- Mother wins custody battle after terrifying children about father
- By Kim Arlington
- The Sydney Morning Herald
- 04/01/2011 Make a Comment (3)
- Contributed by: admin ( 15 articles in 2011 )
HER ''delinquent attitude'' to parenthood was denounced in the Family Court after she waged a campaign to alienate her children from their father.
But the woman has still won sole custody of the two children, who are now so distressed by the prospect of a reunion with their father, a judge has ruled they should not have to see him.
The enmity between the parents, who cannot be named, has made their children's lives unbearably miserable, Justice Stewart Austin said. He concluded the only way to end the conflict was, ''regrettably'', to terminate the children's interaction with their father.
The court heard the man used to have loving relationships with his son, 13, and daughter, 10, but has barely had contact with them since the mother launched court proceedings last year to stop them spending time together.
Justice Austin was satisfied the mother ''embarked upon a campaign to align the children with her and reject the father'' - behaviour described by a psychiatrist as emotionally abusive to the children.
Police and child welfare agencies investigated and dismissed the mother's allegations that the father abused the children.
The girl, when interviewed by officers, said she and her brother had been promised rewards if they ''told the police about Daddy''.
Justice Austin said the mother made further ''outlandish, unsubstantiated allegations'', including that the father had installed a tracking device in her car, a surveillance camera outside her house and had broken into her home.
Her paranoia ''invaded the children's day-to-day lives''.
The children grew to fear their father might kidnap them after their mother kept them at home to prevent their abduction from school.
The court in Brisbane heard the little girl wet her bed, while her brother had threatened self-harm if forced to see his father and was vulnerable to developing a mental disorder.
Justice Austin found the ''primary cause of the children's desperate emotional turmoil lies with the mother''. Her conduct, he said, was lamentable.
However, he did not agree with the father that the children should live with him. While there was no risk he would expose them to harm, it would be ''highly problematic and dangerous'' to force them to live with him when they did not want to see him.
Justice Austin was aware the man would be disappointed but said the court's priority was not achieving a just result for the parents, but serving the children's best interests.
He ordered that the father be allowed to have his children's school photographs and reports. He can also occasionally send them gifts and write to show ''he still loves them and has not willingly abandoned them''.
Asked in court about how much responsibility she accepted for the children's emotional despair, the mother replied: "I've done the best thing I can for my kids.''
But the woman has still won sole custody of the two children, who are now so distressed by the prospect of a reunion with their father, a judge has ruled they should not have to see him.
The enmity between the parents, who cannot be named, has made their children's lives unbearably miserable, Justice Stewart Austin said. He concluded the only way to end the conflict was, ''regrettably'', to terminate the children's interaction with their father.
The court heard the man used to have loving relationships with his son, 13, and daughter, 10, but has barely had contact with them since the mother launched court proceedings last year to stop them spending time together.
Justice Austin was satisfied the mother ''embarked upon a campaign to align the children with her and reject the father'' - behaviour described by a psychiatrist as emotionally abusive to the children.
Police and child welfare agencies investigated and dismissed the mother's allegations that the father abused the children.
The girl, when interviewed by officers, said she and her brother had been promised rewards if they ''told the police about Daddy''.
Justice Austin said the mother made further ''outlandish, unsubstantiated allegations'', including that the father had installed a tracking device in her car, a surveillance camera outside her house and had broken into her home.
Her paranoia ''invaded the children's day-to-day lives''.
The children grew to fear their father might kidnap them after their mother kept them at home to prevent their abduction from school.
The court in Brisbane heard the little girl wet her bed, while her brother had threatened self-harm if forced to see his father and was vulnerable to developing a mental disorder.
Justice Austin found the ''primary cause of the children's desperate emotional turmoil lies with the mother''. Her conduct, he said, was lamentable.
However, he did not agree with the father that the children should live with him. While there was no risk he would expose them to harm, it would be ''highly problematic and dangerous'' to force them to live with him when they did not want to see him.
Justice Austin was aware the man would be disappointed but said the court's priority was not achieving a just result for the parents, but serving the children's best interests.
He ordered that the father be allowed to have his children's school photographs and reports. He can also occasionally send them gifts and write to show ''he still loves them and has not willingly abandoned them''.
Asked in court about how much responsibility she accepted for the children's emotional despair, the mother replied: "I've done the best thing I can for my kids.''
Source: https://www.smh.com.au/national/mother-wins-custody-battle-after-terrifying-children-about-father-20110103-19dwr.html
However, you just gotta wonder what the hell is really going on don't you when a fathers alienation is openly admitted by both mother, judge and media in conjunction with unsubstantiated allegations by the mother, and threats of self harm by the boy and bed wetting by the daughter.
If this ain't a green light given by the the Family Court for mums to keep doing this, i don't know what is.
The court heard the man used to have loving relationships with the kids. I guess this is possibly a brilliant reason to stop the children from maintaining a relationship with a very important person in their lives - NOT!!
Just another Dad and another and another. . .
And when I cannot take this sadness no more . . .I’ll just be another . .
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here