Not suprisingly, Judge Ryan is also one of those buttinsky judges who feel they have every right to meddle and micromanage how other women raise their children. Who is she to decide when a 5-year-old girl should feel comfortable doing overnight visits with her father, a dad she has never even lived with, given that she was born AFTER her parents separated? Even the shrinks in this case think it's stupid for overnights to proceed this quickly.
This is a case where there is credible evidence of domestic violence against the mother too, given that she was previously awarded an apprehended violence order which named the child as a protected person. All ignored. Since under Australia's ridiculous "shared" parenting laws, the mom is being forced to "encourage" a relationship between her daughter and her ex whether she thinks it's in the best interest of the child or not. And even when there is a past history of abuse.
And notice how fathers rights goes hand in hand with denying even the barebones appearance of due process when it comes to mothers. Mom's request for a delay pending her request to get legal representation: DENIED. Mom's request for translation assistance in court: DENIED.
It's just the usual fathers rights set up. Corruption? Check. No interest in the well being of children? Check. Indifference to a past history of violence and future child abuse? Check. Contempt for even the minimal legal rights of mothers? Check.
An open appeal to the people of Japan: this state of affairs is what the fathers rights movement now wants to introduce into Japan--one of the few countries left that still respects the mother-child bond. You've been forwarned.
Hat tip to Annie.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/judge-orders-that-fiveyearold-girl-must-sleep-over-at-fathers-home-20110110-19l87.html?from=smh_sb
Judge orders that five-year-old girl must sleep over at father's home
Geesche Jacobsen CRIME EDITOR
January 11, 2011
A JUDGE hearing a dispute over access to a five-year-old child has said the girl should no longer sleep in the same room as her mother or half-sister, so that she is better prepared to stay overnight with her father with whom she has never lived.
The Family Court ordered the girl have overnight visits to her father from January even though a family consultant said in October that she would not be confident ''for some considerable time'' to stay overnight. Another psychologist had recommended the child be given ''no less than two years'' to adjust to sleepovers at her father's home.
The mother, a Japanese migrant who cannot be named for legal reasons, says she has concerns for her daughter's wellbeing if she were to stay with her former husband overnight.
The couple were married for less than a year before they separated, and the girl was born after the separation.
Her mother, Ms K, said she was abused and was later awarded an apprehended violence order, which also named the child as a protected person. This has since expired. The law requires Ms K to encourage her daughter to visit the father despite her concerns.
When the orders were made in court, Ms K was not legally represented and had asked for the case to be adjourned pending her appeal for legal aid. She also said she had trouble following the proceedings because the court did not wait for her translator to translate what was said. A request for a friend to help her was denied at least once.
An application for a stay was rejected and she has been told it could take about 11 months for an appeal to be heard.
The girl has slept away from her mother's home only if either her mother or older half sister was with her, and at home sleeps in the same room as either of them.
Last month Justice Judith Ryan said steps ''should be taken within the mother's home … forthwith'' to progress the girl's ''emotional readiness for overnight time with the father''.
''The child is old enough to sleep independently from her mother and sister.''
But, in a complaint to the Chief Justice, Diana Bryant, Ms K accused the judge of bias and said: ''The living arrangements in my home are none of Justice Ryan's business; her instructions are an invasion of my privacy.''
Ms K says the father has failed to abide by earlier visiting arrangements. He disputes this and claims she has breached the arrangement and is failing to encourage their daughter to visit him. The court is yet to hear this dispute but has made interim orders for access.
When refusing the stay, Justice Ryan said she had ''reservations about the mother's bona fides and whether her appeal is merely a delay tactic''.
''There is hardship to [the father] and not insubstantial risk of harm to him and the child developing a meaningful relationship if the commencement of overnight time is further delayed.''
The child has recently refused to visit the father even during the day.
