Ex-wife lies about child sex abuse during custody battle. Although acquitted, husband loses kids, house and job while fighting allegations and decides to charge her for perjury. Ex-wife threatens to Kill Bill.

kloo2yoo · 2010-01-24T03:40:19+00:00

The Family Court judge found Bill's ex-wife to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children - but still gave her custody of the two girls, now aged 9 and 11, because they had become estranged from their father.

that makes a whole helluvalotta sense.

plumeria · 2010-01-24T02:46:46+00:00

[permanently deleted]

2010-01-24T02:04:00+00:00

Shouldn't the government be charging her with perjury? The article makes it appear like "Bill" is pushing the perjury charges too.

rmbarnes · 2010-01-24T13:53:47+00:00

The Family Court judge found Bill's ex-wife to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children - but still gave her custody of the two girls, now aged 9 and 11, because they had become estranged from their father.

Proof positive (as if any more where needed) that western family courts are fucked up.

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show about 2.5 million Australians are denied access to family because of family law proceedings, and about 680,000 fathers see their children as little as once a year.

What I don't understand is this: given the above figures, why aren't there riots? Why aren't mobs of angry men razing the family court buildings to the ground.

redditbannedmeagain · 2010-01-24T01:15:53+00:00

From /r/worldnews

plumeria · 2010-01-26T00:26:15+00:00

That is a terrifying allegation. Someone tried to black my father with that once. Which is so ridiculous when you consider how protective he was of me and my brothers.

Mooshiga · 2010-01-25T02:50:39+00:00

Summary: The court tried through 6 months of counseling to get the girls to accept their father. The efforts failed, the girls threaten to harm themselves if they are placed with father. An private party hired to evaluate the girls says he believes the younger girl is copying the older girl's behavior in regards to the threats, but that both vehemently and genuinely wish to live with their mother despite the counseling intervention. The court sees it as a tragedy. Mother has repented, and the court does not believe that the girls are in danger of continued emotional abuse from her. While Father did not do what Mother said he did, there was violence and upset when he lived in the home, and the girls remember this. Tragically, the relationship with father cannot be repaired and the court is left with Mother or no one. Court chooses Mother.

Oh also they're 12 and 10.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/206.html?query=%22laudable%20forbearance%20in%20the%20face%20of%20the%20most%20challenging%20circumstances%22

And here's the final order:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/1251.html?query=Wang%20Dennison

The children have met with the father on two occasions.

The children voice their determination to have no contact with their father.

Despite the intensive work undertaken, with the mother and children, [S] and [N], we do not consider that this resolution will soften.

The children appear to have no capacity to believe they can have a relationship with their father.

The children demonstrate a strong bond with the mother.

and

Like S, N’s negative views of her father were influenced by her recollections of family violence and conflict and her belief that the father is not supportive of her and her sister. She rejected the father’s explanations for the children’s negative memories of him, as well as his view that the mother influences them. Instead, she proposed that it was her father who attempted to influence their views of the mother. She stated that the mother ‘“doesn’t control us, even if she tries to make us go [to spend time with their father] we won’t go...”’ Largely, she holds her father responsible for the ongoing proceedings.

and

The father was dismissive of S’s threats to self-harm, viewing it as an example of the children ‘emulating their mother’s views and behaviour.’ In Mr A’s opinion, dismissal of these threats contains ‘the inherent risk that the threats are indeed a genuine reaction to the anger, frustration and uncertainty inherent in the children having been exposed to ongoing unresolved conflict in excess of four years

and

[S] and [N] will benefit significantly if their father was able to not only understand their experience, but was able to respect their views, albeit views that are different from his own firmly held views. If [the father] could offer [S] and [N] such an opportunity to allow them to experience a significant period of time where they are not exposed to the unresolved and persistent conflict, then potential for a future relationship is likely to remain. If, however, the children have [the father’s] solution imposed on them, regardless of how realistic such a proposal may be, there is a significant risk, given their respective ages, that not only will the girls begin to ‘act out’, but their academic skills will deteriorate and their anger and frustration about the current situation will compromise their capacity to meet important developmental milestones. In addition, there is the ever present spectre that [N] and [S] will engage their respective thoughts about harming themselves.

and

The strong views the children are evincing are not models of objectivity. However, I accept that they are views the children genuinely hold. It is not surprising that the children are clearly aligned with the mother who is their primary caregiver. They have lived exclusively in the mother’s care for the past four years. The intervention at Centacare was not successful in modifying the children’s alliance with the mother against the father. It is tragic that the exposure of the children to the parental conflict has created in them an emotional opposition to their father so vehement that it extends to threats of harming themselves if they were to be placed in his care. Nonetheless, that is the situation with which the court is currently faced.

Comments