Some common misconceptions people have:


The sad reality is that the Courts rarely get involved in enforcing child residence and contact orders for a variety of reasons which include:

-the child says they do not want to go to the other parent's;

-the resident parent alleges domestic violence by the non – resident parent;

-it would impact adversely on the resident parent because this may indirectly impact on the child's welfare;

-children are only a few years away from adulthood and thought to be best to make their own decisions;

-breaches are decided on the criminal standard of proof which is difficult to prosecute for evidential reasons.

Former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia Alastair Nicholson discusses some of the issues of enforcement of orders at a conference in London in 2002.

Some non resident parents spend years and huge sums of money to obtain a residence or contact order to find for all practical purposes the order is unenforceable.

Police rarely get involved in enforcing contact and residence issues.


The court can at any stage appoint a Legal Aid lawyer for the child. Rather than discourage you from litigating by asking for progress payments Legal Aid will wait till the proceedings have concluded. Legal Aid will then determine whether either or both parents will need to pay for their services usually on their assessment of capacity to pay.

You may also have to pay the other parent's legal costs.

Without legal representation you will lack legal education and skill, objectivity and experience the bias many judges have against self represented litigants.


There is an an old Danish proverb: “One goes to court with one lawsuit and comes home with two.” understates that when it comes to family law disputes there are unlimited things to argue about and each decision by the Court can take a couple of years “The judge’s decision is actually the starter’s pistol to the family’s odyssey of conflict.” (lawyer Sheldon (Shelly) Finman)


While Judges and lawyers are trained in legal matters, most have have NIL qualifications in psychology and social work and consequently are not qualified to make decisions on the welfare of children.

Judge Harvey Brownstone comments that Judges are, 'trained in the law by the way, not social work, not child psychology, we are not counsellors or therapists, to make a decision about children'.(2 minutes 14 seconds)

Some Judges do not want to make decisions about child custody because they know they will likely make a bad decision.

Judge Michael Scopelitis in the above video.

In some instances Judges do receive guidance from Psychologists in what are known as Family Reports however the professional Psychological organisation that governs Australian Psychologists have yet to agree on the issues and assessment process needed for custody evaluations. The Australian Psychological Association note that, ' There is little to no research that answers the question of what is in the best interest of the child'.

The determination of what time children should spend with each parent is very subjective and will depend very much on which Psychologist is chosen for the job.

The comments by lawyer Charlie Asher from the award winning Up To Parents program on the usefulness of child custody evaluations are very informative.

Harvard Psychiatrist Dr Steven Miller is passionate that many child custody evaluators are not properly qualified for the job.


You might be convinced that you will win custody for any number of reasons which could include:

-you know the other parent is neglectful of your children;

-the other parent physically disciplines the children;

-the Court understands women are the best parents;

-the other parent is a liar;

-the other parent is too lax on discipline;

-I have the best lawyer;

-I have many university degrees and the judge will realise that I am the best placed to educate our kids;

-I like sport and are good at sport and the judge will realise that I am best to foster our children's sporting needs;

-I am religious so the judge will realise I am the best person and therefore the best parent;

-the Court won't change the status quo;

-the child always tells everyone they want to live with me;

-I have evidence the other parent is poisoning the mind of the child against me and the Court will want to remove the child from the custody of a psychological abuser;

-Judge X likes joint custody;

-Judge Y likes sole custody;

-the other parent had an affair.

The simple reality is almost no-one can predict the outcome of child custody cases as the Judge who makes the decision has no training on what is in the child's best interests or any protocol to assist them. They make their decision entirely on their whim and selectively pick bits of information out of each parent's case to support their decision if they publish their decision in writing. No-one can ever see into their mind to see why they really made their decision. Most Judges leave an invitation for further litigation and some don't. Many judgements never get published and of those that do they only write up a small portion of the information about the case in the judgement. Many cases never make it to a final trial. Unlike other people Judges have no accountability for their actions.

Despite writings in many books on family law about the revulsion of a parent who would destroy the contact and relationship of a child with the other parent the Australian Family Court's long standing practice was to award sole custody to such a parent in cases where litigation dragged on for a long time. The Court has been loathe to publish any judgements that clearly articulated its secret policy until the 2009 case of FamCA 1251 of 2009 which showed that the Court will award custody to a parent who: psychologically abused a child, made many deliberate false allegations, actively sabotaged contact of the child with the other parent, will not teach the children the culture of the other parent and had even abandoned another child of theirs.

Off the record information from professionals with long history in family law indicates that if child custody litigation goes on for many years the Court has in the past ALWAYS awarded sole and exclusive custody to the toxic psychologically abusive parent. The indications are that over the last decade that some judges have begun to recognise the harm leaving a child with a psychological abuser and the Court will only award them sole custody in around 95 % of cases now.

A Family Court Judge is a decision maker:

-not educated to arrive at the best for your child;

-has no effective method to arrive at the best decision for your child;

-is not accountable for the decision;

-is not trained to give your family the therapy it needs;

-it is in the financial best interests of his/her profession to generate as much litigation as possible;

-could be swayed by professional friendships or bribery to make a decision.


Tragically too many children are murdered by a parent whilst family Court proceedings are on foot or shortly thereafter. The Coroner has already determined Family Court proceedings to be a causal factor from Family Court proceedings.

The Inquest into the deaths of Grace's two sisters and mother found:

'The evidence makes clear that parties to Family Court proceeding can be subjected to intense, ongoing stress. It is also clear that such stress, along with cannabis use, was a contributing, if not precipitating, factor of Ms Glendinning’s psychosis.' (paragraph 225)

The process can take a very long time and severely impacts on children. To quote from Psychologically Abused Child child Grace whose Aligned mother murdered her two sisters and then killed herself:

The Family Court of WA has been a part of my life as long as I can remember (she was 18 when she wrote this)

My overall experience of the Family Court has been one of immense negativity, distress and trauma.

Those who interviewed me always had an agenda outside of 'checking up' on how my sisters and I were feeling, both emotionally and physically. We just never knew whose agenda we were supposed to be serving in our interviews

Many repeatedly suggested scenarios that they believed to have happened (but never had) were put to us and pushed on us in the interviews in what felt like an endeavour to give certain answers to their questions. Sometimes in the end we agreed with whatever they were putting to use because we were tired and fed up of being there and just wanted to stop being asked those questions and get out.

Mum would show me the court documents and tell me all about the proceedings and would talk about how the Family Court was trying to take us away from her and go on rants about my father that would either involve her breaking chairs in the house or crying uncontrollably.

Mum never really worked full time as her days were consumed by the court battles.

Mum's family never felt approachable on the subject, and in the early stages of my life I rarely saw Dad's side of the family (which I did not understand then but now know it was because of Orders made by the family court?

When I did eventually see my Dad on a more regular basis I just didn't know how to raise it without getting Mum into trouble (an inaccurate belief but one that my 13 yo self held)

The current practice of sending a psychologist or social worker into the home of children for a few hours is flawed; children lie, withhold the truth, have been coached by a parent and have been led to believe they will not see a parent again if they told the truth, all of these are things that I have done, been told and accepted as truth throughout my childhood.

I did not have all of the facts, I did not have the situation explained to me in a truthful and unbiased way and no child should be asked to choose between their parents. I wish someone had explained to us why we never saw dad, explained that he did love us and wanted to see us but we never got that.

We were only ever told what mum wanted us to think of him and it was never positive and never unbiased.

Dragging and involving a child in long litigation will adversely impact their ACE's score and have a lifelong impact on their health.


In the above video, Family Court Judge Michael Scopelitis states among other things, '...the parent goes in claiming to be supporting the best interests of the child when in fact what they are trying to do is further their own agenda...the child is just a pawn....litigation destroys a families ability to work anything out together...'

Commencing Family Court proceedings provides a powerful incentive for one or both parents to behave in the most appalling ways which includes:

-Generating a smear campaign about the other parent that will soak into the brains of their children. A child is 50 % of each parent so any negativity about the other parent severely affects a child's feeling of self worth.

-Bribing the children with toys gifts and money.

-Spoiling the children by not making them do household chores, doing homework or going to bed on time.

-Using doctors to prescribe drugs harmful to the children such as ADHD medication as a tactical advantage in court.

-Concentrate on the negatives of the other parent by getting the children to write hate sheets about them.

-Coaching them to tell lies about the other parent.

-Playing one parent off against each other to get what they want.

Children who reside with one parent after divorce have double the suicide rate.

Children who reside with one parent after divorce score on average significantly worse on all the major social indicators such as involvement in crime, drugs, teen pregnancy and educational levels.


The issues surrounding divorce especially including financial issues between spouses make parents very anxious and often generates unfounded anxieties that the other parent is not careful with the safety of the child. Parents should remember that prior to divorce they were happy to entrust the other parent with the care of the child so they should not unnecessarily worry.

The father of Jessica and Jane had extreme concerns for the safety of his 2 daughters and sought the Family Court Of Western Australia to protect them. The Family Court ignored his concerns which were supported by evidence. Instead this protective father was sent to a men's behaviour change program on a suspicion he was violent based on his gender. While the Family Court training on violence is founded on gender ideology and lacks any academic rigour in psychology and the study of Intimate Partner Violence children will sadly continue to die.

The Inquest into the deaths of Grace's two sisters and mother found:

'The evidence makes clear that parties to Family Court proceeding can be subjected to intense, ongoing stress. It is also clear that such stress, along with cannabis use, was a contributing, if not precipitating, factor of Ms Glendinning’s psychosis.' (paragraph 225)


If parents are experiencing marital difficulties they need to agree to go to marriage counselling. If they are unable to resolve their differences try another counsellor. If that doesn't work try another counsellor. Give it time to see if you can work things out. If parents can't work things out they sometimes continue to live in the same house but apart from each other. If this doesn't work out the next best arrangement is for each parent to seek their own alternate accommodation elsewhere leaving the children in the family home. The parents then alternate equal time spent in the family home with the children. If parents have to live in separate houses they should think about living next door to each other.

If parents are not able to cooperate there is a very simple solution which removes the need for them to co-operate. This is the parent who currently has the children living in their own house returns the children to the other parent at say 6 pm on a Friday. This is known as week-about parenting. It is incredibly stable as there is little scope for gamesmanship because both have equal time and equal power. Attempts at gaining an extra day are futile because the parent deprived of time has the power to give themselves make up time. Disrupting the regular cycle may cause a Pathogenic Parent more grief in disrupting their cycle than any possible gain. Little can be gained without retaliation. Both have lots of time with the children and by default get to see them ½ of children's birthdays and other special occasions.

If negotiation is not successful for extra time on special occasions no big deal as the other parent will usually get to see the children in a couple of days, 7 at the most. There are minimal transfers for the amount of of time spent with the child. A changeover time can be selected that is not inconvenient to anyone. Pathogenic Parents get the learn that if they want some flexibility to suit them they have to cooperate rather than the family court sole custody model where the sole custody parent has the power to demand and receive whatever it is that they want. This teaches the children values of sharing and caring.

In cases of conflict this arrangement is likely the most stable arrangement possible.

See the website:

Alternatives such as one day a week involve double the child transfers and are more open for disputation. Even the standard 2 days a fortnight has the same number of transfers at a minimum however the children so often miss out on spending time with the non resident parent for special events such as birthdays that attempts for visitation for special events create extra opportunities for friction and disagreement.

Weekend access regimes are frequently unstable as the resident parent feels the non resident parents assertions to see the child as an interruption to theirs and the child's life. Events can frequently occur that result in much missed visitation till it reaches the point that visitation effectively ceases allowing the resident parent to flex their rights at what they see as ownership rights to the child. This allows the resident parent to their way of thinking 'get on with their life' without being bothered by the non resident parent.

The additional time a parent spends with the child to the exclusion of the other parent brings additional financial benefits of extra child support and government family payments. The resident parent then finds it easy to spin a story the other parent has lost interest in the child evoking much sympathy, some financial support and free babysitting by family and friends completely overlooking the child's need to have a relationship with the other parent and extended family.

From the above graph from the ABS it can be seen that for young children ie 0 to 4 that 56 % of them see both parents at least once per fortnight. For older teens ie 15 to 17 that slides to 35 % which is nearly half what it was when the children were young. Only 34 % of children 0 to 4 stayed overnight with their non custodial parent at least once per year. The percentage staying overnight at least once per year rises slightly to 36 % for children in the 15 to 17 age group.

The broad conclusions that can be drawn from the data is that fortnightly access arrangements lessen with time and that most non custodial parents in Australia are little more than a visitor to their children. More detailed and more recent data is not unfortunately available.

Dr Richard Warshak wrote a comprehensive review in 2017 titled 'Stemming the Tide of Misinformation:International Consensus on Shared Parenting and Overnighting' about shared parenting research and literature'. In this Review peer reviewed by 110 of his colleagues he cited Bauserman

who noted a meta-analysis reported better emotional, behavioural, and academic functioning for children in joint physical custody compared to children in sole custody, regardless of the level of conflict between parents.

Dr Warshak commented that rather than magnify harmful effects of parental conflict, several studies suggested that joint physical custody may protect children from some of the potential negative consequences of conflict.

If a child is resisting going from one parent to the other parent, the parents are required to conform to the 'Contingent Visitation Schedule' under the supervision of a psychologist accredited by Dr Craig Childress. This is at the expense of the favoured parent. The Psychologist is to be chosen by the rejected parent.

If a child will not go at all to the other parents house the child is to be assessed for Child Psychological Abuse by a psychologist accredited by Dr Craig Childress. This Psychologist has the power to cut contact of the child with the parent who is psychologically abusing the child for 90 day time blocks.

Parents to facilitate telephone contact of the child with the other parent.


Parents need to make decisions on major issues such as schooling, health, sports, hobbies etc. Rather than arguing among each other the issues are divided up evenly between parents to make decisions on. This process is known as parallel parenting.

A mediator is to be used to set up parallel parenting and deal with any disputes. Where difficulties are unable to be resolved the parents accept 'tossing a coin' is a much preferred option to further disputation.


Each parent agrees to pay for the upbringing of the children when they are with them and not claim Child Support.

If Centrelink mandates the collection of Child Support there may be exemptions for 'family violence'. The definition threshold of 'family violence' for most government departments is frequently trivial.

Emma Johnson on why you shouldn't accept child support.


Each parent collects Centrelink payments based on the time the child is with them.


Serious concerns are required to be reported to the Department of Child Protection. The child is to be placed in the care of relatives with minimal contact by each parent until DCP have completed their investigations.

'If I were appointed by the Court I would remove both of them for the care of the children until things were sorted out' Dr Phil


Each household is to have a sealed money box in a prominent position in the kitchen labled to support children of a nominated charity in a third world country. Every time a parent makes a derogatory comment about the other parent they must put a gold coin in that money box. Every time a parent confides in adult issues with the child they must put a gold coin in that money box. Every time a parent tells a lie they must put a gold coin or a note in that money box.

Every 3 months the money box is to be emptied and the child taken to the bank to deposit the money in the account of the charity. A copy of the deposit receipt is to be given to the other parent.

When communicating with each other, parents are to be civil and not make derogatory comments about each other. They are not to engage in smear campaigns about the other parent. They need to remember that if you are in a dispute with someone your idea of the 'truth' might come across to someone else as a malicious untruth.

Parents need to recognise the better they treat the other parent the happier it will make their child in the short and long term.


Divorcepizza fridge magnets are to be placed on the refrigerators at each household with each parent to explain the evidence and reasoning behind the strategies espoused by to; relatives, friends, school parents, school teachers, school psychologists, child doctors and clergy. The children are to offer the magnets to their friends at school.

Parents agree to have their names on the website of Children and Family Advocacy to show they support these principles of family advocacy.


Assets are to be totalled including superannuation and shared equally among the parents after allowing for initial contributions and any major amounts such as inheritance. If no agreement can be reached upon the value of assets they are to be sold to be divided.

Parents need to attend mediation if they have any difficulties. The 'pick a pile' method is a much better way of dividing photographs and other sensitive items than argument.


Each parent does everything they can to avoid engaging lawyers. Accredited Parenting Coordinators must be used before lawyers are engaged. Each parent has to pay for their own lawyer. Only Collaborative lawyers can be engaged.

Given the harm to children and families caused by the legal system each parent agrees as a deterrent they will immediately give as a donation to starving children in Africa $ 10 for every page of information created for the family law system.


The children are not to be left alone with anyone other than close biological family over the age of 16 and Government approved child care.

The children are not to be left alone until they are 16.

No live in boyfriends/girlfriends/partners or spouses for the parents.

(see )


Parents are not to move more than 3 km away from the other parent. The parent that moves away must pay all costs of transporting the children.

Schools must be as near as possible to the parent who did not move away.


Parents are to share the cost of communicating with each other and sharing child related information such as school and medical reports through software such as Our Family Wizzard.


Both parties agree that restraining orders are ineffective and inflammatory. If either parent takes out a restraining order against the other parent they must at their own expense remove the restraining order and take other preventative measures such as blocking phone calls or moving further away from the other if really necessary. The other parent is to cease contacting that parent except via means of an independent third party such as a Parenting Coordinator. Child transfers are to take place via a relative or in a public place with cameras such as MacDonalds.

Professor Patrick Parkinson has noted: 'While FVOs often played the protective role for which they were designed, they could also exacerbate conflict and make it harder to resolve parenting disputes.'

If a child takes out a restraining order against a parent then the child is to be immediately referred for an assessment of Child Psychological Abuse by a Psychologist accredited by Dr Craig Childress at the expense of the favoured parent. The Psychologist is to be chosen by the rejected parent.

Protective father Rod McCall went to collect his son after winning a child custody case only to find his son's mother had murdered Eryk after learning she had lost the custody case.


The rules of evidence that apply to Family Courts in Australia are complicated and are not ameniable to introducing credible journal articles and other learned sources of information into evidence to be taken account of in proceedings.


The rules of evidence that apply to Family Courts in Australia are complicated and are not ameniable to introducing this type of evidence to be taken account of in proceedings. Despite many people feeling this should be taken into account in every case it is doubtful Family Courts have ever taken this information into account. Family Courts weigh heavily on the opinions of experts which in reality could be very far removed from theoretical and factual evidence supporting the best long term interests of the child. These opinions could be filled with bias and will be lacking any scientific method. Dr Craig Childress has noted that using a monkey to throw darts at a board will likely produce as beneficial result as the current Family Court system in making a child custody determination.


Forcing a child to choose between parents is one of the most psychologically horrific things that can be done to a child as evidenced in the real life story told by Frank Abagnale in a Google Talk whose story was later made into the movie, 'Catch me If You Can'.


When you look at all the factors involved it would appear that anyone who would start court proceedings over their children must love them less than they hate their Ex !


If we could ever get an objective study of the outcomes of the Family Court cases 10 YEARS after they began it would look something like this:

4% father with sole custody and mother still fighting for very isolated access say once every 3 months or not at all

(children with severe psychological damage from Family Court lasting 10 years)

1 % father with sole custody and mother every second weekend access

(some psychological damage to children from Family Court lasting 3 years)

1 % joint custody

(children with some psychological damage from Family Court lasting 3 years)

90 % mother with sole custody and father still fighting for very isolated access say once every 3 months or not at all

(children with severe psychological damage from Family Court lasting 10 years)

4 % mother with sole custody father has every second weekend access

(some psychological damage to children from Family Court 3 lasting years)

Most non-residential parents would give up long before this loosing all contact with their children.

The impact on teenager and older children suicide rates of sole parenthood is to double it. These children have significantly increased incidence of other mortality events. Maybe 2 % of these children would have died.

The effect of the psychological damage has LIFETIME impacts on children's health see the studies on Adverse Childhood Experiences.

Maybe 0.05 % of children murdered by a parent or a parents's partner.

Maybe 10 % of these parents would have committed suicide leaving their child without one parent. Maybe 5 % of parents died from other increased mortality events such as heart attack.

Maybe 30 % of these parents have no chance of ever having a relationship with their children because the children believe the false memories planted into their minds about violence and sexual abuse that never happened.

Maybe 10 % of these parents spend time in prison for breaches of restraining orders or actually committing violent offences because they are so traumatised by what has happened.

Maybe 95 % of these parents are ruined financially for life so they cannot help their children later in life like they would like to.

The damage to other family members is also extremely significant. If you objectively weighed up the likely outcomes, Family Court is just not worth it. All it leads to is death and misery for children, parents and lots of other people.

For more information see: