It took months. Here's what's in it.

The core problem is simple. An allegation made early in a family law matter, before anyone tests it, can change who the kids live with overnight. That arrangement becomes the "status quo". The status quo then drives the parenting outcome AND the property split. By the time the allegation could be tested, it doesn't matter anymore. The money has moved.

So I proposed four things:

1. A "cry wolf" registry. A confidential portal where someone falsely accused can put their denial on record, dated, without having to tie up police DV resources proving nothing happened when nothing happened.
   

2.  Mandatory 50/50% custody and finances to stop the two fold incentivisation of false allegations in the given framework when custody is a proxy for financial division and secondly that it is NOT 50/50 one party is both incentivised to
   
   a) Make false allegations
   
   b) Delay settlement for as long as possible while their lifestyle is subsidised by the pool (nice to have 70% off credit card for 3 years if you can get it) and
   
   c) It encourages one party to use pool resources to pay legals (as it is in effect subsidised by the other party) when the other party pays legal fees out of settlement, meaning effectively one party mostly funds a prolonged war against himself in a proxy war for custody and finances, while dissipation of the pool is occurring, and where police and apparatus of the State are abused to benefit one party for personal financial gain. (at huge cost to the taxpayer)
   
   It is a war on multiple fronts that kneecaps most men… this is not justice. it is a multiple fronted war on justice.
   

3. Debts to family trusts should be heavily discounted, and the person claiming the debt should have to prove it's real. You can't ask the other side to prove something doesn't exist when it doesn’t exist.. It should be a reverse burden of truth

But here's the part I really struggle with.


Here is the REAL REAL problem- The system and the players themselves cannot be in charge of reform while they feast on it’s dysfunction.

Last year a NSW Local Court judge, Roger Clisdell, said from the bench that “tactical AVOs are common in family law.”

Someone who was in the court, not related, a third party, complained about his comments to the Judicial Commission, and the complaint was upheld by the NSW Judiciary headed by Justice Bell.
.
Of course the system cannot acknowledge its structural flaws while the system itself feasts on mostly male misery.

Children are being ripped from loving Dad’s under the pretence of false allegations as a proxy for custody and money and any judge who dares to speak out cops the wrath of The NSW Judiciary!

Let the billion dollar feast on injustice and mostly male misery continue.

He said what most lawyers in this space say privately. Anthony Williamson SC put it more bluntly to The Australian: "abuse of the system is widespread", with AVOs "dished out by the courts like confetti".

So how does a system reform itself when the people who name the problem get disciplined for it? And when lawyers, courts and the whole support industry are paid by the length of the conflict?

Janet Albrechtsen's piece "Unchecked and untouchable: the judicial watchdog answering to no one" is worth your time on this.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/unchecked-and-untouchable-the-judicial-watchdog-answering-to-no-one/news-story/a6b34197a37d8f68c1c26a74bce4fb2d

And lets then get started on the lopsided funding loop of the Australian Institute of Family studies  who seem to come from Lindsey Clancy’s jury pool..

How can $2.5 billion of funding go to one side of the story when the other sides data is completely excluded?

They operate on ‘reported’ data but in my paper I give 8 reasons why good men would NEVER use precious resources to defend that nothing happened when nothing happened.

 Men who experience abuse face seven structural barriers to Reporting:

1. Men are not financially incentivised to report — they are typically not the party seeking to restrict contact.

2. If there is no family violence from a man's perspective, why would he go to DV resources to defend himself?

3. Men will not divert frontline family violence police resources — those are for real victims.

4. There is no non-escalatory reporting path — the choice is silence or police involvement.

5. Reporting increases legal costs for both parties — Men are already getting family law bills, they do not want to expose themselves to criminal lawyers as well to defend a false claim.

6. Men do not expect to be believed — $2.5 billion of funding one directionally has reinforced that perception. (the funding loop)

7. Men will not risk the mother of their children being charged — the care burden transfers to them while they re establishing a new home and having to work to pay legal bills.

8. The social stigma of disclosure is prohibitive — you are shamed as a man for going to police-  compounded by all of the above.

   
   
   One party is incentivized to report and the other party is disincentivised and here is how $2.5Billion funding loop works.
   
   Malcolm Robers does a better expose on this here..
   
   https://youtu.be/L7Myk6a50Bk?si=SbOsnWzytJg0EKK9

Here is a website which tries to help with how the family court could do a better job separating leverage from risk in the family court and how the gap between the State resources and the Federal family court is being abused so openly seemingly with comlete disregard to the outcomes of injustice and male suicide as a result of going through this billion dollar grinding machine.

www.familylawintegrity.org

If you've been through it, you already know.