Family Court Child Abuse
 

This sort of thing also happens very frequently in the U.S.

In the U.S. feminists and other advocates for mothers have successfully
obscured the central point in these disputes. These activists usually
prevail in court because they argue that mothers have a constitutionally
protected right of freedom of travel.

For some reason or other, advocates for fathers are letting them get
away with this misleading argument. Yes, of course, mothers should be
able to exercise their right to travel to Outer Mongolia if they want.
However, they shouldn't be able to take the children with them.



Edmund Esterbauer wrote:

"A mother has successfully appealed orders restraining her and her children
from moving to another town, away from the father.

The Full Court of the Family Court allowed an appeal against the decision of
a trial Judge to prohibit a mother of three boys aged 13, 11 and 9 from
moving with the boys from Vermont South (in Melbourne's eastern suburbs) to
Drysdale (near Geelong), a distance of about 115 km.

The facts were that the parties separated in 1998. The Family Court made
orders that provided for the children to reside with their father during
school term from Wednesday evening until Sunday evening on alternate
weekends, and for him to have contact with them on each other Wednesday
after school. The orders also provided for the sharing of school holidays
and special days such as birthdays." CCH

This case illustrates how criminal and abusive Nicholson has become towards
children. He shows his complete contempt for children and their wishes or
their welfare. Nicholson also completely ignored the children's wishes in R
v R (2000).

He claims:

" 22. Her Honour then set about a consideration of each of the relevant
factors under s 68F(2). She considered the wishes of the elder children,
stating that they were of an age where any clear expression of such wishes
should be given significant weight. Whilst the eldest child had said he
wanted to go to Drysdale, his views were described by the Court expert, Mr
Papaleo, as being "cautious and non-committal at the highest level". The
youngest child did not want to move. While not stated expressly, it seems
clear that in the circumstances of some conflict of view between the
brothers, her Honour did not in the end give significant weight to their
views in her decision, and no issue was taken with that approach on appeal."

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c.../2003/280.html

Nicholson gives no consideration to the impact the move will have on the
children.

Naturally Nicholson cites a Kirby decision; AMS v AIF, one that totally
ignores the welfare of children.

Note the nice cosy relationship Nicholson has with Kirby who is a homosexual
activist on the High Court. Kirby is a judge who advocates and promotes
experimentation on unborn children and who has recently valued the life of a
child as $100 000. Nicholson by amazing coincidence is also an advocate of
homosexual family rights to have children. These two are developing a nice,
sweet and cosy relationship. After all to Kirby children are things to be
chopped up and experimented on and to Nicholson things to ignored and used
as chattel.

The stolen generation of children will hold these child abusers accountable.

--
"The true value of democracy is to serve as a sanitary precaution protecting
us against the abuse of power...In its present form ..It has ceased to be a
safeguard of personal liberty, a restraint from abuse of government
power..It has on the contrary, become the main cause of a progressive and
accelerating increase in the power and weight of the administrative
machine."
Friedrich A. Hayek