A Sydney, Australia family court has granted a never married UNNAMED DAD custody of his 6-year-old daughter despite evidence that she was forced to pose for child porn while on a previous visit at the father's home. The abuse was (presumably) limited to the father's girlfriend's brother.
In this case, the moronic Federal Magistrate, Robyn Sexton, ruled that "the girl was not at risk if she lived with her father" (?!?).
However, Sexton also admits that it wasn't known how the girl came to be "photographed in pornographic poses while in the father's care" or how the girl was "placed in this situation without the [presumed] knowledge of the father or his fiancee."
What the hell? How can you tell if the child is at continued risk if you can't answer those questions??? Are brains optional if you're a judge these days?
In addition, we have a clueless court whore who claims the mother is mentally ill (though the court whore admits she has no expertise in diagnosing mental illness) and that the mother is "manipulating" the girl to cry when she saw her father!
This is a variation on the "alienation" game where real evidence of abuse is ignored. We already know that the porn photography took place. It's not somebody's opinion or judgment. The photographs have a real physical existence!
But there is no "real" evidence of mental illness or manipulation--just the totally unqualified opinion of a scam artist.
This outrage is just ONE DAY after a judge in Hobart, Australia granted a registered sex offender dad unsupervised visitation of his two young daughters. Scroll down for articles on this case.
Concerned people need to wake up now! Australia has been at the forefront of fathers rights (a/k/a abuser rights) for years, and this is the direction the movement has headed us down. Real evidence is ignored, and bogus manufactured charges rule the day. Meanwhile, children's lives are destroyed.
Girl put with dad despite porn fear
By Caroline Overington
From: The Australian March 16, 2010 3:43AM
Girl abused by brother of father's girlfriend
She is ordered to live with her father
Family Court "exposing children to risk"
THE Family Court has ordered a six-year-old girl to live with her father, despite evidence she was forced to pose for pornographic photographs while staying with him on a contact visit.
The girl was abused, not by her father, but by the father's girlfriend's brother.
The court heard the brother, known only as Mr V, was born with hydrocephalus, meaning he has a larger-than-normal head and a damaged frontal lobe. He carries a camera everywhere, and takes photographs of everything.
It is not clear when, or how often, he had access to the six-year-old girl, but the court heard he was able to take at least three photographs of her.
In one photograph, the girl "appears to be kneeling on the floor, turning her head around to face the camera. Her underwear is pulled down to just below her bottom".
In the second photograph, the girl is "again kneeling down, her bottom facing toward the camera, her bottom exposed".
In the third, she is "standing up to face the camera. . .pulling down her underwear with her right index finger and her thumb, exposing her genitalia".
Mr V was arrested and charged with child pornography offences after handing in the film to be developed.
The case comes just a day after a Family Court judge in Hobart ordered two girls, aged eight and ten, to spend weekends with their sex offender father provided he put a door on their bedroom.
Federal magistrate Robyn Sexton, who presided over the case, which is known as Askis and Morikis, in Sydney, ruled that the girl was not at risk if she lived with the father.
But she acknowledged that "critical questions need urgent answers" including: "How did the girl come to be photographed in pornographic poses while in the father's care, and how did it come about that (the girl) was placed in this situation without the knowledge of the father or his fiancee?"
Ms Sexton then ordered the girl to live with her father, pending a full hearing in July, provided Mr V was banned from contact with the girl.
The girl has never lived with her father - her parents separated before she was born - but the magistrate accepted evidence from a court counsellor, who said the mother had been manipulating the girl by telling her to "cry when she sees her father".
The counsellor thought the mother might suffer from a mental illness, although she agreed she did not have the expertise to diagnose it.
In that case, Justice Robert Benjamin said the girls needed protection from their father overnight, but thought they could handle him unsupervised while awake, clothed and together.
Charles Pragnell, of the Council for Children Post-Separation, said the decision involving the six-year-old was "a classic example of how the Family Courts are ordering children into potentially abusive situations".
"Clearly the judge and the experts advising him know nothing about the behaviours of pedophiles," Mr Pragnell said.
More legal news at The Australian.