Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Back to:

Advice to Men

Governments Sponsor International Child Abduction

All men are now deemed guilty even before a crime has been committed

Subject: ACFC: Government-sponsored international child abduction
    Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 23:59:24 -0700 (MST)
   From: acfc-l@usa.net

Thanks to Lindsay Jackel for sending us the following.



Here's a report from the family law conference currently underway in Hobart, Australia.

With more international marriages occurring, it appears that when one breaks down the mother may well want to return to her country of origin and take HER children with her.  Family court lawyers and the FC and government are being urged by a British 'expert' to find reasons to allow such women to do this and to make it easier for them to do.

Looks like mothers abduct children more now than fathers -- and the unintended consequence is that they are now being caught by laws/treaties designed for non-custodial fathers.  Since this just won't do -- in our feminist and FC paternalistic anti-father society -- changes are being advised.

There is a double standard in our society.  If men were to do this it would be because they are bad or mad.  When mothers do it, however, a reason or excuse is looked for and found.  In this case, it is alleged, mothers are abducting children because their children are being abused, and being the loving caring people that only mothers are (it is implied), they are driven to remove them from the country where the abuse is taking place.  The motivation for this proposed change is blatantly sexist.  The convention was established to catch fathers.  Now that mothers are being caught, change is being proposed.

It is being proposed that the treaties now be more liberally applied and that ABUSE be taken into account.  So expect even more FALSE ALLEGATIONS of ABUSE from expatriate women fleeing with THEIR children.  Of course no PROOF will be required.

Sadly this is a continuation and spreading of the use of false allegations of abuse to score points in the children and property battles fought by mothers (and the feminists organisations - like the Sole Parents Union and the Council for the Single Mother and HER Child - that push for these advantages for women only) in the FC.  She who OWNS/WINS the children wins the toys!

As we know from experience with Magistrates and FC experience, there is no burden of proof to prove the allegations.  All a woman has to do is make the allegations and she is believed and supported, whilst a man is neither believed nor supported.

Write to the Attorney-General and the Family Court requesting that proof of abuse allegations be provided -- something like 2 or 3 witnesses.

Advice to Young Men - Tip #372:  Don't marry someone with family overseas!?


The Age (Melbourne)
27 October 1998, p4

Mothers more likely to abduct children: expert

by Caroline Milburn, Law Reporter, Hobart

Strict application of an international treaty is putting children at risk, family lawyers are told.

Mothers were more likely than fathers to kidnap their children, but courts dealing with this new trend in international child abduction had failed to respond to it adequately, a legal expert said yesterday.
    The nature of child abduction had changed dramatically since an international treaty, the Hague Convention, was introduced in 1980 to tackle the problem, said Mr. David Harris QC, a British expert on overseas abductions.
    Under the terms of the convention, a court must order that an abducted child be promptly returned to his or her home country, except in some limited situations.
    Mr. Harris said the treaty was based on the belief at that time that most abductors were non-custodial parents.  But the rise in international marriages had reversed the trend over the past decade and made the cases more complex.  [Translation: An unintended consequence is that now that convention is being applied equally to mothers and that's not fair to mothers.  Accordingly, excuses have to be found and changes made.  LJ]
    About 70 per cent of abductions were carried out by mothers who had custody of their but wanted to return to their home country after the breakdown of their marriage.  [This is the real reason, but it can't be used to justify abductions because it makes the mother responsible for her own actions.  So an excuse is sought -- and found, it is allegations of abuse!  LJ]
    In a speech to a family law conference, Mr. Harris said courts should order the return of an abducted child in most cases.
    But there was growing concern about cases of alleged parental or child abuse where some children were being returned to an unsafe environment because the courts were adopting a stringent interpretation of the treaty.  [Translation: When a law is applied equally to men and women and women are caught by it, it is redefined as stringent and in need of change.  Leniency for women is called for.  Is it any wonder our prisons are overwhelmingly filled with men?  And feminists then use this fact to assert that men are more criminal!  LJ]
    Under the convention, courts can choose not to return a child if there is a grave risk he or she would be exposed to harm.  However, Mr. Harris said the summary procedures of the convention made it difficult for courts to thoroughly examine allegations of abuse before they ordered a child's return.
    "We are now in an entirely different ball game than the situation in 1980, and the courts have to address that," Mr. Harris said.
    "There are going to be increasing numbers of families where this problem occurs, where the child will be subject to unacceptable risk if the child is returned, and courts in England and Australia have to come to terms with that."
    He said courts should interpret the convention more liberally to avoid returning children to dangerous situations where the legal and welfare systems in some countries might not be strong enough to protect a child at risk of abuse.
    Fifty-three nations, including Australia, are signatories to the convention.  Mr. Harris said the treaty should be amended to make it easier for courts to examine allegations of child abuse.
    "Summary procedures have to be reconsidered where you have an arguable case that a child is going to be subjected to a grave risk of harm in the requesting state," he said.


Children Need BOTH Parents!

The American Coalition for Fathers and Children

For Membership information call 1-800-978-DADS
or see ACFC's homepages at:

Additional information is located at:

Listserver: acfc@majordomo.esosoft.com
Listowner: Owner-acfc@majordomo.esosoft.com

To subscribe/unsubscribe:   To: majordomo@majordomo.esosoft.com
Message:  subscribe/unsubsribe acfc

To temporarily suspend email:   To:  majordomo@majordomo.esosoft.com
Message:  set acfc nomail <Email address>

The ACFC List Serve provides timely information to fathers,
second wives, and others seeking restoration of fatherhood
in America and the world.  ACFC does not endorse or approve
the views or opinions expressed by contributors, which have
been provided only as a service to our list serve subscribers.

Back to Advice to Men

Reformated 2004 12 27