Re: Children coached in rape lie

[Brettg]

"glow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ian" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Hunger Strike for Justice) wrote in message
> >...
> > > Children coached in rape lie
> > > By Dan Silkstone
> > > July 11 2003
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/10/1057783287274.html
> > >
> > >
> > > She was a university lecturer, her husband a classical musician. She
> > > told the police he raped her, in front of their children, in their
> > > suburban living room. She lied.
> > >
> > > The County Court in Melbourne heard yesterday that a woman falsely
> > > accused her husband of rape in January 2001 and convinced their two
> > > teenagers to lie about witnessing an assault.
> > >
> > > Prosecutor Michael Tinney said the woman was anxious that her
> > > marriage was in trouble and thought she would lose property and cash
> > > assets if it ended.
> > >
> > > She pleaded guilty to attempting to pervert the course of justice,
> > > but her name cannot be revealed as it would identify her children.
> > >
> > > The couple seemed to lead a life of prosperity and were highly
> > > regarded in their fields. But the court heard it was a family racked
> > > with dysfunction.
> > >
> > > The woman told police at the Caulfield station that her husband
> > > entered the house through a living room window on January 13, threw
> > > her to the ground and raped her in front of the children. She said he
> > > then pointed at their daughter and told her: "Next time it will be
> > > you."
> > >
> > > But Mr Tinney said the man was staying with a relative after a
> > > domestic dispute three days earlier and returned to discuss the
> > > couple's separation. He said the man had left without incident.
> > >
> > > The couple's son and daughter told police they witnessed the rape but
> > > suspicions were raised when the man revealed his daughter had been
> > > shopping with a friend at the time of his visit.
> > >
> > > The woman's children admitted to police they lied but later tried to
> > > retract their admissions. Police listening devices captured the woman
> > > rehearsing the rape story with her children, including mock court
> > > scenes where she cross-examined them.
> > >
> > > Defence barrister Wendy Duncan said the claim was like "a snowball"
> > > that got out of control.
> > >
> > > The case is continuing before Judge Leslie Ross.
> >
> >
> > Let's just see. He would have got ten years, she'll get two? three?
>
> I'm of the opinion that to falsely accuse someone of a crime intentionally
> should bring about the sentence of the accusation.

Yes, most sensible and fair-minded people would agree with you.

Unfortunately the politicians and judges are neither sensible or
fair-minded.

"This ain't a court of justice son, it's a court of LAW"
I. Forget

[Brettg]

<can.politics removed as it is reported as "unresolvable" by my server>

"glow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BrettG" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "glow" > wrote
> >
> > > I say when it comes to these women with no respect for the law or their
> > > family/friends to lock them up for an appropriate duration don't let
> them
> > > hide behind their children. The children have a father to care for them
> > > during their mothers incarceration.
> >
> > Why only during and not after?
>
> Honestly after should be shared care as it should be from the start. Quite
> often the reasoning given to allow these women off is their duty to care for
> their children. I am an advocate of rebuttable shared care. I didn't mean to
> imply otherwise if you thought that I in any way did.

Under normal circumstances I would agree, but in this hypothetical
case the woman has demonstrated a willingness to attempt to damage
her childrens relationship with their father for her own selfish and
malicious reasons.

I see no reason to believe that she should be immediately trusted
on release to have an improved attitude in this regard.

Surely it would be in the "best interests of the child" that it not
be placed back in such an environment again?

[glow]

"Brettg" > wrote in message
...
> <can.politics removed as it is reported as "unresolvable" by my server>
>
> "glow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "BrettG" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "glow" > wrote
> > >
> > > > I say when it comes to these women with no respect for the law or
their
> > > > family/friends to lock them up for an appropriate duration don't let
> > them
> > > > hide behind their children. The children have a father to care for
them
> > > > during their mothers incarceration.
> > >
> > > Why only during and not after?
> >
> > Honestly after should be shared care as it should be from the start.
Quite
> > often the reasoning given to allow these women off is their duty to care
for
> > their children. I am an advocate of rebuttable shared care. I didn't
mean to
> > imply otherwise if you thought that I in any way did.
>
> Under normal circumstances I would agree, but in this hypothetical
> case the woman has demonstrated a willingness to attempt to damage
> her childrens relationship with their father for her own selfish and
> malicious reasons.

Also those cases I told you werent hypothetical they actually happened. The
hypothetical was what happens if the law actually does what it is required
to do rather than allow these women off because they apparently have other
concerns.

>
> I see no reason to believe that she should be immediately trusted
> on release to have an improved attitude in this regard.
>
> Surely it would be in the "best interests of the child" that it not
> be placed back in such an environment again?

Of course not, however children should not be denied either of their parents
unless a situation cannot be resolved. To do so is simply reversing the
situation denying one parent then doing a back flip and denying the other.
In my opinion in such circumstances Psyciatric treatment should occur during
the incarceration.(more ideally at the first signs of parental alienation or
first indication of a possibility of) Parents perpetrating parental
alienation should be treated no differently that drug addicts who repeatedly
reoffend to feed a habit. and be placed in a rehabilitation program.

[BrettG]

"glow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brettg" > wrote in message
> ...
> > <can.politics removed as it is reported as "unresolvable" by my server>
> >
> > "glow" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "BrettG" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "glow" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > > I say when it comes to these women with no respect for the law or
> their
> > > > > family/friends to lock them up for an appropriate duration don't let
> > > them
> > > > > hide behind their children. The children have a father to care for
> them
> > > > > during their mothers incarceration.
> > > >
> > > > Why only during and not after?
> > >
> > > Honestly after should be shared care as it should be from the start.
> Quite
> > > often the reasoning given to allow these women off is their duty to care
> for
> > > their children. I am an advocate of rebuttable shared care. I didn't
> mean to
> > > imply otherwise if you thought that I in any way did.
> >
> > Under normal circumstances I would agree, but in this hypothetical
> > case the woman has demonstrated a willingness to attempt to damage
> > her childrens relationship with their father for her own selfish and
> > malicious reasons.
>
> Also those cases I told you werent hypothetical they actually happened. The
> hypothetical was what happens if the law actually does what it is required
> to do rather than allow these women off because they apparently have other
> concerns.
>
> >
> > I see no reason to believe that she should be immediately trusted
> > on release to have an improved attitude in this regard.
> >
> > Surely it would be in the "best interests of the child" that it not
> > be placed back in such an environment again?
>
> Of course not, however children should not be denied either of their parents
> unless a situation cannot be resolved. To do so is simply reversing the
> situation denying one parent then doing a back flip and denying the other.
> In my opinion in such circumstances Psyciatric treatment should occur during
> the incarceration.(more ideally at the first signs of parental alienation or
> first indication of a possibility of) Parents perpetrating parental
> alienation should be treated no differently that drug addicts who repeatedly
> reoffend to feed a habit. and be placed in a rehabilitation program.

Hmmm. I can't say I agree, but I certainly respect your opinion.

Just for the record, I wasn't suggesting that the children be
denied access to their mother, but they certainly shouldn't
be put into her custody for extended periods.

The problem with parental alienation is that it is often not
detected until the damage is already done.

[glow]

"Brettg" > wrote in message
...
>
> "glow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "BrettG" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "glow" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Brettg" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > <can.politics removed as it is reported as "unresolvable" by my
> > server>
> > > > >
> > > > > "glow" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "BrettG" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "glow" > wrote
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I say when it comes to these women with no respect for the
law
> > or
> > > > their
> > > > > > > > family/friends to lock them up for an appropriate duration
don't
> > let
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > hide behind their children. The children have a father to
care
> > for
> > > > them
> > > > > > > > during their mothers incarceration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why only during and not after?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Honestly after should be shared care as it should be from the
start.
> > > > Quite
> > > > > > often the reasoning given to allow these women off is their duty
to
> > care
> > > > for
> > > > > > their children. I am an advocate of rebuttable shared care. I
didn't
> > > > mean to
> > > > > > imply otherwise if you thought that I in any way did.
> > > > >
> > > > > Under normal circumstances I would agree, but in this hypothetical
> > > > > case the woman has demonstrated a willingness to attempt to damage
> > > > > her childrens relationship with their father for her own selfish
and
> > > > > malicious reasons.
> > > >
> > > > Also those cases I told you werent hypothetical they actually
happened.
> > The
> > > > hypothetical was what happens if the law actually does what it is
> > required
> > > > to do rather than allow these women off because they apparently have
> > other
> > > > concerns.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see no reason to believe that she should be immediately trusted
> > > > > on release to have an improved attitude in this regard.
> > > > >
> > > > > Surely it would be in the "best interests of the child" that it
not
> > > > > be placed back in such an environment again?
> > > >
> > > > Of course not, however children should not be denied either of their
> > parents
> > > > unless a situation cannot be resolved. To do so is simply reversing
the
> > > > situation denying one parent then doing a back flip and denying the
> > other.
> > > > In my opinion in such circumstances Psyciatric treatment should
occur
> > during
> > > > the incarceration.(more ideally at the first signs of parental
> > alienation or
> > > > first indication of a possibility of) Parents perpetrating parental
> > > > alienation should be treated no differently that drug addicts who
> > repeatedly
> > > > reoffend to feed a habit. and be placed in a rehabilitation program.
> > >
> > > Hmmm. I can't say I agree, but I certainly respect your opinion.
> > >
> > > Just for the record, I wasn't suggesting that the children be
> > > denied access to their mother, but they certainly shouldn't
> > > be put into her custody for extended periods.
> > >
> > > The problem with parental alienation is that it is often not
> > > detected until the damage is already done.
> > >
> > Too true but the same can be said for any form of child abuse.
>
> Exactly. And in cases of child abuse the children are rarely if ever
> placed back into the custody of the abusing parent (although like
> in all other areas of "Family" Law I'm sure women have a better
> chance of this than men)

Actually that is incorrect where the child abuse is such that it endangers
the childs life yes the child is removed. However they do first attempt to
rehabiltate the parent and the parent is still allowed supervised visitation
and usually retains most parental rights. The children are usually placed
into temporary foster care til rehabilitation is completed or it is
determined that rehabilitation is not possible. CPS dont seem to
discriminate between men and women as much as family law and CSA does.
However from what I have seen fathers tend to be given less of a chance to
prove suitability as a parent than mothers are. The Child abusers actually
seem to be given more rights in regards to their children than NCP's. There
are cases however where CPS have been known to exercise parental alienation.
In the form of not allowing children contact to their parents. These are
usually the CPS bungles that like to be sweeped under the rug.

All of this is assuming that there is no other suitable living family
members able to take care of the child. Although I have known children to be
placed in foster care even with the existance of other suitable family
members. (mind you they were also CPS bungles).

[BrettG]

"glow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brettg" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "glow" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "BrettG" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "glow" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Brettg" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > <can.politics removed as it is reported as "unresolvable" by my
> > > server>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "glow" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "BrettG" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "glow" > wrote
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I say when it comes to these women with no respect for the
> law
> > > or
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > family/friends to lock them up for an appropriate duration
> don't
> > > let
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > hide behind their children. The children have a father to
> care
> > > for
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > during their mothers incarceration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why only during and not after?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Honestly after should be shared care as it should be from the
> start.
> > > > > Quite
> > > > > > > often the reasoning given to allow these women off is their duty
> to
> > > care
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > their children. I am an advocate of rebuttable shared care. I
> didn't
> > > > > mean to
> > > > > > > imply otherwise if you thought that I in any way did.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Under normal circumstances I would agree, but in this hypothetical
> > > > > > case the woman has demonstrated a willingness to attempt to damage
> > > > > > her childrens relationship with their father for her own selfish
> and
> > > > > > malicious reasons.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also those cases I told you werent hypothetical they actually
> happened.
> > > The
> > > > > hypothetical was what happens if the law actually does what it is
> > > required
> > > > > to do rather than allow these women off because they apparently have
> > > other
> > > > > concerns.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see no reason to believe that she should be immediately trusted
> > > > > > on release to have an improved attitude in this regard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Surely it would be in the "best interests of the child" that it
> not
> > > > > > be placed back in such an environment again?
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course not, however children should not be denied either of their
> > > parents
> > > > > unless a situation cannot be resolved. To do so is simply reversing
> the
> > > > > situation denying one parent then doing a back flip and denying the
> > > other.
> > > > > In my opinion in such circumstances Psyciatric treatment should
> occur
> > > during
> > > > > the incarceration.(more ideally at the first signs of parental
> > > alienation or
> > > > > first indication of a possibility of) Parents perpetrating parental
> > > > > alienation should be treated no differently that drug addicts who
> > > repeatedly
> > > > > reoffend to feed a habit. and be placed in a rehabilitation program.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm. I can't say I agree, but I certainly respect your opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Just for the record, I wasn't suggesting that the children be
> > > > denied access to their mother, but they certainly shouldn't
> > > > be put into her custody for extended periods.
> > > >
> > > > The problem with parental alienation is that it is often not
> > > > detected until the damage is already done.
> > > >
> > > Too true but the same can be said for any form of child abuse.
> >
> > Exactly. And in cases of child abuse the children are rarely if ever
> > placed back into the custody of the abusing parent (although like
> > in all other areas of "Family" Law I'm sure women have a better
> > chance of this than men)
>
> Actually that is incorrect where the child abuse is such that it endangers
> the childs life yes the child is removed. However they do first attempt to
> rehabiltate the parent and the parent is still allowed supervised visitation
> and usually retains most parental rights.

Supervised visitation is not "shared custody"

What I said 2 posts back was this;

"Just for the record, I wasn't suggesting that the children be
denied access to their mother, but they certainly shouldn't
be put into her custody for extended periods."



> The children are usually placed
> into temporary foster care til rehabilitation is completed or it is
> determined that rehabilitation is not possible. CPS dont seem to
> discriminate between men and women as much as family law and CSA does.
> However from what I have seen fathers tend to be given less of a chance to
> prove suitability as a parent than mothers are. The Child abusers actually
> seem to be given more rights in regards to their children than NCP's. There
> are cases however where CPS have been known to exercise parental alienation.
> In the form of not allowing children contact to their parents. These are
> usually the CPS bungles that like to be sweeped under the rug.
>
> All of this is assuming that there is no other suitable living family
> members able to take care of the child. Although I have known children to be
> placed in foster care even with the existance of other suitable family
> members. (mind you they were also CPS bungles).
>
>

[glow]

"BrettG" > wrote in message
...
>
> "glow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Brettg" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "glow" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "BrettG" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "glow" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Brettg" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > <can.politics removed as it is reported as "unresolvable" by
my
> > > > server>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "glow" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "BrettG" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "glow" > wrote
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I say when it comes to these women with no respect for
the
> > law
> > > > or
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > family/friends to lock them up for an appropriate
duration
> > don't
> > > > let
> > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > hide behind their children. The children have a father
to
> > care
> > > > for
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > during their mothers incarceration.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why only during and not after?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Honestly after should be shared care as it should be from
the
> > start.
> > > > > > Quite
> > > > > > > > often the reasoning given to allow these women off is their
duty
> > to
> > > > care
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > their children. I am an advocate of rebuttable shared care.
I
> > didn't
> > > > > > mean to
> > > > > > > > imply otherwise if you thought that I in any way did.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Under normal circumstances I would agree, but in this
hypothetical
> > > > > > > case the woman has demonstrated a willingness to attempt to
damage
> > > > > > > her childrens relationship with their father for her own
selfish
> > and
> > > > > > > malicious reasons.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also those cases I told you werent hypothetical they actually
> > happened.
> > > > The
> > > > > > hypothetical was what happens if the law actually does what it
is
> > > > required
> > > > > > to do rather than allow these women off because they apparently
have
> > > > other
> > > > > > concerns.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see no reason to believe that she should be immediately
trusted
> > > > > > > on release to have an improved attitude in this regard.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Surely it would be in the "best interests of the child" that
it
> > not
> > > > > > > be placed back in such an environment again?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course not, however children should not be denied either of
their
> > > > parents
> > > > > > unless a situation cannot be resolved. To do so is simply
reversing
> > the
> > > > > > situation denying one parent then doing a back flip and denying
the
> > > > other.
> > > > > > In my opinion in such circumstances Psyciatric treatment should
> > occur
> > > > during
> > > > > > the incarceration.(more ideally at the first signs of parental
> > > > alienation or
> > > > > > first indication of a possibility of) Parents perpetrating
parental
> > > > > > alienation should be treated no differently that drug addicts
who
> > > > repeatedly
> > > > > > reoffend to feed a habit. and be placed in a rehabilitation
program.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmm. I can't say I agree, but I certainly respect your opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just for the record, I wasn't suggesting that the children be
> > > > > denied access to their mother, but they certainly shouldn't
> > > > > be put into her custody for extended periods.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with parental alienation is that it is often not
> > > > > detected until the damage is already done.
> > > > >
> > > > Too true but the same can be said for any form of child abuse.
> > >
> > > Exactly. And in cases of child abuse the children are rarely if ever
> > > placed back into the custody of the abusing parent (although like
> > > in all other areas of "Family" Law I'm sure women have a better
> > > chance of this than men)

I was making comment on your statement of rarely CPS is required to make
eventual return to parental care a priority. (even though in practice CPS
balls up on that count)

> >
> > Actually that is incorrect where the child abuse is such that it
endangers
> > the childs life yes the child is removed. However they do first attempt
to
> > rehabiltate the parent and the parent is still allowed supervised
visitation
> > and usually retains most parental rights.
>
> Supervised visitation is not "shared custody"
>
> What I said 2 posts back was this;
>
> "Just for the record, I wasn't suggesting that the children be
> denied access to their mother, but they certainly shouldn't
> be put into her custody for extended periods."

Yes you did and if the woman had undergone rehabilitation during
incarceration shared custody (or residency where I come from) would not be
an issue apparently now would it. In all forms of child abuse, The abuse is
less likely to happen the less time the child spends with the abuser, it is
also more likely to be discovered sooner if a reasonable portion of the
childs time is spent in the care of a secondary caregiver (shared care) And
is even less likely to occur at all since there is a greater chance of the
offender being discovered. People can debate til they are blue in the face
about the more chance of men or women being abusers. Trueth is it dosnt
matter if the custodial parent is black, white, hispanic, female, male,
young, old, educated, uneducated, religious, atheist, buddist, hetrosexual,
Bisexual, homosexual or otherwise. Any person when looking at the scope of
the world is capable of abusing their child or somebody elses. The answer to
stopping people abusing children is simply to stop having children, Which is
simply not practical. Therefore the answer to all child abuse lies in
prevention. Not allowing any one person total care and responsibility of a
child where able to do so. Having in place procedures to screen people for
the likelyhood of being abusers in situations where only one carer is
available and providing them with counselling and rehab.

If rebuttable shared care was a reality, accusations were to require proper
investigation within the family court, With proper penalties in place for
false accusation I greatly doubt that the situation listed in the initiating
article would have occured in the first place.

In the first instance if a likelyhood of abuse is found, if screening is
done properly, the abuse will merely be a possibility and not yet a reality.
Therefore shouldn't even require the relocation of the child during
rehabilitation.

>
>
>
> > The children are usually placed
> > into temporary foster care til rehabilitation is completed or it is
> > determined that rehabilitation is not possible. CPS dont seem to
> > discriminate between men and women as much as family law and CSA does.
> > However from what I have seen fathers tend to be given less of a chance
to
> > prove suitability as a parent than mothers are. The Child abusers
actually
> > seem to be given more rights in regards to their children than NCP's.
There
> > are cases however where CPS have been known to exercise parental
alienation.
> > In the form of not allowing children contact to their parents. These are
> > usually the CPS bungles that like to be sweeped under the rug.
> >
> > All of this is assuming that there is no other suitable living family
> > members able to take care of the child. Although I have known children
to be
> > placed in foster care even with the existance of other suitable family
> > members. (mind you they were also CPS bungles).
> >

Btw that above where the child is removed immediately is when it risks the
childs life. They also do so simply when procedure if enough complaints have
been received while they actually investigate the case. Perhaps CPS werent
the best example they seem to screw up even more than CS their own
procedures rarely followed.

> >
>
>

[Brettg]

"glow" > wrote in message
...


>
> Btw that above where the child is removed immediately is when it risks the
> childs life. They also do so simply when procedure if enough complaints have
> been received while they actually investigate the case. Perhaps CPS werent
> the best example they seem to screw up even more than CS their own
> procedures rarely followed.

You'll get no argument from me on THAT one. :-)