Fathers and bias in the Family Court

On Sunday, August 30, 2009, a man drove his car into a tree killing his two children. It was reported that there were no skid marks on the road, indicting that this was possibly a murder-suicide. The most disturbing aspect of this case is that the mother said that:

I, as well as others, had ongoing concerns - expressed to the Family Court - about my ex-husband's mental stability and the children's safety when in his car because of his history of psychiatric illness.

The fact that the Court had ordered “supervised” contact meant that there was strong evidence that the father was a risk to the children, hence the supervision requirement. However, the Court ordered that the supervision was to be done by “a responsible adult” not necessarily a “professional” adult. It could be surmised that the Family Court did not take the risks to those children seriously enough. Otherwise, the Court may have quite easily made an order that a professional was to supervise the father with his children. Questions remain as to who was supervising these children with their father that day and how it was that he was permitted to take them to later die in his car. Yet again, it seems that the Court did not prioritise the safety of these children over the father’s “right” to contact.

These were the findings by the experts is Family Law Council back in 2002:

There is no greater problem in family law today than the problems of adequately addressing child protection concerns in proceedings under the Family Law Act. Council’s research and consultations on this issue indicate that the problems in the present system are very serious indeed. Reform is urgently needed …

The Dillon children are two more to add to those who have died when under the orders of the Family Court of Australia. Will these two latest little girls also suffer abuse when having contact with their father as ordered by the Family Court? Given this latest decision and despite the Dillon children’s mother wishing that her tragedy will produce “lessons” for the Court, apparently it has not.