NSW Australian Law - Opinions on IVO Changes to the Legislation?

[Bill Murray]

I did not comment or express a view about Miguel's post. Though I will admit I personally knew someone who suicided over suspected family issues and am biased about the impact separation from children has on men (and women).

It definitely does occur - I just don't believe it is a major contributor.

I was involved in a case where someone attempted suicide (but did not succeed) because they were being separated from their child. The issue was in this particular case his access was being removed because he had serious mental health issues which he was self medicating with drugs and alcohol, the couple were separating because he was a danger to his children. None of his friends and family knew this side of it so they all just continue assuming he did it because the nasty wife tried to take his kids off him.

There are s**t mothers. s**t fathers. But trying to link something as complicated as suicide to a single topic is dangerous.

An inability to question your accuser in court presents fundamental issues about a person's right to natural justice. Not being able to question the person and see them while questioning can lead to unjust outcomes. Having an impartial court appointed person goes against the right to advocate your own case. Imposing the restriction on cross-examinations for mere allegations of violence, rather than convictions, may lead to increases in false allegations being made by one party just to obtain an advantage in a custody battle. Some women already abuse the IVO system for gains in a family court parenting matter, and the new rules will give them another tool to exploit.

You do have the ability to - with the aid of a lawyer or legal aid.

I'm a cop - I deal with real domestic violence and regardless of how much people on this forum think that every second DVO is made up... They're wrong. I attend extremely brutal domestic violence scenarios and I attend scenarios that aren't even domestic violence. My ratio for male:female respondents is probably around 2:1 and that's because we take our the DVO based on who needs protecting the most... not who starts the argument. You could almost say it's usually taken out on the one who finishes it.

Having to face the person that has been committing domestic violence against a person can be extremely traumatic to the point the person can just refuse to attend court. Magistrates often then throw it out even though we have mountains of evidence to support it.

I'd be okay with a court appointed person (has to be a lawyer) who can ask questions. I'd also be okay with a one off payment capped at a point (I honestly have no idea how much it costs to have a lawyer attend court for a few hours) to cover this. However, if the questioning is proven to be vindictive or simply a method to commit further domestic violence via proxy then the court should be able to order those funds to be returned.

The issue is whether the proposed changes presents problems for self-represented litigants who do not qualify for legal aid. thatbloke makes a valid point saying some men can't afford lawyers and will not qualify for legal aid. I suspect this is the reason the legislation is considering the use of a court appointed person to ask questions on behalf of the SRL.

One of the submissions made to the A-G last year has a reasonable suggestion on how it could work with a red/gold card method.

So while I don't think the changes are disastrous for SRLs, some fine tuning can be made.

Legal Aid in Queensland, with one child, has a maximum cut off of almost $80,000 a year. Someone on $80,000 a year should be able to afford a few thousand for a lawyer for the day.

The asset test is pretty brutal though.

 

[thatbloke]

It definitely does occur - I just don't believe it is a major contributor.

I was involved in a case where someone attempted suicide (but did not succeed) because they were being separated from their child. The issue was in this particular case his access was being removed because he had serious mental health issues which he was self medicating with drugs and alcohol, the couple were separating because he was a danger to his children. None of his friends and family knew this side of it so they all just continue assuming he did it because the nasty wife tried to take his kids off him.

There are s**t mothers. s**t fathers. But trying to link something as complicated as suicide to a single topic is dangerous.



You do have the ability to - with the aid of a lawyer or legal aid.

I'm a cop - I deal with real domestic violence and regardless of how much people on this forum think that every second DVO is made up... They're wrong. I attend extremely brutal domestic violence scenarios and I attend scenarios that aren't even domestic violence. My ratio for male:female respondents is probably around 2:1 and that's because we take our the DVO based on who needs protecting the most... not who starts the argument. You could almost say it's usually taken out on the one who finishes it.

Having to face the person that has been committing domestic violence against a person can be extremely traumatic to the point the person can just refuse to attend court. Magistrates often then throw it out even though we have mountains of evidence to support it.

I'd be okay with a court appointed person (has to be a lawyer) who can ask questions. I'd also be okay with a one off payment capped at a point (I honestly have no idea how much it costs to have a lawyer attend court for a few hours) to cover this. HOWEVER, if the questioning is proven to be vindictive or simply a method to commit further domestic violence via proxy then the court should be able to order those funds to be returned.



Legal Aid in Queensland, with one child, has a maximum cut off of almost $80,000 a year. Someone on $80,000 a year should be able to afford a few thousand for a lawyer for the day.

The asset test is pretty brutal though.

You are correct in saying that lumping suicides in one basket to prove an activist point of view is plain wrong and does not reflect reality. I do not like the linking of suicides to family law cases by certain men's activist groups. It does more damage than good .

I think the 21 fathers thing is a con and men's activist groups are just as bad as female activist groups. I am not an advocate of men's or women's rights. I am an advocate of children's rights. But...

If it is 2:1 why does funding not represent that? Why does TV and Media so often ignore DV against men and when they mention it they do not use the words DV?

Why, when you ring mensline are you automatically treated as the aggressor? Why do all the posters, banners and the like i see, even ones relating to men accuse them of being the aggressor? False DV allegations are rife in the family law court and i do not doubt your real life experience but I also do not doubt mine.

The merits test is just as hard as the means test and 80k, after talk, when you have child support to pay and bills is not a lot of money. Assets also include cars and houses and equity and partners houses and equity.

When I take on people to help them, it is not gender based, it is situation based and how they come across and, most importantly of all, is what they want best for their kids.

We need more post like yours in this thread. and for the record my experience with Qld cops, and the people I have helped has been 99% positive and balanced when it comes to DV.

 

[MartyK]

Family law is a complex area - this is because decisions affect children’s lives. Stakeholders - not just parents rights activists - as like separating couples - can be at war with one another. Especially complex are views surrounding DV - opinions on what does or should constitutes DV - claims of prevalence of false allegations (mother’s and fathers) - interrelationships between DV and Family Law

The only things most agree with - IMO - is that family violence can have a detrimental impact on children - an adversarial system is not a good one for parenting disputes

For others - who would further info on Family Law and DV - a recent inquiry that was open to the public - received over 120+ submissions from various stakeholders (click here to see submissions) - and cites various other DV inquiries (including one from Vic and QLD) -
A better law system to support and protect those affected by family violence

As I said on page 1 - a far more comprehensive inquiry about the system itself is underway - due for release early next year

 

[miguel]

You do have the ability to - with the aid of a lawyer or legal aid.

I'm a cop - I deal with real domestic violence and regardless of how much people on this forum think that every second DVO is made up... They're wrong. I attend extremely brutal domestic violence scenarios and I attend scenarios that aren't even domestic violence. My ratio for male:female respondents is probably around 2:1 and that's because we take our the DVO based on who needs protecting the most... not who starts the argument. You could almost say it's usually taken out on the one who finishes it.

Well it's clear what I think and it's unfortunate the MRA groups are disorganised, hopefully not for too long.

I recall reading a DV document with Vic government logo's and endorsements all over it saying something like 'since males are almost exclusively the perpetrators, we can substitute the word perpetrator for male' and the rest of the document did so. That's alarming.

I've read a document produced by Vic DHS (DOCS) showing statistically the majority of DV is committed by mums against kids.

2:1 is surprising from a cop's point of view. I'd love to hear what your version of 'real domestic violence' is.

I applied for legal aid not too long ago and failed due to the tests mentioned, it was suggested I sell the house. Having recently gone through a property settlement and with CS I can't do that as rent suitable for housing the kids exceeds the repayments.