too much arguing every time I try."

The results can be dramatic and far-reaching. Children of messy divorces can exhibit a range of psychological and behavioural problems in childhood and beyond, from bed-wetting and tantrums to truancy, risk-taking, premature sexual behaviour, pregnancy, and even criminal behaviour, that can be traced back to the trauma of losing their family, losing a parent and not having a father figure around.

Look into the background of any "out of control" child, teenager or adult and it's a betting certainty that somewhere, sometime, loss and rejection form part of the picture. Children need their fathers; fathers need their children. How, as a society, are we going to turn the tide on the loss so many of our families suffer?

A good beginning would be to go one step farther than the Children Act that 20 years ago tried to put the needs of children at the centre of divorce proceedings. The act moved court proceedings from being a fight for "custody" of children, as if they were belongings to be fought over and won, to residence and contact. The presumption was that the child's right to contact with both parents was the vital issue.

But there is still an assumption that children live with one parent - usually the mother - and 'visit' another, usually the father. What we should now do is to make an assumption that children have two parents and that both are full-time parents, even when children do not spend 100 per cent of the time with each. There needs to be an understanding, for instance, that children should be able to be in contact with both and either parent whenever they choose, by mail, through mobiles, or email if necessary.

When parents are at loggerheads, there should be much more done to sustain the interests of the father and child. When a mother turns her child against the father, when a mother refuses to comply with a court order on contact, nothing is done because it is felt sanctions against her would not be in the interests of the child. But is the situation as it stands in that child's interests? We pay only lip service to the rights of a child to have contact with a father and we need to do better.

When parents part, the courts prefer them to settle their differences and make arrangements between themselves, only calling upon the legal process in extremis. But there is no requirement for parents to access any of the excellent help and support that would make it so much easier to manage co-parenting apart.

If parents were expected, encouraged or even required to go to mediation or counselling, they could settle the unfinished business of their rage and pain, put it aside and get on with bringing up their children in partnership, though no longer partners. More people need to be made aware of Parenting Plans - a guide for separating parents published by the Department of Children, Schools and Families that covers everything from day-to-day arrangements to holidays.

We also need to put money into doing so much better for children. Increasingly, schools are inviting Relate and other counsellors in to talk to children and offer confidential consultations. But it's still a postcode lottery - not all local authorities make funding available, and not all schools use it. It should be a given that all children have somewhere to go to speak to an objective professional with their needs in mind.

Overhauling the way we deal with parenting, with divorce, with separated families would have significant effects on the lives of so many families. It might cost millions, but what it would save in emotional terms is priceless.

And in Britain particularly, it's much needed. The 2007 UNICEF report A Review of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries makes sobering reading. It looked at a range of indicators to measure wellbeing among children and young people, including healthy living, risky behaviour and relationships with family and friends. Out of 21 countries, the UK's average ranking was 18. In quite a few important indices, we came 21st. Can we afford to go on accepting that a third of children lose their fathers?

What dads can do

- Keep in daily contact with your child: texts, cards, emails, Facebook, Twitter - use anything that keeps you communicating.

- Get help and support from family, friends and charities such as the Fatherhood Institute, Parentline, Families Need Fathers and the Centre for Separated Families.

- Negotiate, conciliate, mediate and communicate. While you may feel that your ex is behaving badly, your anger hurts your child most of all.

- Go to mediation or counselling. If your child's mother won't go too, then start without her.

- When you see your child, accept that it can be painful for both of you. Allow for some negative feelings and behaviour on both sides.

- Foster contact between your own parents and your children too.

- Don't allow living in another town or country from your children to make a difference. Use technology to stay in touch and meet them as often as possible.

- Lobby your MP for more money to be put into services for parents in conflict, before and after separation.

What mums can do

- He may no longer be your partner but he's still your child's parent. Put your feelings aside and help him to stay in contact.

- Encourage children to stay in touch with a non-resident dad. Whatever you think of him as a partner, he can still be an excellent dad.

- Never criticise your former partner, even if you think that your child can't hear you. Think of and refer to him as "my child's father" rather than "my ex".

- Ask for help from friends and family or call Parentline on 0808 800 2222, open 24 hours a day.

- Use mediation or counselling to end your disagreement and decide on how to co-parent.

- Money and contact are different issues: refusing contact because of rows over finances hurts your child most.

- Don't forget grandparents - your parents and his. They can be a point of stability for children.

What children can do

- Accept that the split is not your fault. You are not to blame for your parents arguing or separating.

- Get some help to understand what is happening and feel better from websites such as http://itsnotyourfault.org

- Talk to someone - a friend, family member, teacher, counsellor or youth worker.

- Talk to both your parents, too. They may not have realised how much you know and how much it hurts - so trust them to want to help.

- Let the school know that you are having a tough time. They can help - and if it affects your schoolwork, they need to know.

17 November 2009
Ash Patil, Fathers4equality-Australia

Investigative journalist or lobbyist? The shared care debate in Australia

Most people on the street would be quite familiar by now with an avalanche of newspaper articles over the past year condemning Australia's shared care laws and suggesting that they put Australia's children at risk of abuse.

These articles have been so effective that most people actually believe that the current research supports this suggestion.

Articles such as " Courts continue to grant access to violent parents ", " Shared-parenting is 'gobbledegook' ", "'Flaws' in John Howard's parenting law" & " Replace shared care with Canada model " have been so one-sided and misleading in their depiction of these laws, that there is a clear expectation in the community that the 2006 shared parental responsibility laws will as a matter of certainty be repealed by the Rudd government.

This avalanche of articles were primarily the work of two journalists, Caroline Overington from the Australian and Adele Horin from Fairfax, who seem to have closely aligned their message with that of Barbara Biggs, a toxic extremist who promotes the idea that men on the whole are sexual predators and inherently violent, and cannot be trusted in the care of their children.

In response to these articles, I have often been asked by members of Fathers4Equality why I have not made important research available to the likes of Caroline and Adele, in order for them to provide more balanced and informative reporting on this very important issue.

And there is an overwhelming amount of credible research to debunk these stereotypes of men and shared parenting promoted by those who have questionable motives in replacing Australia's shared care laws.

For example, recent research from the WA Department of Child Protection (amongst others) has shown that up to 80% of all child abuse occurs in single mother households, research from the Australian Institute of Criminology (amongst others) has shown that family violence is instigated equally by both men and women, a report from Childline in the UK has reported the skyrocketing of allegations by children against women for sexual abuse, and an article in the Wall Street Journal has reported on a German study highlighting the neurological damage caused to children who are raised without the ongoing presence of a father.

Further articles have highlighted the recent national poll in Canada showing 80% support for the replacement of their sole-custody family law model with shared care family laws, or the unprecedented outburst by UK Lord Justice Ward who spoke out against the sole-custody UK family laws by saying that the courts were powerless to help decent fathers to see their children if vengeful mothers stood in the way.

When one was to view all the research in this area on the whole, the conclusion is unmistakable. That there is a foundation of research and broad recognition within the community that sole custody laws are bad for children, and that shared care on the whole is in the best interests of children. In fact, the natural transparency afforded by shared care provides the best safeguards against the risk of child abuse or neglect.

Now, truth be told, I have corresponded with the likes of Caroline and Adele quite extensively in this past year.

So one would assume that given our history, that both Caroline and Adele would be open to reading and/or reporting on vital information on Child abuse and Shared parenting passed on to them by Fathers4Equality.

Given that Caroline and Adele have devoted significant time and effort in writing article after article suggesting that children's welfare is at stake if they have shared care arrangements with their fathers, then as any credible investigative journalist would do, they would cross-reference their conclusions with the latest research and information on these claims.

Correct? Well, No, not so.

Fathers4Equality have gone out of our way to inform both Caroline and Adele on very important research that critically undermines the premise that shared care is bad for children. At the very least it provides a strong counter-argument to the repeated mantra from these two.

So have they reported on it?

Well, based on the below return receipts from emails sent to both Caroline and Adele on this very important research, not only haven't they reported on it, but they have also refused to even read it. They simply deleted it from their inbox without reading it.

Let me repeat that. They have DELETED, without reading, emails purporting to contain key information on the very topics they have devoted so much time on. And then they proceeded to write further articles on this topic, and done so in selective ignorance of the facts.

Investigative journalism? I think not! Not convinced? Just look at the emails below and ask yourself why they were deleted without being read.

Overington, Caroline: Not read: Media release from Dads in Distress

Overington, Caroline: Not read: Shared Care laws & Relocation - new report

Overington, Caroline: Not read: Child abuse statistics

Overington, Caroline: Not read: New research on Child Abuse risks

Overington, Caroline: Not read: A huge rise in the number of children abused by women - BBC reports - read more

Overington, Caroline: Not read: Wall Steet Journal on Shared Care

Adele Horin: Not read: Media release from Dads in Distress

Adele Horin: Not read: New research highlights sole mothers as biggest child abuse offenders

Adele Horin: Not read: New research on Child Abuse risks

16 November 2009
The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)

Money can buy you love, economist says
By Peter Martin, Economics Correspondent

What's a marriage worth? To an Aussie male, about $32,000. That's the lump sum Professor Paul Frijters says the man would need to receive out of the blue to make him as happy as his marriage will over his lifetime. An Aussie woman would need much less, about $16,000.

But when it comes to divorce, the Aussie male will be so devastated it would be as if he had lost $110,000. An Aussie woman would be less traumatised, feeling as if she had lost only $9000.

Recently named this year's Best Australian Economist under 40 by the Economic Society of Australia, the Queensland University of Technology professor knows this because he has been mining a unique set of data that has tracked the happiness and major life events of about 10,000 Australians once a year since 2001.

"These are real people to whom unexpected things happen. They weren't selected because these things would happen, and we can compare their happiness before and after," Professor Frijters told the Herald after presenting his findings at the Australian National University.

Asked to describe how satisfied they are with their lives on a scale of 0 to 10, the Australians surveyed most often use the number eight, but the answers change after (and sometimes in anticipation of) major life events and also after sudden changes in income.

That has enabled the professor to put dollar values on the effects on happiness of major events such as marriage, divorce and birth, or as he puts it to calculate their "psychic costs" or "psychic benefits".

The birth of a child turns out to bring both. It makes parents the happiest before it happens and then after some months slightly less happy than they would have been without the birth, which is why Professor Frijters puts low dollar values on the lifetime boost to happiness that flows from a birth - for the mother around $8700, for the father $32,600.

"Losing a loved one has a much bigger effect than gaining a loved one. There's a real asymmetry between life and death," he says. "This shouldn't surprise us. Human beings seem primed to notice losses more than gains." The death of a spouse or child causes a woman $130,900 worth of grief, according to Frijters's calculations. It costs a man $627,300.

"This isn't the value of the life that's lost. That would be much higher," he says. "This is just the effect on the happiness of one person flowing from a death."

Asked why his calculations show men much more affected by life's events than women, Professor Frijters says he doesn't know. "But it does tend to give me confidence in the calculations. We know, for instance, that marriage improves the lives of men much more than women."

Some of the results fit in with stereotypes. Women get a psychic boost of $2600 from moving house. Men suffer psychic pain of $16,000.

Professor Frijters's dollar figures are lower than those arrived at by other methods. He says that is because he finds that money has a greater effect on happiness than previously thought.

"Losing or gaining money can offset the effect of other life events quite well, and that is what we are formally looking at - the amount needed to offset an event or keep someone happiness-neutral," he says.

Insurance companies and lawyers take a keen interest in the research, he says, because of the need for dollar compensation.

02 November 2009
The Australian

Family Court in the dark over violence, says judge Diana Bryant
By Michael Pelly

Family Court judges are not getting enough information to make a proper assessment about the risk of violence in divorce proceedings, judge Diana Bryant says.

However, Chief Justice Bryant says it is a "cop-out" for people to say they do not raise violence issues in the belief nothing will happen - or that it will work against them.

It has been a difficult year for the court, with the death of three-year-old Darcey Freeman in January leading to criticism that it is not attuned to the risk of violent parents.

There has also been criticism of the shared parenting laws, which require the court to presume a child's best interests are served by a continuing relationship with both parents.

The Chief Justice said those who shift blame to the Family Court for their troubles should instead look to the litigants when things go wrong.

"We get the cases where no one is going to be particularly happy," she said. "In children's cases, mostly they have got substance-abuse issues, mental-health issues, family violence - significant family violence or child-abuse issues.

"I don't think that things are caused by decisions. I think people's personalities and motivations drive them in the end."

She said violence cases were the most difficult in family law.

"They are all about risk assessment," she said.

Six inquiries into the shared-parenting laws are under way, with former Family Court judge Richard Chisholm likely to report to the government first.

Chief Justice Bryant said she had had "informal discussions" with Professor Chisholm.

"One of the things he has said to us ... is that many people say 'we don't raise these allegations because we don't think anything will happen'.

"But the judges say they do raise them. They are in every affidavit." She described it as "a circular argument which gets you nowhere". "If you don't raise it, you are never going to find out what the result's going to be and so I don't accept that argument," Chief Justice Bryant said.

"I hear it but I think it's a cop-out. If you don't raise it, then you can't expect an outcome."

01 November 2009
The Age (Melbourne)

Desperate dad trawls web for abducted son
By Leesha McKenny

A father whose child was abducted more than 18 months ago hopes that international social networking sites will achieve what authorities have failed to do - find his son.

Ken Thompson has taken leave from his job as NSW's deputy fire chief to devote more time to searching for Andrew, 5, who was taken overseas by his mother, Melinda Thompson (nee Stratton), in April last year.

Authorities had initially expected the search to take just three to six weeks.

Mr Thompson has produced a video, which he has posted on MySpace. The video message urges anyone who watches it to pass it on to as many of their online friends as possible. MySpace has more than 267 million users.

http://www.myspace.com/andrewthompsonismissing

Mr Thompson's plea - which he produced with the help of Stephen Watkins, a Canadian who is searching for his two missing sons, taken to Europe by their mother against court orders - has also made its way on to the video-sharing website YouTube.

"[The online campaign's] all about keeping Andrew's profile as high as we can and eventually someone, somewhere, will recognise either Andrew or his mother, and they'll do the right thing and they'll either let me or the authorities know," Mr Thompson said.

The video also calls on people to support the work of two British community groups that help parents track down abducted children - Forever Searching and Help Find My Child.

The trail for Ms Thompson, a registered nurse who worked as a product manager for a medical company, went cold once she and Andrew arrived at Frankfurt airport.

Ms Thompson wrote in a letter to her family that she had to flee Australia after losing faith in the Family Court and its treatment of her serious allegations against her estranged husband.

Mr Thompson, who has denied the allegations, is campaigning to add the millions of MySpace users to the thousands of people who have heard about his appeal to have Andrew and Ms Thompson returned safely to Australia.

Andrew was among the two to three children, on average, the Attorney-General's Department estimates are illegally taken by a parent out of or brought into Australia each week.

A warrant is in place for Ms Thompson's arrest.

The court has ordered that all publications about the case must include a warning not to approach Ms Stratton or Andrew if sighted but to notify the authorities.

Mr Thompson said he hoped his wife was among those who surf the web. "I find it difficult to accept she hasn't seen it," he said.

"You've only got to Google Andrew's name and there are loads and loads of hits on the internet. It wouldn't be hard for her to find that information."

Dads In Distress is funded by the Australian Federal Government.