SAVE: Please thank Dr. Phil for doing show on abusive women
Today, Dr. Phil ran a show on Angry Women, Scared Husbands. Below is the show description from his website:http://community.drphil.com/boards/?EntryID=23845
'You may know that one in four women will become a victim of domestic violence, but did you know that one in nine men will too? Violence against men is rarely talked about and under-reported. Dr. Phil continues his campaign to end the silence on domestic violence with two couples willing to open up about their abusive relationships. Steve says his wife, Monica, punches him and recently pushed him down a flight of stairs. He says he’s not only afraid of her abuse, he’s afraid of how he may retaliate in the heat of anger. The couple has nine children between them – two of whom are severely disabled – and they’re worried about the effect their explosive arguments have on their kids. Then, Charlie worries she’ll get so angry at her new husband, Gary, that she’ll lash out and inadvertently kill him. Gary says that everything he does makes his wife mad, and he just can’t win. Can these women learn to control their tempers and stop the chaos before something tragic happens?'
Please send Dr. Phil an email TODAY to thank him for courageously covering this important topic: http://drphil.com/plugger/respond/?plugID=9164
Dr.Phil on about abusive women
Family law change 'puts kids at risk'
The vile Family Court still view children as chattels that are "awarded" to women. The feminist Family Court is a sick pus laden web of deceit and treachery. If only people knew what atrocities this disgusting Court of Lies orchestrates. The Family Court is a criminal organization far worse than any gang.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/family-law-change-puts-kids-at-extra-risk/story-fn59niix-1226048738629
Family law change 'puts kids at extra risk'
Patricia Karvelas From: The Australian May 03, 2011
THE Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, has warned the Gillard government that the changes to family law before parliament would reopen many cases and put children at extra risk by log-jamming the courts and adding stress to families.
The danger in the government's bill is that the laws can be applied to cases that had largely been heard, Chief Justice Bryant states in a submission to the Senate committee examining the legislation.
The retrospectivity meant any cases that may have been largely heard but not finally decided could be reopened with new evidence, and this could cause delay in the delivery of reasons for judgment.
"Cases involving actual violence or abuse or the risk of harm to children are precisely those cases that need to be brought on quickly, heard in a timely manner and finalised so that appropriate protective arrangements can be put in place," Chief Justice Bryant said. "It would be most unfortunate indeed if a consequence of the amendments, which are designed to improve responsiveness to family violence, was to place vulnerable children at risk of harm through delay . . .."
A spokesman for federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said family violence measures would operate prospectively, but might affect matters before the courts that were not finally determined. "The government considers the need to protect children from harm should be the most important consideration," the spokesman said.
The bill came before parliament after the Gillard government watered down its original proposal, which deleted the shared parenting provision at the centre of the Howard government's 2006 family law reforms. But the Senate inquiry has exposed more potential flaws.
Under proposed new arrangements, the Family Court will still have to consider whether divorced parents have encouraged a close and continuing relationship between the child and their former partner when awarding custody.
In changes since the first draft of the bill were circulated last November, the definition now contains a general characterisation of harmful behaviour instead of an exhaustive listing.
Family law professor Patrick Parkinson, the architect of the Howard government's original family law changes, argues the new broad definition of violence is still flawed and could be abused.
In his submission he argues the opening words of the definition require that the behaviour complained of "coerces or controls" a family member. He says this is flawed because it does not say that the person accused of such behaviour needs to have the intention of coercing or controlling.
"It would certainly be problematic if someone could be held to have engaged in 'violent' behaviour without intending to do so, because his or her former partner felt coerced or controlled," Professor Parkinson argues.
He also objects to the requirement in the bill to consider family violence orders, arguing family violence is seen by many as a "weapon in the war between parents".
"There is now a very widespread view in the community that some family violence orders are sought for tactical or collateral reasons to do with family law disputes," he says.
Patricia Karvelas From: The Australian May 03, 2011
THE Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, has warned the Gillard government that the changes to family law before parliament would reopen many cases and put children at extra risk by log-jamming the courts and adding stress to families.
The danger in the government's bill is that the laws can be applied to cases that had largely been heard, Chief Justice Bryant states in a submission to the Senate committee examining the legislation.
The retrospectivity meant any cases that may have been largely heard but not finally decided could be reopened with new evidence, and this could cause delay in the delivery of reasons for judgment.
"Cases involving actual violence or abuse or the risk of harm to children are precisely those cases that need to be brought on quickly, heard in a timely manner and finalised so that appropriate protective arrangements can be put in place," Chief Justice Bryant said. "It would be most unfortunate indeed if a consequence of the amendments, which are designed to improve responsiveness to family violence, was to place vulnerable children at risk of harm through delay . . .."
A spokesman for federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said family violence measures would operate prospectively, but might affect matters before the courts that were not finally determined. "The government considers the need to protect children from harm should be the most important consideration," the spokesman said.
The bill came before parliament after the Gillard government watered down its original proposal, which deleted the shared parenting provision at the centre of the Howard government's 2006 family law reforms. But the Senate inquiry has exposed more potential flaws.
Under proposed new arrangements, the Family Court will still have to consider whether divorced parents have encouraged a close and continuing relationship between the child and their former partner when awarding custody.
In changes since the first draft of the bill were circulated last November, the definition now contains a general characterisation of harmful behaviour instead of an exhaustive listing.
Family law professor Patrick Parkinson, the architect of the Howard government's original family law changes, argues the new broad definition of violence is still flawed and could be abused.
In his submission he argues the opening words of the definition require that the behaviour complained of "coerces or controls" a family member. He says this is flawed because it does not say that the person accused of such behaviour needs to have the intention of coercing or controlling.
"It would certainly be problematic if someone could be held to have engaged in 'violent' behaviour without intending to do so, because his or her former partner felt coerced or controlled," Professor Parkinson argues.
He also objects to the requirement in the bill to consider family violence orders, arguing family violence is seen by many as a "weapon in the war between parents".
"There is now a very widespread view in the community that some family violence orders are sought for tactical or collateral reasons to do with family law disputes," he says.
Dads4Kids calling for action.
Begin forwarded message:
Media Release Save the Lives of our Children
Call for urgent submissions to Senate Inquiry into
Rollback of 2006 Shared Parenting Reform
The Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation is calling for mothers, fathers and the people of Australia to make submissions by the deadline of 5pm, Friday, 29 April 2011 to the Senate Inquiry. Dads4Kids calls for submissions that reject the current Gillard government’s proposed rollback of the very moderate 2006 shared parenting reforms.
The Family Law Legislation amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 has been drafted on the basis that the proposed amendments will reduce child homicides. The reverse is actually the case. Statistics show that the 2006 Family Law Reforms helped save the lives of many children. The threatened rollback is likely to increase child homicides to pre-2006 levels which negates the purpose of the proposed Family Law Reforms.
Warwick Marsh, founder of Dads4Kids said, ”Over the last few years a well orchestrated campaign has been mounted to make the claim that children are more at risk from violent fathers and that there has been an increase in child homicides at the hands of biological fathers.
The horrific death of Darcey Freeman at the hands of her father on the Westgate Bridge gave added impetus to that claim. This prompted a number of parliamentarians to consider that perhaps the shared parental responsibility changes in 2006 had taken a step too far.
Unfortunately those parliamentarians and the general public were unaware of another tragedy on the Westgate Bridge that occurred less than twelve months prior to Darcey’s death. Mother, Gabriella Garcia, caused the horrific death of her 22 month old son Oliver by jumping off the Westgate Bridge with her son strapped to her chest, having made the claim she was afraid the Family Court might give custody of her son to the father. The tragic irony is that the father had made no applications to the court and had no intention of seeking custody. However this tragedy did not make headlines and the only recriminations were to criticise the authorities for not “jump proofing” the bridge. Sadly, both of these cases had involvement with the Family Law Court.
Bettina Arndt was right when she said, “No gender has a monopoly on vice.” Both mothers and fathers are responsible for terrible tragedies involving their children. Whilst many have suffered grief because of these tragedies involving the death of innocent children, this is not cause for ill-considered and hasty change to a family law reform process that has actually reduced child homicides.”
Warwick Marsh continued, “It is often presumed that fathers are the main offenders in child homicide cases. However this is not the case. According to Men’s Health Australia, the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) showed in its 2006-2007 annual report there were eleven homicides involving a mother and eleven homicides involving a male family member. However, when the ‘male family member’ category was broken down, five perpetrators were biological fathers and five were de-facto partners of the mother who lived with the child.
A study in the Medical Journal of Australia found similar results. They stated that fatal child abuse was the most common cause of death and the offender was most commonly the child’s mother or her de-facto partner.
It might be noted that child homicide has reduced by almost 50% since the introduction of the much fairer 2006 reforms according to NSW figures. The NSW Child Death Team Annual Reports stated:
· In 2005, twelve children aged between 0-17 died by fatal assault
· In 2007, nine children aged between 0-17 died by fatal assault. 2007 had the lowest child mortality rate observed over 1996-2007. This is the year directly after the reforms were instigated.
· In 2009, seven children aged between 0-17 died in six incidents.
These results indicate the 2006 reforms reduced the lethal danger to children. It is our belief that child homicides could well go back to their pre 2006 levels with the new proposed reforms. This would be an appalling outcome for our children.”Dads4Kids is calling for the people of Australia to flood the Senate Inquiry with single sentence submissions, rejecting the proposed bill, by Friday 29 April 2011. Those submissions should cite the lifesaving reduction in child homicides that has occurred since the onset of the 2006 shared parenting law reform.
Submissions may be made online at:
http://draft.blogger.com/goog_849276244
For media interviews please contact:
Warwick Marsh
0418 225 212
http://draft.blogger.com/goog_849276247
"20 Ways to Lessen Your Risk of Sexual Assault".
Hi Peter,
We recently published an article that you may be interested in entitled, "20 Ways to Lessen Your Risk of Sexual Assault".
I thought perhaps you'd be interested in sharing this article with your readers? After having followed your blog for a while, I feel that this one article would align well with your blog's subject matter.
If interested, here's the link for your convenience
http://www.nursingdegree.net/blog/806/20-ways-to-lessen-your-risk-of-sexual-assault/
Thanks for your time,
Corrine Smith