Do You Like This Story?
Tom Altobelli Incredibly personal letter from magistrate to custody kids

Magistrate Tom Altobelli

 

 

 

 

A Federal magistrate has written to two children involved in a custody battle and asked them to get in touch with their father, whom he denied custody.

Magistrate Tom Altobelli told the children, aged 11 and six, why the decision he made had affected him so much. He said even though the mother involved in the case suggested the father abused the children, he did not believe her.

The children, he said, should be allowed to read the letter when they turn 14.

“DEAR X and Y, AFTER your mum and dad separated they could not agree about where you were to live. You were 10 and 6 at the time.

As a judge it was my job to make this decision. I had a lot of help from the lawyer who was representing you, and each of your parents, as well as an expert child psychiatrist.

Even with all of this help it was a hard, sad case to decide. This letter is to try to explain my decision to you, even though you probably won’t read it for many years.

The most important thing I want to tell you is that both your mum and dad love you very much.

They loved you from the day you were born, love you now, and will love you for the rest of their lives. Just because your dad may not have been around for a while, it does not change that he loves you.

At the time I had to decide the case your mum believed in her heart that your dad hurt you.

My job is to look at all the information, and listen very carefully to what everybody says including the experts.

I decided that you had not been hurt by your dad. Even after I told your mum what I decided, I think she still believed in her heart that your dad had hurt you.

This just goes to show that sometimes words do not change a person’s heart.

At the time of the case both of you were saying things, and doing things, that told me you did not like your dad, and did not want to spend time with him.

I don’t think you really meant this. I think maybe you were picking up the things that mum was worried about.

I listened to what you were saying, but in the end the hard decision I had to make was not because of what you were saying or doing.

I told you this was a hard, sad case to decide.

I decided that even though your dad really wanted you to live with him, it was best that you lived with mum, even though this might mean moving away from where you lived at the time.

I knew your mum would look after you really well. I decided not to make your mum let you see your dad, even though your dad wanted this very much. I thought it would make things harder for you if I had done this.

By the time you read this letter I think you will be old enough to make up your own mind. I hope you will think about contacting your dad and getting to know him again.

There are people called counsellors who can help you with how you feel about this, and help you to make it happen.

Please remember that both your mum and dad love you very much, even if they love you in different ways.”

Not speaking directly to the children, Mr Altobelli went on to explain his reasons further:

“Despite the mother’s grossly distorted lens through which she views the father and the events that bring this matter to court, she is a more than adequate parent,” he said.

“Indeed that parenting capacity will most likely increase with relocation. Despite the father’s good intentions, optimism and courageous position in this case, I am far less satisfied about his capacity to parent these children on the facts of this case.”

It’s an extraordinary step for a judge to take, do you think he did the right thing?

View more posts on:

Comments

Comment Guidelines : Imagine you’re at a dinner party. Different opinions are welcome but keep it respectful or the host will show you the door. We have zero tolerance for any abuse of our writers, our editorial team or other commenters. So if you’re rude, mean-spirited, snarky, aggressive, defamatory or bitchy, your comment will be deleted (so will any replies to the original comment – so don’t bother arguing with rude people, instead just hit the ‘alert moderator’ button).
And if you’re offensive, you’ll be blacklisted and all your comments will go directly to spam. Remember what Fonzie was like? Cool. That’s how we’re going to be – cool. Have fun and thanks for adding to the conversation…

Use your profile to comment: Or, comment as a guest:
(Max file size is 150kb & jpeg's only - if you need help resizing go here »)

194 Comments so far

  1. Mal

    I do believe Judge Altobelli has made the right decision in attempting to set the record strait on behalf of the father, presumably he believes the children’s views are likely to be further distorted over the coming years by the views of their mother and he is doing his best to minimise that damage despite having to make the difficult decision about them not being a part of their fathers lives until they are older.

    I would also like to point out that after reading a number of the reply comments I believe many are missing some vital points throughout both the letter and further reasoning’s.

    At no point does the judge say or even imply that his reasons for the children not spending time with their father is due to their mothers “grosly distorted views” of their father, in fact he specifically address these in saying that “the hard decision I had to make was not because of what you were saying or doing” and “ I decided that you had not been hurt by your dad” He is extremely clear within his letter to the children that his decision is not due to the mother’s accusations. What he does say is that “Despite the fathers good intentions, optimism and courages position in this case I am far less satisfied about his capacity to parent these children”

    It is tremendously sad that these children will miss out on having a father despite him clearly loving them and wanting to be a part of their lives, but unfortunately just because he wants to be involved in their lives does not automatically mean it is in their best interest, we are not privy to the rest of the facts referred to but the last sentence about their fathers capacity and the fact that he is not being allowed any contact at all should have us seriously wondering what is not discussed.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  2. CT

    I, liked the letter he wrote, not sure that it will be as meaningful to a 14 year old. And I am not sure that the father would want to survive if he cannot see his children even though he did nothing wrong. How do we expect him to go on knowing he is not in the wrong but the mothers venom towards him denies his children him. Good on the judge, a tough and very sad decision was made and the consequences are not in my view acceptable although understandable. A real bummer for the children and for the system of our law.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  3. Danny Scheltgen

    seem when it comes to parents the children although loved by both false aligations , can destroy family and it becomes a bitter war for the courts to settel , amazing how many men become accused pediphiles after so many years of a loveing relationship , then parental alination and courts profit at the expence of family foster homes drugs and counceling for parents and children is the passifier for the family all for profit at the expence of the children who will become the future disfunctional family created by corruption the cycle continues and gov arkived records will be recovered and used against the children in the future if they have children

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  4. K's DAD

    I am currently before this judge fighting for custody of my daughter, he is an extremly inteligent man and has a very good attitude to the interests of a child. I take my hat off to him for going the extra mile and showing the compassion he has by writing to try and help/encorage these children, people forget that children feel every emotion felt by the parents and take it on themselves, half the time not even knowing why they feel how they do about either parent.

    what he has done here is a sincere, heartfelt attempt to help the children understand what led to his dificult decision, try to help them understand and encorage them to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, he has also encoraged them to seek professional help to deal with their aweful situation as children………. this is admirable.

    the main point tho in all these cases (not including proven abuse cases) is…………. IF AFTER THE BREAK UP OF A FAMILY, BOTH PARENTS WERE MATURE AND HAD THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THESE COURTS TO EXIST

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  5. kat

    i don’t know. does this report, the discussion serve anyone concerned by the judgement… really? divorce and custody stories are incredibly complex, personal and all of them are different.
    instinctively, i would always believe a woman who talks about abuse of children in any form through the father. the statistics are just kind of obvious, and my personal experiences only add to it.
    but in the end, these two parents.. i don’t know them. i should hope the judge is certain of his decision, otherwise it’s a bit like he writes the letter in case he was wrong.. mmh.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  6. Paul Baverstock

    Does this women come from Cootamundra!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  7. Paul Baverstock

    I to have been through a similar situation, but why should the children be denied there relationship with any parent both Women and Fathers (but more so by women) play this game in family law and should be delt with by the law. Only the children loose why should they be denied the love for so long just because one parent makes allegations against the other to bolster there own case for there own benifits.Wake up Courts you destroy the foundations of our growing future and tell future generation that this ok to do, what She done was abuse of a Childs mind.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  8. Anonymous

    Welcome to the new reality, where women are victims and men guilty even when proved the other way around. This is what the 15 year focus on the ‘exculsive victim status’ of women has delivered us. I hope the brotherhood starts to fight back one day, as this is a disgrace.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  9. Leo King

    This is in fact the true version hidden in the subtext of Magistrate Altobelli’s letter to these children. He should be removed from his office of magistrate and be tried as an accessory to the psychological abuse of these children! (It appears as though the moderators have deleted the letter I am referring to. Well, God bless censorship, the suppression of truth and the perpetuation of psychological abuse sanctioned by the Australian Family Court!!! Shame on you!)

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  10. Dennis Burnham

    Absolutely NOT. The judge is a coward. All he did was write a letter that may relieve his conscience because of the stupidity of his judicial ruling.

    What is best for the children is not what might go on the evening of the decision or a few days afterward. Where they live is insignificant compared to the denial of a relationship with a parent. This judge’s decision only served to legitimize the PA behavior of one parent vs. the other.

    Expecting the children to reach out to their father years from now after they have had no relationship in the interim is like expecting pigs to learn to sing because there is a radio in the barn.

    Custody decisions are not the same as property settlements. Unlike a yacht or a house or an investment portfolio, children grow up day by day, year by year, and this judge has condemned the children to grow up disadvantaged by the removal of their father from their lives. You can’t turn the clock back, or unscramble eggs. You can’t give back to the father the years he will miss raising his children and helping them grow up responsibly.

    A well-respected child psychologist once told me, when my son was 2 years old, that I should wait a few years before making efforts to see him when his mother was using “breast-feeding” as the excuse to deny visitation. He is now 27 years old and we have no contact at all. He was taught from infancy that his father is unnecessary at best; at worst a threat to his safety and happiness.

    This judge should be scolded, not congratulated. Shame on him!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  11. Guest

    My step children hate their mothers defacto, are upset every week when they leave us, then come back angry due to the way they are treated when they are there.
    Luckily we have not had to go to court for someone else to make the decision about where the children have to live, but the lies, treatment & emotional blackmail that are heaped upon them at their mothers to guilt them into staying with her is cruel. But she’s their Mum & has a ‘right’ to access.
    She is so busy going on about her rights & her happiness she wouldn’t have a clue what makes her children happy or unhappy.
    In 3 years since I have live here, each of the children, individually have chosen to spend weeks at a time with us, because they have become fed up with the treatment from their mother & her partner. At that point the lies, blackmail, bribery & false promises go into full swing & it’s heartbreaking to see them broken by her persistence.
    Some parents do not deserve access, being a parent is not a right, but a privilege.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  12. Evelina Belle

    I have no idea about the benefit or otherwise of this letter but god, what a heart wrenching situation for everyone involved. I would absolutely love to hear journalist/ author Caroline Overington’s views on this case…I have just finished her book Matilda is Missing which seriously has some uncanny parallels with this.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  13. Claudia Grant

    I have long wanted to see the records from my parents custody dispute. I chose not to ask my parents for these records as one parents has a habit of selectively presenting information, and because I wanted to keep it private.
    This post inspired me to contact the court – I had not thought of seeing the records through them.

    They were very prompt in getting back to me, however I am not considered a ‘party’ to the case – my parents are. I can ask to see the records but there is no guarantee, no right to. I have a better chance if I apply with my parents support.

    Why is this? The case was about me. I am not asking to see spousal support or other divorce issues. I want to see the custody case that was about ME. My future was decided. My life was changed. I suffered. How on earth am I not considered a party? How come I have no rights to see how my life was decided. I do not want my parents to know I am doing this, I want to read the records with privacy and deal with them in my own time. I am furious to discover I am consider nothing in the scheme of things.

    How nice this magistrate wrote this letter. I would love to find a letter from the magistrate in my case. But what is the point of it if the kids may never even gain access??

    http://www.claudiagrant.wordpress.com

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  14. Amandarose

    I can see how this could happen- a severly mentally il person may not be a safe father but still be a loving one.
    I guess he didn’t want the mum telling the kids dad did not love them and he was a bad person when he clearly loved them even if he couldn’t parent them.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  15. An Idle Dad

    Is it fair on the Dad? Nope. Is it the best thing for the kids? Yes.

    That’s all that matters.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • AdVader

      quality of life, best interest of children, blah blah, fakefun&feelgood-terrorism, you’re so wrong idle ..

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  16. AdVader

    .. he knew mum would look after the children really well, NOT!
    void ab initio,
    the world upside down, an insane reality.
    a parent cannot ‘abduct/kidnap’ his/her own child though expert-parasites systematically made it like that ..
    the divorcing parent is unfit and has to be removed from child(ren)&family at once, to reunite asap after being deprogrammed&healed e.g. from femini$$m.
    divorce is child abuse and parent-family alienation to begin with. fatherless-defathered households are no families and children&fathers are made as broken&incomplete, harmed&damaged4life in their being.
    divorce is systemic violation of human rights on normal familylife, therefore divorced children are being discriminated, tortured and justice has been obstructed,
    UNjust laws-privileges-legislations have falsified our system, made with lipservices in backchambers, btw it seems half of the ‘scientists’ are claiming atheism and thus aren’t worth the title ..
    it started with the pill which also dehumanizes&polluted our environment, femini$$m-samesex-atheism are pseudologic lies and have corrupted-perverted everything&everyone, severe mindillnesses infecting hearts&minds
    defund defathering, defund planned parenthood, stop the filthy dirty gender-sex-war on children&fathers, hetero’s and normal families!
    equality is a lie, we the sheeple against equal rights, we the sheeple for natural parenthood and normal families!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • kateinlondon

      uuuuuummmmmmmmm ok.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • An Idle Dad

      File this comment under “I have done my cause no favours”.

      I’d normally ask for clarification on the stance suggested but seriously…

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • AdVader

        @idle dad, how narcistic, children belong to grow up at home with both biological parents (hetero’s), you’re wrong.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • An Idle Dad

          I assume you are thinking that you’re somehow making some kind of argument.

          I’m an Atheist dad, with a religious wife. I’m a feminist and so is my wife. I believe in equal marriage and have no problem with gay (GLBT) couples marrying or raising kids. I believe single mothers need support and women should control their reproductive organs and I’ve even had a late term abortion.

          All your horrors wrapped into a single person! My life should be a mess, right?

          Yet I’ve got four wonderful kids, a great wife and awesome sex life. I go fishing with my kids, bush walks and we’ve even started camping in the backyard in preparation for weekends spent hiking in the local national parks. My wife is currently a stay at home mum, mostly because childcare for my three kids is too expensive to make her returning to work make sense, and not because I’m the kind of guy that just thinks thats how it should be.

          Yup, pretty much everything you want is in my hands.

          Have you considered it’s not feminism, or atheism or gays that are the cause behind your divorce and inability to associate with your children? And that the problem is just that you’re a deluded arsehole?

          After all, what kind of Dad suggest that wives seeking divorce should be removed by authorities and ‘deprogramed for feminism’ before being returned to the family unit? Not one that should be let near daughters, that’s for sure.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • impressed

            Now THAT is a post which highlights the immense value of fathers. Congratulations on the beautiful life you’ve created for yourself and your family.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • AdVader

              @impressed , you may twist&spin what you want, trying to behave smart to devalue fathers ..

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
          • Jared

            Aye, congratulations. And I suppose you’d be happy to give it all up and never see your kids if some magistrate declared it in their best interests? Because your wife, through no fault of your own created so much contention at having to interact with you at all that the magistrate “decided not to make your mum let you see your dad.”?

            That would be in their best interest?

            Feminism is an ideology with only one eye open, so it’s little wonder that you can’t see the loaded gun your wife has been given with which to legally destroy your life and that of your children.
            Hey, I’m sure she’s a good person and will probably never fire it, right? But why should she have it in the first place. For the good of the children…?

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • An Idle Dad

              I’d be horrified if that happened! See, all Dads have a natural sympathy to your cause, except you’re all stark raving loonies.

              If the approach was “it could be better”, you’d get a lot of support. But you instant go off on these conspiracy threads.

              Let’s say I agree (and I don’t) that my wife has a gun. I’d be happy for her to have it to protect her and all women from the likes of the Stepford loving AdVader.

              Feminism isn’t perfect. There’s plenty of feminists I disagree with and a few man-haters to boot. I’d take them all over the likes of someone who thinks divorce should be illegal.

              Men’s rights? Please, you’re just upset you lost.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Jared

              Conspiracy theories? Please, AdVader is an obvious nutter, but from your own admission feminism has its own share of those.

              You want women to have that gun because you don’t believe that they’d ever use it for ill. But there are as many female AdVaders as there are male. You don’t care because you think the only thing lost is “men’s rights”? But, the real losers, as always, are the children.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Jared

              Oh, and all of them, Idle Dad? You sure about that?

              http://radicalhub.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/

              Now mind you read all the comments too! :)

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • An Idle Dad

              In this specific case, the judge said even though the mum didn’t act honourably, he had doubts the Dad could parent the children adequately.

              Don’t try to dress up your ‘Dad first’ policy as ‘children first’. It just isn’t.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • An Idle Dad

              That link is hilarious. Its how I imagine your meetings, with genders reversed.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
          • AdVader

            @idle , though you may feel&think what you want but that doesn’t change anything about truth, btw i just say it as it is. children belong to grow up at home with both biological parents (hetero’s), children&fathers aren’t meant for sic&selfish ‘choices’.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • An Idle Dad

              Let’s just agree that you aren’t interested in solving an issue, but more sitting around a garage blaming ‘dem uppity biarchs’ for your failed life.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
          • Relish

            @idle you are my new hero. Except of course for my own husband who is an exceptional father to his three daughters, is also a feminist, and I am a SAHM because he is supportive of my choice to parent. The man adores his children and is perfectly capable of caring for them as well as I can, he can just earn more so it makes sense for him to work. Anyway, I thank you for your considered and articulate comments, I always enjoy reading them. And I have to agree that these kind of ramblings do not help the cause – I fully support fathers rights as I believe they are equal parents, I just wish their interest groups would make more reasoned and eloquent arguments so they are heard and not dismissed as nutters.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
    • Amandarose

      This guy sounds a bit unstable – Maybe remove this article for his own good.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • AdVader

        of course YOU may feel-think-experince WHATEVR you want, meanwhile divorce-separation remains child abuse ..

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Diamond

      Can anyone advise me about spiderman and batman being here, relevance???? Perhaps advader is unwell and some offer of support would be appropriate???

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • AdVader

        you’re wrong, also about me, i’m okay thnx

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  17. Tanya

    I think it’s a very sad day in the history of the Family Law Court, particularly for father’s who love their children and wish to continue to be a parent to them following the breakdown of a marriage – and an atrocious empowerment to the mother as the residential/custodial parent in manipulating the system by making a false accusation against her former partner.

    In my opinion, despite whatever differences you have with a former partner, you loved them enough to have children with them at one point, you should be adult enough to allow your child to have their other parent in their life.

    In the early 80′s as a child I went through the family law system as my parents took each other backwards and forwards to FLC. Re the lawyers who made earlier comments (as well as others) – my parents separated when I was 18 months old and divorced a year later and were still at each other when I was in primary school, as a result my brother and I had numerous sessions with the Senior Counsellor at the Head Office of the FLC both together, individually, with our parents + step-parents, parents individually etc … the grand determination this ‘Senior Counsellor’ arrived at and which she put inher report was that at the age of 18 months I was responsible for emotionally manipulating my parents and as a result of that, my 6mth old brother (at that time) and I played our parents against each other and that’s why they divorced – at 18 months of age I was a truestarin her eyes! So for those of you who are working in the system and say that everyone in it has the best interests of the child at heart, that’s bullshit and I have the report from 30 years ago when I was 9 years old to confirm it. I have never forgotten this so-falled Senior Counsellor’s name or what she said to me that day in the FLC office.

    Fast-forward to the last 15 years – my brother has a 16yo daughter, he loved her mother, she left him when she was 3 months pregnant with his child for another man. My niece’s mother told everyone my brother wasn’t the father – he instigated the DNA tests as he wanted to be a father to his daughter – finally when she was 2.5yrs he got to see her for the first time (but only because she wanted to have another baby). When my niece was 3.5yrs and her mother eventually realised that she wouldn’t get another baby from my brother, despite court orders for every second weekend access and shared Easter/Christmas/Birthdays, the mother blatantly defied that (no accountability for her re FLC!) and no contact for my brother or our family for another 1.5yrs. Back to court my brother goes and $30,000 later and she gets ordered to allow my brother to see his child. And for the next 4 years, despite court orders of half school holidays, every second weekend and each alternate Christmas it doesn’t happen, my brother had a never-ending battle of whenever the whim would suit the mother (never mind her proven drug use and revolving-door of defacto partners whilst she’s also receiving Parenting Payment Single and her 6 defactos were working full time).

    When my niece was 9, my brother was stabbed at work and he subsequently had depression and PTSD. My niece’s mother took it upon herself to have my brother’s parental rights revoked in court as she stated he was suicidal (he was living with me at this time) – which he wasn’t – traumatised and upset definitely, but not suicidal (and I work with people who are at-risk of suicide, so I do know what I’m talking about). My brother had 4 psychologist reports (3 court nominated and one he had been seeing on a weekly basis following the stabbing and specialised in Victims of Crime) and all 4 reports stated that my brother had been a ‘victim’ of assault and concluded he wasn’t suicidal – so purely based onmy niece’s mother’s testimony at court and nothing else, my brother’s parental rights were revoked on that basis. She finally finally won. This was 6 years ago. Aside from us running into her at the local shops, none of our family has been allowed to see her because of her mother’s controlling and manipulative nature.

    August 2010 my niece ran away from her mother’s and showed up on my Mum’s doorstep asking to stay – and she stayed living with my Mum for 18 months. My niece told us about what her mother would do in making her ‘practice’ answering potential questions after school each day when she was 9-10yo about my brother, which she knew then and now to be totally false, but she was too afraid of her mother to say otherwise.

    Yes, my brother was offered by the FLC to have supervised visits through Interrelate to re-establish contact with his daughter, but being on Sickness Allowance following the stabbing, at $250 a week he couldn’t afford the cost of it ($30 per page admin fee for a report to be typed, $120 fee per visit – minimum 12 consecutively each week for a psychologist to be present at each supervised contact, $100 per hour room hire fee at Interrelate’s premises and all other associated costs … what he’d receive in Sickness Allowance payments each fortnight wasn’t even the amount required to pay for this, let alone usual living costs) – he sold his car to pay for the first few but that wasn’t enough according to the magistrate.

    If this magistrate thinks a letter for 5+ years down the track will mean anything – perhaps it might – but it does nothing to alleviate the heartache, grief and loss he has imposed upon this father, these children, the members of the father’s family and their friends, all of whom have been denied the right to be a parent and family to these children.

    Sadly my brother never got the opportunity to reconnect with his daughter as he passed away due to other health circumstances, shortly before my niece arrived on my mother’s doorstep searching for her father. We weren’t even allowed to notify her of her father’s passing – she found out the day she came looking for him.

    Has the magistrate even considered the possibility that the time factor involved may never occur and the future impact of that upon these children??? … that they may not get the opportunity in the future to have a relationship with their father (or he with them) as unfortunately illnesses occur, car accidents happen and other circumstances in which the children/father passes away, or that their mother continues inher beliefs and they grow up with that belief as well and want nothing to do with him?

    A sad sad day and this magistrate shouldn’t be applauded for his actions … instead he should think of the many many years thousands of tears that will be shed by this father and his other family members and the injustice of this decision

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Louisec

      What a terrible, terrible story. I’m really pleased that you have told it as this is just one example, a shocking one, of where the system fails the fathers.

      No one should be allowed to prevent a father having regular access with their children. Surely these trained, experienced professionals in the family law system can establish whether a parent is a abusive or whether the person claiming this is lying?

      Sadly some parents are going to be vitriolic and do terrible things usually in retribution for said hurts in the relationship. It is going to occur.

      What your family and your brother went through is just horrific and so unnecessary. And I see similar, but not as bad, situations with good fathers who are only allowed to see their children one day a week or not at all.

      There needs to be a rational mens group which lobbies for this this. But it seems that the ones which currently exist are quite extreme. I could be wrong about this. But something is desperately needed.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  18. Tribo

    It’s not possible to see what is behind this sole information but looking only to what is written down from him it’s sounds assuming.

    The mother is a liar, a criminal liar. The false accuses can bring a man to jail (and in the lowest ranking of all criminals there) so she has to go herself. At this, why can he give the kids to the mother? The only reason, on family courts woman have immunity on her crimes, Why? She had to go to jail for her false accuse. Btw. court strategic child abuse by exploiting the own kids is the second crime.

    The whole letter is a lame excuse for what he has done to the father, in believe something is best for the kids he never ever in his bureaucratic fashion is able to know (except maybe he is the next materialization of gods son on earth). The decision sound coward too, only lies from the ex-partner, but he will secure himself to be claimed for a wrong decision. But what do know? Cases around me (germany) are very similar, so there is an evidence that the letter writer is only a self-righteous paper pusher. The letter to the public is an indicator too. Usesless for the kids and conscience driven by the impossible intention they can correct his decision at the age of 14. Except exculpation is see no evidence to do so.

    Things go there way after in as i see around me. Clever man say sorry for the kids i probably never see again, but i m not willing to be the teller machine for a criminal liar who reach her goals regardless of this. And leave to a country where the social community is not poisoned in this way

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Faybian

      The more you wrote, the less sense you made. You could have just stuck with, “I think this judge was wrong”….

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  19. Jane

    I dont know if he did the right or wrong thing – especially in publishing his letter – but I think it is very comforting to know that there are SOME Judges who do take their jobs very seriously, and to heart, and have an understanding that they are dealing with people’s lives!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  20. EG

    Magistrate Altobelli should reopen the case if he is honest about what he wrote in the letter. He should right the wrongdoing for those children. Can he publish the procedures that alienated parents should follow to reopen the case?
    Sign and share the petition in the link below
    http://www.change.org/petitions/ask-united-nations-to-recognize-parental-alienation-as-violence-and-abuse-against-children

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  21. Paul

    The family courts industry is corrupt beyond reforms,as the ministry of justice suggested,it needs a Re-do.
    90% of the cases end up with the sole custody of the mother,while the father still responsible for supporting the family.
    this is another case and I am disgusted to read the disingenuous comments,why did he write the letter?!
    mothers are responsible for 80% of false allegations,that will grant them the sole custody of the children immediately and for months,there are shelf’s of books written on the corruption of the family courts,the Canadian ministry of justices suggested a re-do,and I still read these lies about the fairness of the system.

    some people are shameless liars

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Sydgel

      Hi Paul, do you know what the figures are? It would be so interesting to look into this and find out what they are.

      As sad and terribly unfair as this situation is, maybe it will do some good with the bias against fathers being properly reviewed. I really hope so.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  22. Essie

    I don’t know if he made the right decision in the case, however I think he had no right to publish this. It’s nobody else’s business!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • gemack

      He may have been under an obligation to, the decisions in the family court are published (though names are usually removed).

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Sydgel

        Absolutely not! This very personal letter should never been made public.

        It is completely different to a court ruling which yes is made public. There was no requirement to make it public.

        Wrong wrong wrong.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  23. nananana

    Well this has people talking, however the FM’s motivations worry me. Why did he publish this? That is my only comment.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Shannon

      The child psych who was expert witness in the case supported the mother getting full custody, but acknowledged the possibility that it may be years until the children see their father again. He noted that most children, at some point in their lives, decide to seek out their estranged parents.

      The psych recommended the magistrate write a letter to the children, explaining the decision and encouraging them to seek contact with their father, so that contact with their father may happen sooner rather than later.

      Family law decisions are published, but the names of the children are removed. So since this decision is published on the Federal Court website, the letter that was also part of it and prefaces the judgment is also published.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Guest

        That is not correct – I work in family law and there was no requirement for the letter to be made public.

        No one is criticising the letter being written – we all understand the background. It is the publishing of the letter that is wrong.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  24. Peter E

    Having been through family courts I think this is typical of an father being screwed by the mother. Mothers only have to mention child abuse and it’s all over for the dad unless he can prove his innocents.
    The child psychiatrists said they were satisfied these children had not been abused by their father. The Magistrate says he don’t believe the mother but still sides with her. This is a gutless cop out by this magistrate. It’s well past time mothers who make unsubstantiated claims were charged and faced criminal prosecution.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • lm

      U read the letter. Did u read the facts of the case? Doubt it. That letter is a tiny aspect of the matter and I highly doubt it came about until the FM had finally decided following no doubt days of evidence.

      I am so sick and tired of people saying dads get it bad- the Act is focused on the best interests of the child, its not simply a matter if one party alleging abuse and its all over. Plus the FM in this case does not make these decisions lightly, in fact its extremely difficult to get a no contact order in front of him (or any other FM) even when you think you have mountains of evidence to back you up.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Peter E

        Yes I read the letter. Obviously your on the opposing side. The magistrate said he DID NOT believe the kids had been abused. There for in my opinion the father deserves to see his kids. I am pretty sick to death of women like your self with you owe woe is me attitude.
        Where in this decision is the best outcome for the kids? This man sounds like a doting dad who loves his kids and these people drag them from his life with no more than a clairvoyants words. NO PROOF. You try having kids ripped out of your life and see how you like it. I lost mine for the best part of ten years. Missed a lot of growing up because of idiots and decisions like this.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Shannon

          The letter does not explain well why the magistrate found it was in the best interests of the kids not to see their father at this time. For that explanation, you should read the reasons for judgment, which have been published on the court website. that may provide more clarity for you.

          Although I agree that this is horrible for the father, this course of action was recommended by an independent child psych and independent children’s lawyer. This decision was about the children, not the parents.

          Incidentally, counsel for the mother, father, children and the independent child psych were all men…I doubt they were intentionally playing to some pro-woman agenda.

          That said, I’m very sorry that you’ve endured a hugely negative experience at the hands of the court system. I agree that fathers’ interests are thought by many to be inferior to a mother’s, and that attitude needs to shift.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Z

            My father got custody of me as an eight year old despite my mother alleging sexual abuse ( untrue ) so in my experience I don’t think the court system is biased towards women.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Shannon

              My apologies, I did not mean to suggest the system is necessarily favourable to women for no other reason than they are women, as I do not believe it is. When I said ‘thought by many’ I meant people generally.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
  25. Sydney Gal

    Having been through the family court process, I have every faith this judge made the right decision for the children. The court moves heaven and earth to make sure fathers have a relationship with their kids – even if the kids don’t want it. For this judge to decide the father has no contact – there is obviously a lot he is not going into. He’s not going to spell it out in a letter to the kids, but read between the lines. It’s not simply because of a hostile relationship between the mum and dad – there are thousands of those cases. There are other factors we are not privy to. I think it’s an awesome letter. Good for him. I hope he gets to hear my custody case.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Haven Maven

      Bravo. Agree wholeheartedly.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  26. Craig

    I think this Magistrate is courageous, he is saying what many want to say, that being they decide based on Law even if they don’t agree, & his conscious forced him to follow up.
    He tempers it with regard to the Children’s welfare.
    This Gillard Govt and it’s changes to legislation are hurting Children more than ever, and I hope more magistrates speak out !

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Shannon

      It wasn’t that he didn’t agree with the laws, if that is what you are suggesting. It was just that he believed that what would be “just” (i.e. the ideal outcome of applying the law) would not be what was in the best interests of the children. So he recognised that the order he made was perhaps contrary to notions of justice, as it denied the father involvement with the kids, but based on all the evidence that order was in the best interests of the children.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  27. LK

    I remember hearing once that in family law:

    “Parents think they have rights but what they really have are responsibilities. Children have rights.”

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  28. Shannon

    Hey MM team, slight tech issue. I use an Android phone, but I use the regular theme to view the site as the mobile theme doesn’t distinguish who is replying to whom and the comment threads are therefore confusing.

    I’ve not had issues in the past, but now I can only ‘like’ someone’s comment if no one else has. All the others appear as though I have already liked them when I haven’t.

    Not a biggie, of course, but if ever someone is bored and wants something to fix…

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Shannon

      Also, I have the same “liking” problem using Firefox on my computer, it seems.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • maisy

        I’m having the same problem on Firefox. Sometimes I’m able to like a comment on a comment, but not the original comment.

        Hope you can fix it – and thanks in advance!

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Rose

          Opposite for me – I have never had this “like’ problem on Firefox, but I have just switched to Google Chrome, and now I can’t ‘like’ anymore.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
      • Lulu

        I’m having the same problem – I haven’t looked at this thread since some time yesterday, but already a whole lot of comments are showing up ‘liked’, as if I had clicked on ‘like’.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Lil

      I have the same problem and it drives me nuts

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  29. Marg

    Forget the Fathers/Mothers rights, what ever happened to “it is in the childrens best interests to be loved and cared for by BOTH parents”? I thought that was Law. Not to mention a basic right of the children. I think the Magistrate got it wrong in his decision. If there was PROOF of harm, then its a different story. This poor Father may as well have been incarcerated.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Shannon

      That it is in the children’s best interests to be cared for by both parents is merely a presumption that can be rebutted with evidence to the contrary, I believe.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • MissMin

      Shannon’s right. the judge has even said to the kids, even though he knows both parents love them, I think he was indicating that the hostility of the mother to the father would not be healthy for the kids to experience. It comes at the cost of the father seeing the kids (very sad for the father), but in the judges view (and he’s also a parent) the children will be better off without that conflict.
      This is also why he’s hoping the children will contact their father when they’re perhaps able to make up their own mind about their dad, rather than regurgitating whatever hurt their mother is saying.

      Having read loads of cases on this, the judges really do ultimately consider the welfare of the children and give much more weight to that than they do to the parent’s concerns, however concocted (or legitimate) they are.

      He also added in his judgment (not the letter) that while the mother’s view was “grossly distorted”, he still felt she was more capable of looking after the kids. There were other factors that must have suggested to the judge that the father was not in as good a position to look after the.

      So to remove the children from the conflict and toxic name-calling etc, one of the parents had to go. And he felt, despite the mother’s distorted view, that she was more capable here of providing the kids with what they need.

      Personally, I find it reassuring that the judge was able to look past the bitter/hurtful view the mother had (and the attitude she was clearly giving to her children to parrot away as well), and still consider her an excellent parent.

      I do feel very sorry for the father though, and sincerely hope the children decide to get in contact with him when they are old enough to understand what has happened.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • freetoclaire

      Sometimes, even with no proof of harm, it is not in the best interests of the children to be involved with both their parents.
      Sometimes it is not so much a right to know both parents, but a burden that a court puts on that child purely because there is no proof of a law being broken by one of those parents.
      I dont know if that was the case in this instance, just that thought comes to mind every time someone mentions that it is “automatically” in the child’s best interests to know both parents, purely because they are biologically related.
      And Im not saying this just in regards to fathers, either. Sometimes its the mother the children should not have to see.
      I personally think its wrong that the kids knowing both parents is a given these days. It should be decided on a case by case basis, not a general law saying “if you cant give us physical proof, we assume its best for the kids”. There isnt always physical proof of these things. Unforunately, people turn it into a debate about downtrodden fathers getting the raw deal or mothers being made to give up their babies….its not always as black and white as that. I think this judge took that into account in his decision – its not always black and white, and sometimes even though there is no physical proof, it can still be evident that the kids are better off with one parent than the other.

      By the way, these comments werent necessarily directed at you, just thoughts that were brought to mind by things you said.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • lm

      S60CC of the Act. Many factors to consider

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  30. adam p

    I read this letter from this judge he is very very couragious in the fact that he published this letter i’m sure that this is not just because of this case but a culimination of many cases where he has torn himself apart making a decision.

    From my perspective where a family court decision meant that me and my sister are in a loving single parent family with a wonderful mother and lots of friends and family around to support us it did indeed end up to be the best outcome for us.

    However the fact that this guy has being denied any access whatsoever not even an hour to talk to his children in a welfare office once a week or similar arrangement rings huge alarm bells. I have no idea of the ins and outs of this case however bring my experience into my father i later found out years later is/was a nasty piece of work not least to my mother which lead her for her own sanity to leave the house with me in the middle of the night. Considering all this whilst he was in the country (he lives in America afaik) he got custody and in the end weekend custody once appropriate accomodation was found for him. I did talk to him via phone internet etc years after he left the country but for the best for our family i no longer contact him.

    It does make me wonder what did go on and make me wonder if contacting him is a good idea.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  31. Loop

    Wow. No, I don’t believe he did the right thing.

    To completely deny the father access because he had less capacity to be a good parent seems like an overreaction to me.

    If the judge believes he didn’t abuse the children, why completely deny him access?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • hmmm

      “reduced capacity” could be a euphermism for a whole lot of things that could make it very difficult for the parent to parent his children- drug and alcohol addiction, mental health issues, inability to work/ provide the necessities of life such as housing, education, medical care, inability to communicate with the mother without severe conflict etc we can’t tell what other factors influenced the FM’s decision. Most parents love their children- it doesn’t alway garantee the capacity to parent them.

      FM altobeli clearly felt it was important that dispite the orders that allow the mother to move away from the father (which I gather is the reason the father can no longer see them) they needed to know that his abiliy to parent did not reflect his love for his children.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • MissMin

      I don’t think it’s about denying the father access – I think it’s about keeping the kids away from the toxic relationship between the mother and their dad.

      One of the parents had to go to keep the kids safe from that – very sadly, it’s the father – but presumably the judge (who is a parent) weighed up both individuals and their circumstances, and decided, despite her horrible attitude/deluded view, that the mother was in a better position to care for them.

      Personally, I find it reassuring that the judge was able to look past this woman’s ‘deluded’ view of the father, and see that without him in the picture distorting her view/attitude, she is still a capable and loving parent.

      Very sad for the father though, and I hope he is able to see his kids when they’re old enough to understand and make up their own minds about his character.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  32. Sydgel

    Seeing as the Judge stated that he did not believe the mothers claim that the father abused the children – should he not have allowed visitation? If any doubt then he could have ordered someone else to be present during the visitation.

    To prevent these children from seeing their father until their 14 is shocking and wrong.

    I see so often men having horrendous problems seeing their children. MOst commonly because the mother is hurt and vindictive.

    Fathers are forced to spend so much money, 100k or more, on lawyers just to be able to see their children. It’s so unfair. Maybe the men have had an affair or left the wife or some awful deed. But that should not matter.

    Fathers should not be stopped from fair visitation with their children. And one day a week is not enough either.

    I absolutely know we have to be extremely cautious and men who have assaulted their partners or abused their children, should never have access.

    But why should good fathers, good men, be prevented from seeing their children? Isn’t this best for the children? Shouldn’t that be the primary issue?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  33. Peter

    Seems incredible that the father can’t see the children. The quote “Despite the father’s good intentions, optimism and courageous position in this case, I am far less satisfied about his capacity to parent these children on the facts of this case.” – has echoes of the “stolen generation” where aboriginals were judged to be unfit parents of their own children. I would love to know why the father’s capacity to care for children was deemed insufficient and why did the judge in this case did not have the balls to address this in the letter.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Anony

      Bet you that he will still be paying child support though.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Sydgel

        Yes he will. I maintain that this was a very wrong decision.

        But child support should never be seen or used as a battle issue. They are your children and you as a parent are responsible for their care and costs of such.

        People who argue about paying child care should rethink this, surely they want their children to be looked after properly. Even when the other parent gets a new partner, they are not their children.

        They are your children and you should be happy to pay for their accommodation, food, education, clothes etc.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Anony

          Agreed that children need to be cared for financially regardless of residence. Got to keep in mind, that the other parent (if they have any residence orders) also has to provide such when the children are in their care. So non-custodials are really paying twice. And depending on residence ratios, probably not recieving any Family Assistance at all.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • sydgel

            yes of course, the costs must be shared. When one parent, usually the father, is ordered to pay amounts unfair then of course it’s going to become very vitriolic.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
          • Anon

            Non custodials don’t actually pay twice. Child support is calculated on the number of nights that you have the children in your care. For instance if the non custodial parent has the children between 52-128 nights of the year, that is deemed as ‘regular’ care and therefore they pay child support for the nights that they don’t have them, ie a non custodial parent who has the children for 53 nights of the year is deemed to have the children for 25% of the time and therefore pays child support for the other 75% of the time.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Haven Maven

              As was mentioned to us during our custody case – its not like the custodial parent can rent out the children’s bedroom or turn off the fridge or gas or water when the children are with the other parent.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
    • Faybian

      No one knows why the judge deemed the father to have “less capacity to parent”. We weren’t there and don’t know the parents. Don’t assume it was a middle class, well educated family that was divorcing. For all we know the judge was being extremely polite about the parents. Would you have really preferred it if he put in something like “I know your fathers had a serious drug problem for the last 5 years, buthe does really love you both”?Before you condemn me for that comment, remember its just an example. I’d say the judge had to be a model of discretion with that letter.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Peter

        I take on board your comment that we don’t really know the full facts of the matter. Regardless however I believe the children involved in this case, if the judge sees fit to write such a letter, deserve some sort of specific explanation as to why their father was given no access. This will be the critical number one question on the children’s minds as they grow older. The mother’s explanation will be distorted. It is an injustice to the children not to be given a proper explanation. As it stands the letter is mainly “waffle”. I hope the letter we are seeing is an edited version, the children as they grow older deserve to know the details.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • ladybird73

          they can contact their dad and ask him

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Peter

            The judge who made the decision should have the balls to properly state the reasons why it was determined that the father had insufficient capacity to care for the children if he chooses to write such a letter. Both the mother’s and father’s view of the situation is likely to be distorted and after all it is the court’s decision and not the decision of either of the parents!

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Shannon

              The letter is to be given to the children by their therapist, who will know of the judgment and reasons for it, and explain the letter to them in that context. It’s not like the children are just going to be handed the letter and everything will be left at that.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
  34. Anon

    I worked as an associate to a FM for some time. You couldn’t pay me all the money in the world to be an FM (or a Family Court Judge).
    They make the best decision they can, in impossible circumstances. There is never a ‘winner’. Not the mother, nor the father, and especially not the children. People always point their finger at the FM. If parents would put their children before their own selfishness, there wouldn’t even be a need for FM’s
    I think it is a wonderful letter. I hope one day it will give solace to the children when they need it most. To me it highlights the weight these decisions have on FM’s every day.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  35. anon88

    Unless you have actually experienced the family court system you would not understand that the magistrate only makes a final decision after usually many attempts by both parties legal teams to come to an agreement. This would not have been a decision he made lightly and without knowing the full circumstances which we don’t I am sure he had his reasons for making the decision he did.
    It is quite rare for any parent to loose total access to their children even after abusive behaviour so it makes you wonder what the family history was.
    Family court is there for people who cannot agree on the best interest of their children but really ends up being in most cases a power struggle between to adults who no longer like each other with kids stuck in the middle.
    A decision must be made by someone, what a big responsibility for a stranger to make.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  36. Bee

    And they wonder why Family Law Court Magistrates get blown up! Imagine if your children are taken away from you tomorrow and you don’t get any contact with them….. And you did nothing wrong…..and then the Child Support Agency will fine you every week for the next 10 years….

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Laura

      As a Family Lawyer I feel I must respond to this – children do not get ‘taken away’ from a parent who has done ‘nothing wrong’. As ‘Not Punishing’ notes below, this matter would only have come before the Magistrate after a very long process of mediations between the parties, negotiations between lawyers and consideration by experts. Note how the Magistrate talks about the children having been represented by their own lawyer and there being evidence by an expert child psychiatrist. Remember that the overriding principle of the Family Court is ‘what is in the best interests of the child/ren?’. I think we should be reassured by this insight into the effort, thought and consideration that this Magistrate has put into this important matter. The parents would have been given EVERY opportunity to work this out for themselves and obviously could not communicate about their children.
      And might I add, the Child Support Agency does not ‘fine’ you – it was established on the basis that all parents should be responsible for the great expense it takes to raise a child – whether they live with them or not. I find it sad that anyone would want to deprive their own children of this support.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Sydgel

        But the judge stated he did not believe the father had harmed the children. Surely then he should not prevent this father from some form of visitation, even supervised, with the children?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Anonymous

          In some situations any contact could make the situation harder, it’s what is best for the children over-all.. And less about what each patent deserves.. Sadly dad will miss out for a bit, but judge has left it in children’s hand when they are old enough to decide, and as stated the decision wasn’t made lightly

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Sydgel

            It can not possibly be good for the children to have no physical contact with their father for many years.

            The judge stated he did not believe the father had harmed the children – he did not believe the mothers claims.

            And “Dad will miss out a bit” that is a massive understatement!

            Further it’s the children who are going to miss out a lot. Access to their loving father who has not harmed them.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
      • Jared

        It takes two to tango, huh Laura? Shame on you for trying to justify this travisty, shame on your entire damn proffession. He has lost his children to their mother’s dellusions, not his failure to “work it out”.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Laura

          I would hesitate to offer opinions about any matter without being privy to the entire details of the case. I think we would all be well served to do the same. Demonising the legal system and those who work within it achieves nothing. There must, of course, be so much more to this case than what has been made public. This is an extreme decision – I think the point that is that in no way was it made lightly.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • MissMin

            Hear hear! Unless you read the case and hear the evidence, you cannot possibly make an informed decision.
            So many people willing to criticise the legal system, yet not one person has come with a better system to date!

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
          • Jared

            Criticism is the only way we will ever see reform.
            In his letter he makes it clear that the mother has traumatised the children “I don’t think you really meant this. I think maybe you were picking up the things that mum was worried about.” And would continue to do so if their father was given an access. His judgement endorces her actions. Whether the decision was light or heavy the outcome is imoral.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Natski

              The father may not have harmed the children, but there must be a myriad of other, very compelling reasons why it was better for the children to cease contact with him.

              We must remember, the mandate of the Family Court is to decide what is in the ‘best interests of the child’. That is what the magistrate has done.

              Judgments are about making a decision on the individual facts. Laura is correct – until we have the full complement of information, it is difficult to come to any sort of conclusion.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Jared

              Natski, the mother’s dellusions have already harmed the children in a meaningful and lasting way. Emotional abuse is real abuse and she has poisoned their minds. The Judge’s own letter shows that. She is demonstrably unfit. Placing children in the sole care of such a person can never be in their best interests.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Sydgel

              I’m trying to reply to Natski’s comment but ther’es no reply option on her post – so ….

              Judges make mistakes, just because he is a judge doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong.

              I think he made two major mistakes. Firstly to make public that personal letter and secondly to deprive the father his rights to see his children.

              “We must remember, the mandate of the Family Court is to decide what is in the ‘best interests of the child’. That is what the magistrate has done.”

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
      • lm

        Bee, do u know all the details of this matter? are people criticizing this over a simplistic letter the FM wrote to CHILDREN? It does not ho through the facts of the case, or explain why the no contact order is in the best interests of the child. I Completely agree with u Laura – I’m also a family lawyer and am over seeing the simplistic arguments out up by people who have no idea how the system ultimately works

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Natski

          Jared, I will reiterate my comment above. The reasons behind a custody decision are mulitfactorial and we CANNOT decide what is right or wrong when we have next to no facts.

          Bearing in mind the last statement made by the judge in reference to the father,”I am far less satisfied about his capacity to parent these children”, what was the judge to do? Are you able to offer an alternative solution?

          Contrast that with what was said about the mother: “Despite the mother’s grossly distorted lens through which she views the father and the events that bring this matter to court, she is a more than adequate parent.” You are drawing an inference from that statement which may not necessarily be correct.

          Im, I’m with you on this one. Unless you have experience with the family court system and know how the system works, it is very difficult for anyone to comment on the validity of a judgment.

          You will also note that Laura and Im are family lawyers – neither have commented on the content of the judgment because it is impossible to do so without ALL the facts.

          It was the TOTALITY of the facts which gave custody to the mother.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Jared

            “Are you able to offer an alternative solution?”

            Yes.

            If the father is so incapable of looking after them, then, if such a person exists, give primary care to a willing member of the extended family, with visitation, supervised in the case of the mother based on her demonstrated capacity to engage in allienating behaviour, and probably supervised for the father based on whatever has made him unsuitable in the first place. If such a relative does not exist, then foster care with the same.

            This judgement is manifestly wrong because someone who engages in parental alientation CANNOT be a fit parent. He has given them into the care of an abuser and to avoid subjecting the children of the trauma she would inflict on them every time she interacted with their Dad he has stripped them of any foil their father’s involvment in their lives may have provided.

            This was not a choice between a well meaning but unfit father and an adequate mother with regrettable tendencies, it was a choice between the former and an abuser.

            Parental allienation is abuse, and all we need to know about this case to realise that it has been screwed up is that full and unmitigated custody has been given to an abuser.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Faybian

              Are you serious??? Removing the children from either parent completely???? The foster care system is overloaded as it is and how do you pick whichever family member is more suitable???

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Jared

              Ah yes, I see, not having to make a complicated decision is an excellent reason for costing these children one of their parents. What was I thinking…

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
  37. Not punishing

    Deciding for no contact isn’t about punishing the father for having done wrong. It is because the evidence is really strong that when there is massive conflict between the parents, the kids suffer if they continue to be in the middle. Forcing shared custody puts the parents interests above the children’s. The judge had to decide whether to put the kids in care (worst option) or between two less than ideal parents. It sounds like he is letting the kids know the decision doesn’t mean their dad is a bad person. He is making sure they know their dad loved them. And remember recovering drug addicts are often loving, optimistic, courageous people.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • must agree

      great explanation and yes sometimes one of the parents has to be removed from the picture to save the children from living in a horrific conflictive atmosphere

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Sydgel

      But shared custody was not the only option. He could have allowed the father one day a week visitation which was supervised.

      This father should not be kept from his children. The judge believed that he’d done nothing wrong.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Tania

        My impression from reading was that it was a relocation rather than a custody decision and therefore assume that the relocation would make a one day a week visitation next to impossible.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Sydgel

          Ok thanks. But why should the mother be allowed to relocate the children and hence deprive the father of his rights to see and have a relationship with his children.

          It should not be allowed.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
    • Jared

      Yup, so just roll over and give the emotional abusers what they want, cause if you don’t they’ll make sure the children suffer. Your reasoning is rancid and only serves to enable the traumatisation of children.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  38. Jen

    I can’t help but feel the magistrate is writing this letter to make himself feel better about the very difficult decision that he had to make. I understand why he did it, but it sounds like he just didn’t want to be the bad guy in this very sad mess of a situation.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Anonymous

      Or wanted to give the children a chance to understand the real untarnished story.. So they could choose once they are old enough. It does sound like it was a tough decision for him, and sounds more like attempting to do the right thing by the family as a whole, outside the court process..

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  39. littleone

    Just out of interest, how did MM get a copy of this letter?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Cait

      It seems like the letter has made it to many of the major news outlets in Australia, so I’d say they picked up the story from those outlets…

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Sydgel

      The judge put the letter online – which I find incredible. What was he thinking?

      It was extremely personal and should have been kept as such. Seems to me he wanted some media notoriety – well he got that. maybe that’s a good thing though as this issue is so serious and now public are well and truly talking about it.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  40. Jason

    Great to see a Magistrate showing to the public that they do “get it” when it comes to Families. Its a shame that a Magistrate would go against his/her own better belief on the whim of unsubstantiated claims. I really fear that due to the recent ammendments to the Family Law act, we will be reading more and more of these stories. I hope Ms Gillard,Ms Roxon and Ms Macklin would take the time to do the same for the next stolen generation.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  41. Urban Worrier

    This week new laws have been enacted widening the definition of domestic violence to include acts such as “emotional manipulation” and “preventing someone from having contact with family and friends”. In light of this magistrate’s assertion that the mother’s own abuse allegations were unbelievable, it raises serious questions about whether in this case the court has ordered that the children should remain in the sole care of the abusive parent. If that is the case, and these children are subjected to emotional manipulation interfering with their ability to enjoy a meaningful relationship with their father, this letter has the potential to become a timebomb ticking away in these children’s lives. What will they make of it when they read this letter at age 14… and re-read it as they continue to grow, mature and reflect on their life and background?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Jason

      I believe that Parental Alienation should be included in the new definition of Domestic Violence. It is a severe form of child abuse.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Urban Worrier

        It would be interesting to read the Magistrate’s letter to the Father, setting out in precise terms why he considers him to be unfit to care for the children that he loves.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Faybian

          and also unethical/not actually allowed.
          Would you want to see your personal story splashed across the papers? I think not.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Sydgel

            Faybian, do you mean the reasons for the father not having access would be unethical?

            I think the publishing of the letter was extremely unethical and plain wrong.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
      • anon

        At face value yes, but there are circumstances that make parental alienation not so black and white.
        If I was separated and my ex was living with someone who I didnt feel appropriate for my children to be exposed to and he refused to acknowledge that I would do everything in my power to keep my children away from that situation. I know couples who have split and the husband has gone from the family home to his new girlfriends house. One week living at home with the family, the next week living with another woman. Under the circumstances I think mum is perfectly justified to be upset about this and want to keep the kids away. There is only so much children should be exposed to, especially when theyre still coming to terms with the break-up of their family. When a child is alienated from a parent, usually a father, the mother isnt always the devil here. Sometimes the father is so preoccupied with his new love interest he cant see that its not appropriate for his children to be witness to the new loved up arrangement.
        I think people need to be mindful of what they expose their children to when a marriage breaks up. And withholding access to the children, while hideous, can often be the only power left for a woman to have her voice heard.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Jason

          Anon, any type of parental alienation is abuse. There is no grey area. Children should not be used as “pawns” just because 1 parent disagrees with the other. Id assume that “disagreement” would be the reason for most family breakdowns in the first place. I agree that parents MUST consider the environment that the children are in regardless of whether it be the family home or the exs home. Fathers, believe it or not, are “family” and to suggest that the fathers, or mothers home for that matter, is not a “family” home is erroneous. As this story shows, a womans voice is just as equal in the Courts view, as it should be. There is no justification for parental alienation, thats why the Family Court will always be overflowing. And its set to get worse…..

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • anon

            Absolutely Jason, children should not be treated as pawns. But that really only works when the parents continue to both treat their children as the number 1 priority. And in a divorce situation I think that is really rare. I’m sure we all know someone whose parenting skills went out the window upon leaving their marriage and meeting a new partner? I can count a few. What is the custodial parent to do under those circumstances? Hand the children over for the weekend to their other parent who is only interested in their new boyfriend/girlfriend and who leaves the kids to watch TV while they have sex in the next room? I know 2 people whose ex husbands, previously wonderful adoring fathers who do exactly that. I would keep my kids away from that situation too, as I’m sure you would. Sometimes parental alienation is preventing child abuse.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
        • Anon II

          Anon, you have exactly described my situation exactly!!

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
      • nik

        Yes Jason. I have some experience with PAS and clearly this is what the judge above was talking about. It’s a heartbreaking situation. My husband has been through a similar ordeal and now that his child is 18 she has realised how much her mother turned her against him and has come to rekindle her relationship with him. She has apologized for making false accusations but as a child felt she was under pressure to do so from her mother. He is one of the lucky ones whose child has some maturity to see the situation for what it was.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Jason

          I am happy that things have turned out ok for your husband Nik, problem is, you can never get that lost time back and neither can the children.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • Sydgel

          this happens all too often. You can’t get this time, years, back.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
      • Sydgel

        Absolutely agree.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  42. anon

    I’m sure we all know couples who have gone through divorce and have witnessed their distorted versions of reality. It can become a murky web of he said, she said. Even with the most level headed people whose sole aim is to try and make their childrens needs come first, that often isnt the way its seen by outsiders and often isnt the end result.
    I think the judge did the best he could under the circumstances and it sounds like the best interests of the children have been taken into account to form his decision.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  43. Coco

    Pathetic attempt by a Federal Magistrate to off load guilt he felt when he made a decision he gets paid a lot of money to make. All in the guise if helping the kids, which renders it even more unprofessional and self indulgent.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Anonymous lawyer

      Your comment is spot on. The magistrate had no business to write in this way and to interpose himself into a very personal set of events.It blurs the line separating the judiciary from the personal….and that line needs to be maintained if we are to manage the legal system in family law matters.
      What comfort is it anyway to the children to have such a letter….it does not change the circumstances of the effects of his decision.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Sydgel

        Totally agree with both comments. This is a very concerning situation and the judges actions most inappropriate and his order totally wrong.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • ash

      Think this statement is very unfair.

      He gets paid a lot of money because decisions like these are difficult ones. No matter what side he ruled on, he wouldn’t excape criticism. I for one would not want the huge burden of making such heart-wrenching decisions. He deserves every cent he gets, he’s obviously not heartless and is affected by the situation.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Sydgel

        Having spoken to colleagues and friends about this situation today most agree that the father should have been allowed access. Even one day a week and possibly (if necessary) supervised.

        That ruling would not have been criticised. Repeat again – the judge found that the father had not, as the mother claimed, harmed the children. Hence he must be given physical access to the children!

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Sophie

          Sydgel, I’m interested as to where you, your colleagues and friends got your information about this case from? You seem to have made a very firm decision about the correct outcome. Is your info from an authorised court report/legal review or from the newspaper? Massive difference.

          Unless you have heard every piece of evidence, you cannot be in a better position than the judge to form a decision.
          Legal decisions are made on the FACTS of a case – unless you have all of them, you can’t accurately say what should be.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • sydgel

            Oh really Sophie? And what FACTS are you referring to.

            Do you have a problem with everyone’s opinion on here or just mine? We are all entitled to an opinion, regardless of whether you like it or not.

            ARe you also demanding details of everyone on here who has an opinion? Gee you must be a very busy person.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Sophie

              Hi,
              Firstly, I’m not actually referring to facts at all – I don’t know enough of the facts to comment on them accurately and with respect to the family involved.
              There’s only one place to get the full facts of this case right now – the court room. I wasn’t there.

              Therefore, my opinion is that I (and anyone else who wasn’t present to hear all the evidence the magistrate heard) am in no position to say that the judgement given by the Federal Magistrate was wrong.
              There could still be information that is suppressed, or simply hasn’t been reported by the media which had a massive influence on the magistrate’s decision not to allow physical access – my point is, we don’t know!

              You are for course entitled to express an opinion about the judgement though. I only replied to your comment because I noticed that you said things like “he must be given physical access” – just wondered (for my own personal interest) whether more information had been released that went further than the fairly limited information available from media articles.
              Thanks.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
          • Guest

            Hey Sophie I’m interested to know where YOU get all your information from?

            Where are your FACTS from?

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Sophie

              Hi Guest,
              As I said in my above response, I didn’t actually mention the facts, or make any judgement about them. So there’s no reference to provide you with.

              The complete bank of evidence must be heard to make an informed judgement – that’s the process of trial that this magistrate undertook.

              My point that I made above is that those of us who only know some of the facts can’t really say that we know better than the magistrate.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
  44. Jo

    Regardless of whether we believe the decision was fair or not (and we shouldn’t come to a conclusion based on the scant info above), I applaud the judge for writing this letter. If only all kids that go through custody battles received something like this, to know that they are loved.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • RuthBT

      Agreed Jo, I got handed a letter like this when I was 14. It was written by the adoption agency and given to my parents to give to me when they felt it was a good time. I can remember reading it and the emotions it stirred up for myself and my Mum and Dad. What it did do was allow us to work through them and at 14 I felt so mature to be given the “power” to look at the situation with grown-up eyes. It also allowed my to “forgive my biological mother for abandoning me” (the most basic of the emotions in adoption) and open the way for me to have a relationship with her later on.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Sydgel

      I don’t think anyone is criticising the judges’ letter. It’s making it public that was very wrong thing to do. It’s private, personal matter and should have been kept as such.

      What on earth the judge was doing putting it online, quite extraordinary. And I hope it’s investigated, he should never have made it public.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Natski

        There is absolutely no way of any of the individuals being identified.

        Family Court proceedings always have personal information suppressed. The magistrate is merely using this letter as an example of the exceptionally nuanced decisions those in his position must make.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Sydgel

          Ok but how often does it happen – confidential information is so easily and so often released. It just takes one person who knows the couple to tell one person and them inform another and so on.

          It’s a small world and it would not be surprising at all that the confidentiality was destroyed.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
  45. My girl Friday

    So this is a heterosexual couple. A mum and dad – wait till dad and dad, or mum and mum battle it out – all the fallout from gay divorces- when marriage fails it destroys lives – children are just a bargaining chip . Think the judge is well meaning but this dad’s life is going to be very hard – there has to be a better system than this – I think “marriage” in this day and age is a whole lot of baloney …

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Shan

      How will it be different exactly?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Anon

      Huh? You may wish to clarify this as you are sounding a tad bigoted My Girl Friday.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Jruth

      Why do you think it will be any different when a gay marriage breaks up? Gay couples and parents already have children and sometimes, sadly, just as with heterosexual couples, their relationships come to an end. Some relationships and marriage end amicably, and some end badly, but it makes no difference if they are gay or straight. It’s just sadder when children are involved…

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  46. Shan

    So this was an open letter written by the judge, but the girls aren’t meant to read it until they’re 14?
    They don’t have the internets? :)

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Sydgel

      Exactly! Incredible the judge putting something so private, so intimate on the bloody internet!

      Very very poor judgment.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  47. Jenn

    I had family court orders done back in 2001 & it was a living nightmare! In saying that I wouldn’t want his job for all the tea in China. I couldn’t think of anything worse than being a family law court magistrate & to me this proves that (some maybe not all) of them do agonies over the decisions that they have to make. We often hear the parents sides of the story (the 4 Queensland sisters being a case in point) yet we’ve not heard this side before.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  48. Michelle

    Family court law is so gray. There are just so many shades and its too hard to tell what truly is right and wrong.
    We were taken away from our mother for a number of years, and that did irreparable damage to my sister (who was <5 at the time). My relationship repaired in time with my mum, who in a similar situation to this, was accussed of allowing my brother and sister to be in danger from her boyfriend at the time.
    I still am not aware of the complete story behind this (I was 11 at the time), but I do know that my sister has a very bad relationship with my father now, as he was the one who kept her from her mum!
    I dont know if the judge did the right thing here or not, we dont have all the facts, but the fact that he felt so off about it that he wrote a letter to the kids involved says to me that perhaps he should have listened to his gut instinct….
    I feel for those kids, now growing up without thier dad, who from the sound of the letter fought tooth and nail for them, and now has no contact.
    There are ways for dads to have contact without the mum having to see him. They will also no doubt hear all the bad things he has done, with no mention of the other side of the story… which will no doubt mean that they wont want to contact him in the future.
    My head was filled with horrible stories of my mum, for years and years, by my step mother.
    This is just a snippet of the horrid stuff that happens in the family court and having been there as a child, and almost needing to go now as an adult, I wish that they could do more for the kids long term.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Tink

      My young step children are currently being put in a compromised position by their mother and her partner, and my partner and I have discussed our views on this and what we should/could do about it. I feel very strongly that their safest shouldn’t be compromised because their mother makes bad decisions sometimes (as we all do). To be honest, we’re not sure what to do, and reading that your sister now has a bad relationship with your Dad because he was trying to protect her breaks my heart and makes me even more confused…

      I hope you and your sister know that your Dad was probably only trying to do what he felt was best for you.

      Agree with what you said about having no contact with the Dad. Surely that can only lead to increased rise of parental alienation occurring? I’m not sure how the judge can justify that.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • redqueen

        If her dad was doing his best then why was he allowing his partner to fill his daughter’s head with slander about her mother? Letting your partner slag off on your ex in front of your kids is terrible parenting.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • Anon for this

        I’m sorry Tink, but I have to say this and probably be burnt for it.. You are the step mum, not their mother. The issue is between their father and mother. Whilst you can offer your partner support, you have no say as to any parenting decisions in relation to your step children. You may have different parenting values and morales then their mother, but, you are not their mother. Before you jump at my throat, I was a step mum and one of my children has a step mother who respects my place in my daughters life (and I’m sure she does not agree with some of the things I do)

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Tink

          Thanks for your comment Anon, and I can see what you’re saying, but when children are at risk of sexual abuse, then it’s everyone’s responsibility to say something. I work as a psychologist, and if there is a single line that is crossed in relation to this, my mandatory reporting requirements will step in over and above my role in the children’s lives. If their mother can’t put their safety first, then I sure as hell will.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
  49. BatGirl

    Wow, I think he sounds like a great magistrate who was, rightly, focused on the wellbeing of the children. It is nice to know he still thinks about the case after the fact, and the power he has over peoples lives.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Jared

      He has placed them under the sole custody of a delusional emotional abuser. Their best interests have not been served.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • BatGirl

        I find that hard to believe given the thought he has put into that letter. We dont know ANY details of the case except for a sketchy outline. In the judges own words ” I am far less satisfied about his capacity to parent these children on the facts of this case.”.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Jared

          Thought? It’s a protracted exercise in self justification. So yes, a lot of thought has gone into it.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
      • hmmm

        well if she is a ‘delusional emotional abuser’ and she is still the better parent on all the available evidence, makes you think about what the issues could be that limit the fathers capacity to parent…

        The fact that the children had their own lawyer (court appointed, one assumes) speaks volumes about both parents ability to advocate on behalf of their children…

        family court proceedings are long and protracted. Even when there are no allegations of abuse (from either side) both parties and children undergo at least one session with an experienced family counsellor who prepare a report based on these sessions. And this is after mediation sessions, attempts between solictors etc to resolve outstanding issues.

        I think FM Altobelli is very brave writting this letter. it shows his depth of understanding and compassion in this situation and the sad fact of the ramifications to family breakdown affect every one involved.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Jared

          The letter acknowledges that the magistrate is convinced that the father has never hurt the children. Mean while the mother’s delusions have cost the children a loving father. All FM Altobelli’s letter shows is that he has exactly zero understanding of how very very much the mother’s delusions have cost the children.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Faybian

            Clearly you’ve been burnt by the family court. I don’t know your circumstances, but you don’t know this family’s either. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking he’s wonderful and she’s evil. It’s probably nowhere near that black and white.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Jared

              This mother has warped her children’s minds with her own dellusions. It is in the letter. This is not and can never be something which an “adequate parent” does. It is child abuse. In ruling as he has the FM has shown that it is acceptable to hold your children’s emotional well being to ransom in order to get what you want. If the father had threatened to break the children’s legs if the ruling did not go his way would you consider it right for the FM to capitulate then? In the best interests of the child?

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Faybian

              I reiterate, you come across as someone who has been burnt by the family courts and as a result holds an extremely black and white view of custody issues.
              Personally, I think parental alienation is very wrong from either parent, just as I think parents who can’t be f*&^ed with their kids after separation are also doing the wrong thing.
              I also reiterate we don’t know the complete facts of this particular matter. The letter to me just highlighted some of the potentially heartwrenching decisions judges may have to make with regards to children.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Jared

              Faybian, I’m not seeing black and white, only black. The mother has engaged in parental allienation, adequatly illustrated in the letter, and now she has sole custody. An abuser has been entrusted with sole care and authority over the children she has abused. This is black as pitch.

              No more facts are neccassary to know that this should not have been an option, let alone the outcome.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
      • Anonymous

        How do you know?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  50. LouiseB

    This just makes my heart sink and soar at the same time. People PLEASE sort out your grown up problems in a grown up manner, children do not need the stress. Its your job. Of course some times there is no alternative to Court, however it is far from the only way.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

So, we have $1000 to give away... oh, would you be interested? Well step right this way.

To go in the draw to win, just LIKE us on Facebook, enter your email address and tell us in 25 words or less why you love reading Mamamia.

Close this popup



Full Terms & Conditions