Australian Politics Forum - Australian SHAME.

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36145
Gender: female

Re: Australian SHAME.
Reply #45 - Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:26pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:22pm:

cods wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:18pm:

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 6:49pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 12:54pm:

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 11:55am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 9:23am:

Everyone the mother turned too did nothing and allowed this boy to remain in danger and it is the mothers fault the father killed his son....Why would anyone bother going to authorities to be ignored....The mother was right and the father killed their son whilst authorities did SFA???

Angry

You need to read the whole article instead of focusing on the emotional click bait. The man had care of the child, the woman had a VRO in place for her and the child which would have seen him refused custody and access. She removed the VRO. Of course the agencies she was screaming to ignored her, she herself took away the only tool they could use. . Be a critical thinker and ask yourself questions.

The mother was right and the father killed their son whilst authorities did SFA???

Roll Eyes

The VRO would have ensured at least she got sole custody of the child and at the most he would have had supervised access. She removed the VRO. VRO's are not useless, it means if they are breached the police have the power to arrest the person named. The legal avenue that was given to her to gain sole access to her child was removed by herself.

have you ever read Rosey Bates story? perhaps you should.

Our shovel-wielding odd-toed ungulate (mistakenly) believes that a VRO has the ability to actually stop someone from doing something.

Even more astonishing, he seems to think they are required to be in existence for authorities to act.

Amazing.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Australian SHAME.
Reply #46 - Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:26pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:22pm:

cods wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:18pm:

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 6:49pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 12:54pm:

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 11:55am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 9:23am:

Everyone the mother turned too did nothing and allowed this boy to remain in danger and it is the mothers fault the father killed his son....Why would anyone bother going to authorities to be ignored....The mother was right and the father killed their son whilst authorities did SFA???

Angry

You need to read the whole article instead of focusing on the emotional click bait. The man had care of the child, the woman had a VRO in place for her and the child which would have seen him refused custody and access. She removed the VRO. Of course the agencies she was screaming to ignored her, she herself took away the only tool they could use. . Be a critical thinker and ask yourself questions.

The mother was right and the father killed their son whilst authorities did SFA???

Roll Eyes

The VRO would have ensured at least she got sole custody of the child and at the most he would have had supervised access. She removed the VRO. VRO's are not useless, it means if they are breached the police have the power to arrest the person named. The legal avenue that was given to her to gain sole access to her child was removed by herself.

have you ever read Rosey Bates story? perhaps you should.

Our shovel-wielding odd-toed ungulate (mistakenly) believes that a VRO has the ability to actually stop someone from doing something.

sadly as I have already said... so do a lot of women..

it it can and does in fact stir them into action....

rhino sadly believes they work...

but he doesnt take into account the type of man she and the boy were dealing with...and by the look of this case neither did any of the authorities.... Sad

I am sad beyond belief to be honest.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 145324
Gender: male

Re: Australian SHAME.
Reply #47 - Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:27pm

mothra wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:24pm:

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 6:49pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 12:54pm:

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 11:55am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 9:23am:

Everyone the mother turned too did nothing and allowed this boy to remain in danger and it is the mothers fault the father killed his son....Why would anyone bother going to authorities to be ignored....The mother was right and the father killed their son whilst authorities did SFA???

Angry

You need to read the whole article instead of focusing on the emotional click bait. The man had care of the child, the woman had a VRO in place for her and the child which would have seen him refused custody and access. She removed the VRO. Of course the agencies she was screaming to ignored her, she herself took away the only tool they could use. . Be a critical thinker and ask yourself questions.

The mother was right and the father killed their son whilst authorities did SFA???

Roll Eyes

The VRO would have ensured at least she got sole custody of the child and at the most he would have had supervised access. She removed the VRO. VRO's are not useless, it means if they are breached the police have the power to arrest the person named. The legal avenue that was given to her to gain sole access to her child was removed by herself.

Firstly, an AVO doen not determine whether or not sole custody is granted, nor whether visits are supervised.

All of that happens daily without AVOs.

Secondly, nobody said they were useless, just that they are not required for any agency to do it's job. They are, indeed, often known to be counterproductive and/or inflammatory. All cases should be individually determined at every stage.

You again talk almost completely out of your arse.

Indeed.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36145
Gender: female

Re: Australian SHAME.
Reply #48 - Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:32pm

cods wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:22pm:

cods wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:18pm:

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 6:49pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 12:54pm:

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 11:55am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 9:23am:

Everyone the mother turned too did nothing and allowed this boy to remain in danger and it is the mothers fault the father killed his son....Why would anyone bother going to authorities to be ignored....The mother was right and the father killed their son whilst authorities did SFA???

Angry

You need to read the whole article instead of focusing on the emotional click bait. The man had care of the child, the woman had a VRO in place for her and the child which would have seen him refused custody and access. She removed the VRO. Of course the agencies she was screaming to ignored her, she herself took away the only tool they could use. . Be a critical thinker and ask yourself questions.

The mother was right and the father killed their son whilst authorities did SFA???

Roll Eyes

The VRO would have ensured at least she got sole custody of the child and at the most he would have had supervised access. She removed the VRO. VRO's are not useless, it means if they are breached the police have the power to arrest the person named. The legal avenue that was given to her to gain sole access to her child was removed by herself.

have you ever read Rosey Bates story? perhaps you should.

Our shovel-wielding odd-toed ungulate (mistakenly) believes that a VRO has the ability to actually stop someone from doing something.

sadly as I have already said... so do a lot of women..

it it can and does in fact stir them into action....

rhino sadly believes they work...

but he doesnt take into account the type of man she and the boy were dealing with...and by the look of this case neither did any of the authorities.... Sad

I am sad beyond belief to be honest.

The sad fact is that most of these agencies are understaffed, under-resourced and overworked.

And (you're not going to like this Cods) the Coalition government have been slashing and burning for the better part of two decades.

Couple that with burnout of experienced workers leading to a relatively young work force (burn out for CPA workers is about 3 years), we simply do not have enough competent and discerning workers to handle the magnitude of the problem our society is facing.

And i sgree, it's enough to despair.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Jasin

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 53070
Gender: male

Re: Australian SHAME.
Reply #49 - Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:32pm

cods wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:22pm:

Jasin wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:17pm:

Now if she came to me for help and I had a professional position to make a difference.
I would not base my decision on the fact that she was a user.
That she had removed her restraining order.

I would look at her situation as a 'whole' and see the long list of her grievances and and efforts for help and see this as the 'true' nature of things in her case. I wouldn't fall back on a 'legality' of there being no 'restraining' order in place, when such a long list of 'evidence' is there before my eyes as to 'why' that boy should not go back to his father.

I blame the USA.

do you not think someone anyone should have had a word with the child? he was 9 someone should have had a lightbulb moment..and thought it worth while asking the boy what he would like to see happen...

why is that so hard?..

Cry

if you are going to use the removal of a VRO to blame the mother.....then you must look at the reason she removed it......

Ahh Cods. There might be a 'legality' of taking the child's opinion on the matter into account - what, with him being so young? Hell, I think the ART industry seems to be able to spot the crayon drawing the boy made of the evil spider with furry hands and the name 'Daddy' above. Somehow - things start moving very fast even if the kid did mean to right 'For Daddy' but just forgot the first word. Roll Eyes

You can break the law as long as their is a Professional other interpretation to represent the situation. Because the LAW is not absolute, nor...

Hell - what am I saying here peeps? Roll Eyes

Let's just take this tragic story by Cods into account that
"Doing Drugs is like getting away with Murder!"

Back to top

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.

IP Logged

rhino

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17179
Gender: male

Re: Australian SHAME.
Reply #50 - Sep 4^th, 2019 at 8:08pm

mothra wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 7:24pm:

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 6:49pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 12:54pm:

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 11:55am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 9:23am:

Everyone the mother turned too did nothing and allowed this boy to remain in danger and it is the mothers fault the father killed his son....Why would anyone bother going to authorities to be ignored....The mother was right and the father killed their son whilst authorities did SFA???

Angry

You need to read the whole article instead of focusing on the emotional click bait. The man had care of the child, the woman had a VRO in place for her and the child which would have seen him refused custody and access. She removed the VRO. Of course the agencies she was screaming to ignored her, she herself took away the only tool they could use. . Be a critical thinker and ask yourself questions.

The mother was right and the father killed their son whilst authorities did SFA???

Roll Eyes

The VRO would have ensured at least she got sole custody of the child and at the most he would have had supervised access. She removed the VRO. VRO's are not useless, it means if they are breached the police have the power to arrest the person named. The legal avenue that was given to her to gain sole access to her child was removed by herself.

Firstly, an AVO doen not determine whether or not sole custody is granted, nor whether visits are supervised.

All of that happens daily without AVOs.

A VRO with the childs name along with the applicants will by its nature deny access to the child effectively giving the mother sole access. Get it? It doesnt need to be a condition. The mother removed the VRO, theres no way round it thereby allowing access to the child. The article states it and I have seen no argument to refute that. Grin

Ive also seen plenty of VROs with access conditions amended, so Mothra, looks like you are busted talking out of your arse. Grin

Its amusing for you to tell me I dont know anything about this though, carry on.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36145
Gender: female

Re: Australian SHAME.
Reply #51 - Sep 4^th, 2019 at 8:14pm

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2019 at 8:08pm: