Bells
Staff member
A FAMILY Court judge has ordered an eight-year-old boy to live with his stripper mother, despite acknowledging her partner was one of Australia's worst child pornography addicts.
Justice Tim Carmody ruled the mother's partner, jailed in 2005 for amassing Australia's biggest collection of child pornography, was not a risk to the boy's safety because his "interest is in young girls, not boys".
The January 16 judgment has left the boy's grandparents, who had sought to continue their custody of him, distraught and fearing for his safety. It has also shocked Family Court lawyers.
Link
The Family Court, in Australia at least, has been attempting to wrong its paternalistic ways of the past for the last few years. Has it gone too far, when one considers the decision of Justice Carmody to grant custody to a mother, knowing her partner was recently released on bail for having amassed the country's biggest child pornography collection to date?
In the past, one tended to attempt to shield children from people who have such obsessions. Teachers found to possess child pornography would be fired and denied access to small children (as one example). So how can the court send a child to live with his mother, knowing that her partner was arrested for the crime of possession of child pornography? The excuse it seems has been that the partner was interested in watching little girls in sexual activities and not little boys.
Great comfort to the grandparents who had been caring for the boy for the past year. The mother is a stripper, a profession many turn their noses up at, but it should not impinge on her ability to be a parent. However, her choice in boyfriends should be something the court needs to take into consideration. Or one would think. The judge decided that it was and imposed certain conditions:
The problem here is that the Family Court has no way of monitoring that the mother never leaves the boy alone with her child pornography obsessed boyfriend. It appears as though Justice Carmody believed the boyfriend when he said he was remorseful and that he never molested a child in the past. It is a shame Justice Carmody did not read the boyfriend's trial judge comments about his obsession.The judge considered he posed no danger to the boy, but to make doubly sure the mother was not to live with him and when they were together the boy was never to be left alone with him.
Link
The parternal grandparents have voiced their concern, and quite rightly so it seems:"He had become addicted to looking at pornographic images of girls aged between 12 and 14, but despite subscribing to up to an astounding 350,000 images and 6400 videos, had never personally molested a child."
Justice Carmody added that the boyfriend was remorseful and did not "consider himself to be a pedophile".
However, the boyfriend's trial judge also said that each image represented the corruption and abuse of a child.
The man admitted to police that he had masturbated while viewing the images, which included images of girls under 14 performing sex acts.
Link
The grandparents were supported in their claim for temporary custody by European Union research presented by University of South Australia professor Freda Briggs, which found more than 70 per cent of men who downloaded child porn had already been a child abuser or would be so soon after.
Link
Now the only way the situation can be monitored to ensure that the child is never left alone with the boyfriend is if someone (eg the grandparents) catches them out and reports them to the Family Court. I have to agree with John Hirst when he states:
That way, according to Hirst, the boy can have regular contact with his father (who also lives in Hobart and is unable to care for him personally due to a mental illness) as well as his paternal grandparents (who have had custody of him this past year).At first sight this seems an ultra-careful judgment until you learn that the Family Court has no agency to monitor and enforce its rulings.
If the mother, hard pressed, leaves the boy with her partner, no one will know. The case would return to court only if the grandparents in Hobart heard that the judge's order had been breached and took action at their expense to have the custody arrangements reconsidered.
The court is being irresponsible when it makes these fine-grained decisions without the means to enforce them.
In the absence of that machinery it needs to make decisions that are clean, plain, unambiguous. In this case, the mother should have been told that until she convinced the court that the relationship with the child-pornography addict was at an end, the boy would remain in Hobart with his grandparents.
One way she could demonstrate that the relationship was over would be to leave Perth, where the man resides, and return to Melbourne, where she lived when the case was last considered.
Link
The mother, it seems is moving to Perth to be closer to her boyfriend, something even Justice Carmody has accepted as being the real reason. This is of course the boyfriend who is currently on bail for having been found to have the country's biggest child pornography collection.
Does this case highlight a downplay of child pornography? Or is this merely the Family Court attempting to curb to the feministic ideals after its paternalistic past? Should a parent's partner be taken into consideration when child custody decisions are being made?