SA Footy

Thought it seemed a bit suss...

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24151853-911,00.html

I hope they do seek compensation, what a waste of resources. WTF was the idiot thinking

Having been through a divorce and custody I can understand that some unusual things pass through your mind in an effort to see more of your kids, but to actually act on any of them is just so incredibly foolish and very sad for the kid involved.

And yes, what a knob.

I was only saying the other day to a mate that the world of journalism allows falsehoods because of the over-hyped media frenzy on occasions such as these.

Unfortunately in this instance, someone (the dad) decided to take full advantage of it. The book should be thrown at him. Firstly for attempting to dupe us, the public, and secondly for trying to use the system to get one over the other custodial parent (who would've been beside herself with worry).

I doubt the media will learn from the experience, because a 10yo missing in little old Adelaide tugs on the heartstrings of most.

Personally I don't bother watching the news much, because I know (for whatever reason) only 10% of the story is actually transferred to the public. Unfortunately in this instance, (not the media's fault), we all got taken for a ride.

good call Gadj, I only just found out there was a son of a high profile Adelaide (former) sportsman jailed recently, it was covered in the media however the relationship back to the famous Dad wasnt put anywhere int he press, apparently there was a deal done with the media not to mention the link

Just confirms we never get the full story....

with the above incident, it seems that when the father does it, he gets the book thrown at him, but if the mother does it, she's viewed as a victim still, & gets a wave of sympathy.
One thing I do agree with G Cornes on, is the gender bias against males that exists.

Punk Rooster wrote:with the above incident, it seems that when the father does it, he gets the book thrown at him, but if the mother does it, she's viewed as a victim still, & gets a wave of sympathy.
One thing I do agree with G Cornes on, is the gender bias against males that exists.

Can I assure the other moderators it is not me has hacked into Punk Roosters user account.....

Punk Rooster wrote:with the above incident, it seems that when the father does it, he gets the book thrown at him, but if the mother does it, she's viewed as a victim still, & gets a wave of sympathy.
One thing I do agree with G Cornes on, is the gender bias against males that exists.

Not sure I agree on that entirely - a mother who fakes their childs disappearance would have the book thrown at them also.

I do believe though that there are a lot more fathers with a justified lack of faith in the family court system who consider actions such as this as their best chance of seeing their child with any fair regularity. It costs a small fortune to sway things even remotely the way of the father, but I am digressing well away from this particular incident and into my own personal beliefs - something for another thread I think.

He should have just done the Mrs. Doubtfire approach, it would have worked for longer.

How the hell could he have expected to get away with it, thats the thing i can't work out..

firstly i've been through the family court system (cost me near enough $50,000 thankfully i had other members of the family happy to help with the expense) this is the one point that i'll never understand little baymans mother admitted to a court counsellor that she is on drugs & when i read his report not one line in the report about drug taking, yet he found it ''disturbing & abhorent (that a then 4 year old) could kick a football like a 6 year old'' (yes i still have the report)

i now have little bayman 99% of the time & yet still pay his mother child support because that is all she wants the money but not the child & yes i'm happy to pay her & keep him where i know he is safe

as for this bloke while i can't condone it i can understand it because the family court is not in the real world

fortuneately i was wrong because i thought it was the father but i thought he may've murdered the child

bayman wrote:firstly i've been through the family court system (cost me near enough $50,000 thankfully i had other members of the family happy to help with the expense) this is the one point that i'll never understand little baymans mother admitted to a court counsellor that she is on drugs & when i read his report not one line in the report about drug taking, yet he found it ''disturbing & abhorent (that a then 4 year old) could kick a football like a 6 year old'' (yes i still have the report)

i now have little bayman 99% of the time & yet still pay his mother child support because that is all she wants the money but not the child & yes i'm happy to pay her & keep him where i know he is safe

as for this bloke while i can't condone it i can understand it because the family court is not in the real world

fortuneately i was wrong because i thought it was the father but i thought he may've murdered the child

Having done independent assessments for people involved in court proceedings on referral from law firms, and having found myself disagreeing with the odd court counsellor, I share your viewpoint there. I have heard similar stories of information provided, even from third parties interviewed by the counsellor, never appearing in reports, and reports being prepared heavily based on old opinions from PC sources. In one case the court counsellor relied heavily on a five year old opinion from a public hopital consultant, over two much more recent ones including a specialist who was treating the person concerned, that had been given to her by the client. She referred only to the old one in her report. Fortunately the person was well represented and the other two - and mine as the third agreeing with them - were introduced in court.

I don't think it is organised in the sense of a coup, but I suspect people with a certain social agenda do gravitate/encourage each other into the welfare sytem including public counselling services, court counselling, and the Women's and Childrens' hospital systems in the states.

I should add the in family disputes either or both parents could be lying and often both are. After 1975 when "No fault" divorce came in and people could not slug it out in court about who was divorcing whom for which "sin", they started fighting more over the money and the children - the urge to punish will come out somewhere.