By A forty-seven year-old Australian women has been convicted of
fabricating evidence in a family court custody case. Sentencing her to
one years imprisonment the district court magistrate described her crime
as an offense that struck “at the heart of the justice system” and must
be regarded as serious.
Father’s rights groups advocating for reform of the family law system have long argued that lack of due process, taking claims at face value with out proof, and failure of the Family Court of Australia to punish perjury when it becomes apparent, are key factors in creating the courts’ gender bias.
The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 passed by the Gillard Labor government was widely seen as weakening the Family Courts’ ability to prosecute such perjury or to punish those who violated custody orders.
So how is it that such a news item now makes headlines in Australia? It’s because the case was reported to the Crime and Misconduct Commission an independent “watchdog” with the power to act against judicial misconduct. The commission recommended criminal charges and these were perused in the district court. These bodies operate outside the closed family court system and are subject to public scrutiny.
The Australian report is available here and an excellent commentary by Robert Franklin, Esq. of Parents and Families here.
Source
Father’s rights groups advocating for reform of the family law system have long argued that lack of due process, taking claims at face value with out proof, and failure of the Family Court of Australia to punish perjury when it becomes apparent, are key factors in creating the courts’ gender bias.
The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 passed by the Gillard Labor government was widely seen as weakening the Family Courts’ ability to prosecute such perjury or to punish those who violated custody orders.
So how is it that such a news item now makes headlines in Australia? It’s because the case was reported to the Crime and Misconduct Commission an independent “watchdog” with the power to act against judicial misconduct. The commission recommended criminal charges and these were perused in the district court. These bodies operate outside the closed family court system and are subject to public scrutiny.
The Australian report is available here and an excellent commentary by Robert Franklin, Esq. of Parents and Families here.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment