SPECIALITES DE RIZ THAÏ BIOLOGIQUE & EQUITABLE
Récolté à la main
Usiné sur meule de pierre

Comme je ne mange pas de viande le riz est un élément important dans mon alimentation. J’en consomme donc beaucoup et pour varier les plaisirs je suis toujours à la recherche de nouveautés.

LE RIZ THAÏ COMPLET “Cuisson 10 mn”

(variété Hom Mali, origine Thaïlande garantie)

6800603    กลยุทธ์ในการส่งเสริมความเท่าเทียมกันมในการเข้าถึงบริการสุขภาพและเทคโนโลยี    Strategies for Enhancing Equitable Access to Health Services and Technology

() (6800603 จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย)

2019603 กลยุทธ์ในการส่งเสริมความเท่าเทียมกันในการเข้าถึงบริการสุขภาพและเทคโนโลยี Strategies for Enhancing Equitable Access to Health Services and Technology

กรอบกลยุทธ์ทางเลือกในการบริการสุขภาพและเทคโนโลยีด้านสุขภาพ ปัญหาความไม่เท่าเทียมกันในการเข้าถึงบริการสุขภาพและเทคโนโลยี นโยบายและแนวทางการเข้าถึงบริการสุขภาพและเทคโนโลยี เศรษฐศาสตร์กับการประเมินผลกระทบ การประเมินผลกระทบด้านสุขภาพต่อนโยบายและกิจกรรมการดำเนินงานของรัฐ

(Scope of strategic options in health services and problems related to equitable access to health service and technology; policies and guidelines to access to health services and technology; economics and impact assessment; health impact assessment and goverment’s policies and activities.)

(2019603 จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย)

Businesspeople are bombardedwith masses of information, and at one time or another, everyone in business relies on someone else’s summary of a situation, publication, or document. To write a summary, gather the information (whether by reading, talking with others, or observing circumstances), organize that information, and then present it in your own words. Although many pople assume that summarizing is a simple skill, it’s actually more complex than it appears. A well written summary has at least three characteristics..

First, as in writing any business document, be sure the content is accurate. If you’re summarizing a report or a group of reports, make sure you present the information without error. Check your references, and then check for typos.

Second, make your summary comprehensive and balanced. The purpose of writing your summary is usually to help colleagues or supervisors make a decision, so include all the information necessary for your readers to understand the situation, problem, or proposal. If the issue you’re summarizing has more than one side, present all sides fairly and equitably. Make sure you include all the information necessary. Even though summaries are intended to be as brief as possible, your readers need a minimum amount of information to grasp the issue being presented.

Third, make your sentence structure clear, and include good transitions. The only way your summary will save anyone’s time is if your sentences are uncluttered, use well-chosen words, and proceed logically. Then, to help your readers move from one point to the next, your transitions must be just as clear and logical. Basically, when writing your summary be sure to cut through the clutter. Identify those ideas that belong together, and organize them in a way that’s easy to understand.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir - Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit www.asifjmir.com, Lectures, Line of Sight

The old cliché states “history always repeats itself” but have you ever wondered why this is true?

It is because of us. That is, mankind.And history bears this out in the fact that there are so many years of war as opposed to so  few years of peace.

First – James 4:1-3 defines wars coming from the internal mechanism that bypasses God’s desire. Therefore it is our lust and need to temporarily satisfy that lust that causes conflict.

Second – Mankind has an incredible ability to mess up a good thing, starting with Adam and Eve all the way up to the very present moment. Some empires start off good and go bad, some are evil from the onset but that self destructive nature always overrides morals and ethics.

Assyria, Persia, Greece, both the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, Arab Empire, Mameluke Ottoman Empire, Spanish, Romanov Russia and the Empire of Great Britain all had common bonds. Every world superpower made advances in every area possible: arts, education, engineering, and science.

All of the above world powers had another parallel, they lasted an average of 238 years. Time always works against any entity, nation or political force that does not keep God at the center of its operation, because we are by nature children of wrath – Eph. 2:3

That’s why I pray for Jesus’ Kingdom to come because His government will never end and it will be righteous and equitable for all.

Avec le développement du commerce équitable, les parisiens découvrent de nouvelles manières de sucrer « sans sucre de canne ou de betterave ». Ces nouveaux sucres adoucissent nos aliments avec moins de calories. 4 produits sont à découvrir :

La STEVIA est une herbe très sucrée, avec un pouvoir sucrant supérieur de 200 fois au sucre de canne, sans les inconvénients pour les calories et les caries. Elle est vendue sous forme de poudre, et s’utilise comme du sucre fin tout simplement. Elle est originaire du Paraguay et du Brésil.

Le SIROP D’ERABLE, originaire des amérindiens dont la cueillette d’eau d’érable a lieu vers le mois de mars dans tout le Canada et aux Etats-Unis.

Le SIROP DE YACON. Le Yacon ou “poire de terre” est une racine andine originaire du Pérou. La racine est très sucrée, riche en oligofructose (aussi appelé fructooligosaccharide), un sucre diététique que le corps humain ne métabolise pas.

agave (c)wikipedia

Le SIROP D’AGAVE. L’agave est de la famille des agavacées originaire du Mexique. Ses feuilles sont très riches en sève sucrée appelée aguamiel (eau miel). La fermentation de cette sève donne la tequila. L’évaporation de son eau donne un sirop d’agave qui est à très faible index glycérique. Toute la plante est comestible : les fleurs, les feuilles très riches en sèves, les tiges

Ces « nouveaux sucres » peuvent être trouvés dans les boutiques bio et même dans les grands surfaces.

Voir aussi la lexique.

The  issues of inclusion and LRE make me think of the giant slinky my kids play with. Within its coiled existence, there is one inevitable reality: it will be tangled.

I was particularly struck by the social justice and ethical issues raised in this module.

Eugenics and deinstitutionalization are referred to in chapter two of our text, as well as in the lecture. Abuse in institutionalized settings is appalling; but it is likewise inexcusable that “streets and jails have become the default placements for many mentally ill persons in the absence of mental hospitals, and people with severe mental illness are often neglected until they commit criminal acts” (Hallahan, Kauffman, Pullen, p. 50).

I was also intrigued by the notion of a disability rights movement, requiring that people with disabilities be seen as part of a minority group. I was not familiar with the term “handicapism,” but a related term: ableism. As in our discussion last week, if we begin with the non-disabled person as epitomizing “normal,” then we begin down a path of presumed incompetence for anyone who represents a deviation from this norm.

Though we might wish to have easy answers and pat definitions, these seem to disappear sometime in early childhood. As adults we must learn to function within gray areas. The issue of inclusion is, like most important issues, one with multiple facets and layers which must be scrutinized and untangled repeatedly. With the data currently available, the continuum of placements model seems most effective and equitable to me. At its core, it seeks to address the nuances of individuals’ specific needs.

References

Hallahan, Kauffman, and Pullen (2009). Exceptional Learners: An Introduction to Special Education, 11th ED. New York: Pearson.

An overview of marriage, divorce and the new custody laws in Australia

By Robert Whiston FRSA, Sept 13^th 2009

Every English speaking country around the globe has been trying for years to reach the point now achieved by Australia, namely the enacting of ‘shared parenting’. The goal is to make matters a little more equitable for divorced fathers and the judicial “orphaning” effect on children less severe.

In Britain, Canada, and New Zealand, for example, all attempts at a more egalitarian division of children’s time after divorce have been stonewalled using the same rehearsed argument once voiced in Australia.

Mindless chanting is fine for domestic audiences but why, if it is so impossible to arrange, can the French, Dutch, Swedes and Belgians have the wit that Anglophones lack ? Why not tell the public the truth – explain how and why it is we ‘Anglos’ can’t manage it

Shared Parenting in Australia was made possible by the introduction of Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006. This reformed Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975.

The most significant aspect of this reform was the introduction of a rebuttable presumption of ‘equal shared parental responsibility’. In particular, the concurrent obligation placed on family courts to consider ‘equal time’ and ‘substantial and significant time’ arrangements where the presumption applies.

Australia’s legal reform saw the introduction of ‘parenting plans’ which it was stated in the Act would help determine what actually was in the child’s best interests.

The “child’s best interests” is both a legacy and an obstacle. No where is there a definitive criterion and no where is it anyone but 3^rd party adults and professionals deciding what is in the parents’ and child’s best interests.(and at last academia and the mainstream media is beginning to recognise the anomaly). [1]

In an attempt to tackle this intellectual and philosophical deficit and reconcile parents, the Act divided considerations of the child’s best interests into two categories, 1). primary considerations and 2). additional considerations. These considerations are intended to form the basis of custody awards.

(NB. There seems to be an in-built assumption in the Act that only cases where the parents are in dispute does it necessitate them going to court for a ruling – RW).

In common with reforms in Belgium and Holland, resources were made available in Australia for the reconciliation of differences between parents and to help separating parents reach their own agreements.

At the same time as the Government implemented these legislative changes it also established Family Relationship Centres around Australia and funded other non-Government organisations (NGO) to provide parents with advice, counselling and mediation

It is interesting to note that all the topics alluded to so far have been put to the Lord Chancellor’s Dept (LCD) and the Ministry of Justice by Britain’s fathers groups since 2001 but to no avail.

It was anticipated that the majority of cases in Australia would be settled ‘amicably’ without court intervention. It was foreseen that only the more ‘intractable cases’ would reach court.

The implication of this is that whereas previously ‘the shadow of the court’ promoted sole custody arrangements with men not likely to challenge for better custody, the reforms of 2006 meant that equal and shared parenting was likely to grow, both through court awards and by off-the-balance-sheet arrangements, i.e. the shadow of the law effect.

It must surely come as a surprise to fathers everywhere that Australia’s Chief Justice suddenly decided that custody awards merited the keeping of statistics – said by a government source to be ‘a first’ for Australia’ judiciary.

The idea, apparently, was to “understand the results that were being obtained by the parties coming to court.” Why was this not being done already ? (This was a recommendation made to CAFCASS in LCD committee in 2000 by Britain’s fathers groups).

By the end of 2008 enough data had been gathered for the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to make some basic and tentative assessment. The number of finalised cases totalled 1,448 and the number where “early agreements” had been reached was 2,719 (2007 – 2008).

These judicial statistics have to be measured against the larger number that are not decided by courts, made informally in the shadow of the law (and these figures do not relate to orders made in the Federal Magistrates’ Court).

Top

Fig 1. Click for enlargement - Shared parental responsibility – Time spent with parents (Source: Family Court of Australia, Shared parental responsibility - Statistics in cases conducted in the Family Court of Australia during 2007–08, 2 March 2009)

In the diagram above (Fig1; Click for enlargement) the left most columns represents with whom the child spent the majority of their time. At nearly 70% are mothers with “consent orders”. The next column in the group, at 60%, is mothers with “final order papers”. A round 8% are fathers with “consent orders” and at 17% (light blue) are fathers with “final order papers”.

The next series of columns (and much shorter) reflect awards of a 50:50 division of time between parents. In this category around 18 – 19% of parents get equal time with their children.

The subsequent categories from right to left are 3). 30% – 45%, 4). 10% – 29%, 5). 1% – 0%, 6). No contact at all, 7). no order set, 8). “complex”, 9). Not available.

(See Appendix A below for more analysis).

It would be fair to assess the first 2 years as failing to live up to the fears of mothers and women’s groups that fathers would runaway with the majority of custody awards and the majority of shared custody. If anything the transformation to equality is close to imperceptible.

Overall, the Family Court has made orders that the children spend more than 50% of time with their mother in 60% of litigated cases – but ‘60% of litigated cases’ does not mean 60% of all cases.

By way of balancing this figure, where parents can reach an early agreement it was agreed that the child spend more than 50% of time with their mother in 68% of cases.

It is probably too early to suggest that Pareto’s Law is applying in custody awards.

The Family Court made 50/50 care orders between parents in only 15% of litigated cases. However this figure rose to 19% of cases where parents had came to an early agreement to share care.

If any progress is to be made in other countries – pre-supposing that a full 50:50 share in child care is an unlikely option – then the next category is perhaps the most vital, i.e. cases where the father receives between 30% and 45% of time.

In this category of cases where the father received between 30% and 45% of the time, the Family Court made orders to that effect in 14% of the litigated cases.

In this same category the Family Court made orders that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with the mother in only 3% of litigated cases.

In a third of litigated cases, the Family Court ordered that children spend 30% or less time with their father (Fig 2). Of the 100% of this category, the main reasons for the order included ‘abuse and family violence’ in 29% of cases (Fig 2).

Top

Fig. 2. Fathers - when less then 30% of the time – Reasons for the Family Court to order that children spend 30% or less time with their father in a third of the litigated cases

If 29% of these 30% of cases involved allegations of abuse and family violence, this equates to approx. 9% of the total decided by courts (i.e. 29% of 30%). Where ’entrenched conflict’ is given as the reason this equates to 5% (i.e. 15% of 30%).

In 9% of litigated cases (Fig 3), the Family Court ordered that children spend 30% or less time with their mother. The main reasons for the order include mental health issues (31%) and abuse/violence. The later, at 16%, is higher than one would expect and for some reason no ’entrenched conflict’ is listed for mothers. This pushes the reader towards interpreting all conflict as male inspired.

Top

Fig 3. Mothers - when less then 30% of the time - Reasons for the Family Court to order that children spend 30% or less time with their mother in 9% of the litigated cases

In some states of the USA where shared parenting legislation has been adopted it has been suggested that a declined in the numbers divorcing has followed. This is not conclusively proven but tentative. Observations of a situation can also be deeply influenced by a fall in economic activity; a fall in marriage numbers, or is simply a coincidence.

Therefore, the graph below (Fig 4) should be treated with caution. The apparent fall in divorce since 2001 (itself unusually high) has been followed by further falls but the overall ‘averaged’ level, taken from 1996 to 2005, did not significantly fall until 2007.

Fig. 4. Divorces granted: Australia - 1988-2007 (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2007)

A further word of caution in relation to Fig 4 is needed, namely that the ‘Y axis’ does not begin at zero divorces but starts at 39,000 divorces and rises to over 54,000, thus exaggerating the annual variations and could give a false first impression.

The number of divorces fell to 51,375 in 2006 and fell further in 2007 to 47,963. Whether this is a sustainable downward trend or a ‘statistical blip’ only time will tell.

It should also be added that the number of divorces granted in 2007 was 9.8% lower than five years earlier but only 6.6% lower than 10 years ago due to a peak in the number of divorces granted in 2001.The decade trend from 1998 to 2007 is shown in tabular form at Fig 5. At 47 963 there were still more divorces than there were in 1988.

Fig 5. Number of divorces granted – selected years 1988 – 2007 (Australia).

In recent years the proportion of children caught up in their parents divorce has dropped from 57% to 49% (see Fig 6). The numbers too have fallen. This, however, could be a function of postponing childbearing until later in married life.

Fig 6. Proportion of children caught up in their parents divorce – selected years 1988 – 2007 (Australia).

Top

Looking back over the last twenty years the proportion of divorces involving children aged under 18 years has decreasing but that decline has slowed in recent years (compare Fig 6 with Fig 7).

NB. In Britain we tend to include children aged under 16 and define them as ‘dependent’. In other countries the age for used is 18 (e.g. Australia, New Zealand).

In terms of actual numbers of children affected by parental divorce only figures for 2006 and 2007 were readily accessible (Fig 6 and Fig 7). From other ABS sources it would appear that in 2001, 28,345 children had parents who divorced and in 2002 the figure was 26,820 children. [2]

Fig 7. Numbers of children affected by parental divorce 1984 – 1994

For the first time in 20 years the proportion of divorces involving children fell below 50% in 2007 (49.3%). If this is related to Australia’s introduction of shared parenting it will be intriguing to see what future years will bring.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics then displays this trend as a graph (see Fig 8), however it should be noted that the Y axis begins at 48% and not zero%. This means that the visually dramatic fall seen in Fig 8 is really only a 10% fall, from around 60% to close to 50%.

Top

Fig 8. Proportion of divorces involving children, Australia 1986 – 2006. (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2006)

The duration of marriages, from inception to separation, has risen slightly since 1988 (Fig 9). The duration has risen from 10 years in 1988 to 12½ years in 2006.

Fig 9. Median length to separation and divorce: Australia – 1988 - 2007. (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2007)

At the same time the age at which divorces were sought also increased from 33 for females in 1988 (the key driver) to 40 in 2006 (Fig 10).

If the American predictions about the effects of shared parenting are true then this trend should be reinforced over the coming years.

Once again the Australian Bureau of Statistics have displayed the trend in the graph (Fig 10) not with a zero% Y axis but one that begins at 34,000. However, whereas earlier trend lines had fluctuations giving undue importance to a trend change, Fig 10 has consistently upwards trend lines and so more accurately reflects the changes in society.

Fig 10. Median age at divorce: Australia - 1988-2007. (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2007)

It has been suggested that women would petition less for divorce if they knew (or feared) they would not automatically be awarded custody of the children. Conversely, this might encourage husbands/fathers to petition in greater numbers. However, this does not yet appear to be the case.

This is underscored by Fig 11, which gives an analysis of those petitioning for divorce. The upper line (starting at 50%) represents women applying for divorce and displays a ‘surge’ between 1996 and 2001. The middle line beginning at 38% shows male applications. Both male and female applicant trends are generally downwards, while, ‘joint applications’ emerge from relative obscurity in 1988 to a dominant position by 2006. Why this should have occurred is not clear unless it is related to some peripheral driver, e.g. legal aid entitlement.

Fig 11. Type of applicant: Australia - 1988-2007. (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2007)

Top

Postscript

Vociferous and sometimes vitriolic opposition to equality in parenting has already surfaced in Australia. It comes not from fathers but from women’s organisations which must somehow feel themselves under threat and a few academics, e.g. Jennifer McIntosh. This threat must relate to the prospect of not seeing their children quite so often and/or with not so much of the monopoly over their children that they once previously enjoyed.

Could this horror be rooted in their own fear ? The nightmare that some fathers/men might do to them what for years they have been wantonly doing to fathers ?

For academics the threat is to their reputations. Adele Horin writing in Australia’s ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ quotes Jennifer McIntosh, a highly respected child psychologist as casting doubt on the efficacy of post divorce shared care / shared parenting. [3] Having invested so many years writing papers and authoring books to now be shown (and over the coming years proven) to have got it completely wrong is worth any manipulation of the facts – certainly until retirement. [4]

The current maliciousness towards equal parenting tends to come from those very people that have for so long demanded that Society treat them as equals.

Those that describe themselves as professional and business women are allegedly opposed to equal parenting – if there are any professional and business women in favour of equal parenting they have so far failed to step forward or counter their sisters. Yet is it not the case that shared equal parenting would mimic traditional couples inasmuch that it would give the former wife and mother, more ‘down time’, more quality time for her own personal needs, more time to focus on her career and profession and generally lower her stress levels (see mental health levels Fig 3 above) ?

The other argument ‘thread’ found on Australian websites and in the occasional feature article is one connected to the perceived risk of violence.

Since we have shown above that this applies to only about 5% of families one might be tempted to dismiss it as a comparative irrelevance. However, since it will be ‘majored’ on by opponents to equal parenting (predominantly by that splinter group in society involved with domestic violence against women, but not against men), its deserves a brief demolition. [5]

The policy of this group, perhaps best described as a ‘clique’, is to stress how Australia is a family-friendly nation, and that as such Australia should remain committed to children (note how Nationalism suddenly appears from this quarter).

The needs of children should be the paramount consideration when deciding custody (note, needs are not specified). But who decides custody in both the present and former regimes ? Adults, of course ! Children – when they are asked – uniformly say they want access to and enjoy both parents.

This clique believes the changes to equality in parenting were premised on ensuring the rights and welfare of parents (and why not, there are two parents and both have rights ?), yet they are unable to see this criticism, circular though it is, could be equally levelled at the previous regime.

Their argument then turns to the new system being awful because it adopts a “one size fits all” principle. From the statistics given above this clearly is not the case and is demonstrable nonsense.

If anything can be labelled a “one size fits all” solution it is the former regime where men were totally excluded from meaningful participation in the future lives of their own children and women almost guaranteed 100% custody.

Had women not so recklessly, routinely and gratuitously abused their position of trust and misused their ‘gatekeeping’ powers, a reform might not have been so urgently necessary.

Examination of the clique’s claim that the new law takes no account of the circumstances of individual families and individual children is rendered absurd by the above statistics depicting the division of custody and the reasons given.

Then, by focusing on the dysfunctional and troubled families (which do exist), their logic is that the new regime cannot be rolled out to those families which are not dysfunctional and not troubled, i.e. normal, as this will somehow be unfair and disadvantage dysfunctional families.

Evidently the proverbial penny has not dropped – one cannot have a “one size fits all” criticism if at the same time also complaining about the new law taking into account disadvantaged and ‘troubled families’.

By freeing up resources these troubled families are able to secure the attention and dedication that under the previous regime would have been rationed or curtailed. By implication this means that the hope among even the most dysfunctional and troubled families of a path to normality will be improved.

Critics of the new shared parenting laws prefer not to publicise how broken and defective were the previous set of laws. Papers from 10th Australian National Family Law Conference held in Melbourne (16-20 March 2002) spell out unequivocally how out of touch the model had become by 2002. [6] One speaker was of the opinion that:

“The concept of parental responsibility is past its use-by date. It should be consigned to the dustbin of legal history, like the Roman law concept of paterfamilias.

Society needs a new standard: that of family responsibility [as opposed to ‘parental responsibility’]. By this I mean that family members should be responsible for each other and that the extent of the ‘bundle’ of rights accorded to each family member should depend on the degree of responsibility exercised in practice by each member, whether such responsibility is accepted voluntarily and lovingly or imposed by the law.

The idea of family should be broadly defined to encompass disparate cultural and social models so that the general principle of family responsibility can be adapted pragmatically to specific circumstances.

Thus I endorse the German law that children are legally obliged to financially support their aging parents, with the concomitant rule (followed in Spain) that a young person should not be entitled to welfare benefits if the family can afford to provide support.
My basic premise also leads me to criticise laws, such as in France, Sweden and Germany, which prohibit a father from totally disinheriting an unrepentant prodigal son. Responsibilities conferring rights, yes, but no rights without responsibilities.

The criticism before Australia changed her custody law – and it’s a chorus in every English speaking nation – is that it would lead to the neglect of children’s rights and an increase in domestic violence. This claim is now being re-laundered in the post-legislative phase. This is a useful indicator to other countries of what they might expect should they adopt Australia’s solution.

That esoteric legion which earns it salary through domestic violence advocacy fails to mention that their concerns about rising levels of conflict between parents is unlikely to occur given that there is now less at stake or to argue about. They complain of “a very oppressive culture that desperately needs to be reviewed”, yet fail to see that only the previous regime was oppressive and created a culture of animosity and ‘winner takes all’.

Surely the ideal of such domestic violence interest groups is to eradicate “the problem” and so work themselves out of a job.

Or is it ?

Faced with unemployment would not the kind of review they seek put them back into fulltime employment ?

END

Top

Appendix A

CASES WHERE MOTHERS RECEIVED A MAJORITY OF TIME

• In 60% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend more than 50% of time with their mother.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 68% of cases that the child spend more than 50% of time with their mother.

CASES WHERE FATHERS RECEIVED A MAJORITY OF TIME

• In 17% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend more than 50% of time with their father.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 8% of cases that children spend more than 50% of time with their father.

CASES WHERE 50/50 TIME WAS AWARDED

• In 15% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders for 50/50 care between parents.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, the parents agreed on a 50/50 care arrangement in 19% of cases.

CASES WHERE THE FATHER RECEIVED BETWEEN 30% AND 45% OF TIME

• In 14% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with their father.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 11% of cases that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with their father.
• In 3% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with the mother.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 1% of cases that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with their mother.

CASES WHERE THE FATHER SPENT NO TIME WITH THE CHILDREN

• In 6% of litigated cases, the father was ordered to spend no time with the children.
• Where the parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in less than 1% of cases that the father have no contact with the children.

The main reasons for the order include:

CASES WHERE THE MOTHER SPENT NO TIME WITH THE CHILDREN

• In 1% of litigated cases, the mother was ordered to have no contact with the children.

The main reasons for the order include:

GRANDPARENTS

• In 8% of litigated cases the Family Court ordered that the child spend time with grandparents.
• In 2% of cases where there was an early agreement it was agreed that the child spend time with the grandparent.
• In 2% of litigated cases the Family Court ordered that the child spend time with an ‘other’ person.
• In 1% of cases where there was an early agreement it was agreed that the child spend time with an ‘other’ person.

END

Top

References

1. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2002 http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/FBC6FEDBB2B43180CA256FAF0071CE3F?opendocument
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2006 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyReleaseDate/93C5FC5AF5651286CA2574B30017C7F7?OpenDocument
3. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2007; http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/f356dbb7ea7a96eeca256f10007b6b1a!OpenDocument; http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3307.0.55.001
4. Baroness Deech of Cumnor DBE; Human Rights and Welfare – Do children need a father?, Gresham College – Lectures and Events, 11/05/2009 http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=865
5. Family Court of Australia, Shared parental responsibility – Statistics in cases conducted in the Family Court of Australia during 2007–08, 2 March 2009 http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/eb6b6e03325f52f/SPR_org_02_03_09.pdf http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/eb6b6f033263e7d/SPR_org_02_03_09.doc
6. Robert Whiston and Nigel Hawkes; Violence and the invisible sex; In: Straight Statistics – Tue, 15/09/2009 – 09:10 http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/violence-and-invisible-sex

Top

Footnotes

[1] “A Critical Perspective on the Welfare Principle” by Stephen Gilmore (2001). From: The Law and Social Work; Part I. See also “No yardstick for child’s best interest – It would make more sense to probe least detrimental options”, Leonard Carr, The Times, South Africa Aug 19, 2009 http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article17710.ece

Top

[2] Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2002 http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/FBC6FEDBB2B43180CA256FAF0071CE3F?opendocument

Top

[3] “Children at risk in rise of shared care”, 4 March 2008. Sample was small – 77 court cases involving 111 children.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/children-at-risk-in-rise-of-shared-care/2008/03/03/1204402365352.html

Top

[4] Compare Ruth Deech lecture http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=865 Ref. Gresham College Lecture, 2009, and ‘Divorce Dissent’ with her work devising easier divorce laws. See also (judge) Brenda Hogget exponent of anti-marriage, ‘Ends & Means: The Utility of Marriage’ 1980, who then marries her cohabitee of many years Prof. Julian Farrand.

Top

[5] ‘Violence and the invisible sex’, http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/violence-and-invisible-sex

Top

[6] International Family Law Chambers http://www.internationalfamilylaw.com/pub/10melb.html

Top

An overview of marriage, divorce and the new custody laws in Australia

By Robert Whiston FRSA, Sept 13^th 2009

Every English speaking country around the globe has been trying for years to reach the point now achieved by Australia, namely the enacting of ‘shared parenting’. The goal is to make matters a little more equitable for divorced fathers and the judicial “orphaning” effect on children less severe.

In Britain, Canada, and New Zealand, for example, all attempts at a more egalitarian division of children’s time after divorce have been stonewalled using the same rehearsed argument once voiced in Australia.

Mindless chanting is fine for domestic audiences but why, if it is so impossible to arrange, can the French, Dutch, Swedes and Belgians have the wit that Anglophones lack ? Why not tell the public the truth – explain how and why it is we ‘Anglos’ can’t manage it

Shared Parenting in Australia was made possible by the introduction of Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006. This reformed Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975.

The most significant aspect of this reform was the introduction of a rebuttable presumption of ‘equal shared parental responsibility’. In particular, the concurrent obligation placed on family courts to consider ‘equal time’ and ‘substantial and significant time’ arrangements where the presumption applies.

Australia’s legal reform saw the introduction of ‘parenting plans’ which it was stated in the Act would help determine what actually was in the child’s best interests.

The “child’s best interests” is both a legacy and an obstacle. No where is there a definitive criterion and no where is it anyone but 3^rd party adults and professionals deciding what is in the parents’ and child’s best interests.(and at last academia and the mainstream media is beginning to recognise the anomaly). [1]

In an attempt to tackle this intellectual and philosophical deficit and reconcile parents, the Act divided considerations of the child’s best interests into two categories, 1). primary considerations and 2). additional considerations. These considerations are intended to form the basis of custody awards.

(NB. There seems to be an in-built assumption in the Act that only cases where the parents are in dispute does it necessitate them going to court for a ruling – RW).

In common with reforms in Belgium and Holland, resources were made available in Australia for the reconciliation of differences between parents and to help separating parents reach their own agreements.

At the same time as the Government implemented these legislative changes it also established Family Relationship Centres around Australia and funded other non-Government organisations (NGO) to provide parents with advice, counselling and mediation

It is interesting to note that all the topics alluded to so far have been put to the Lord Chancellor’s Dept (LCD) and the Ministry of Justice by Britain’s fathers groups since 2001 but to no avail.

It was anticipated that the majority of cases in Australia would be settled ‘amicably’ without court intervention. It was foreseen that only the more ‘intractable cases’ would reach court.

The implication of this is that whereas previously ‘the shadow of the court’ promoted sole custody arrangements with men not likely to challenge for better custody, the reforms of 2006 meant that equal and shared parenting was likely to grow, both through court awards and by off-the-balance-sheet arrangements, i.e. the shadow of the law effect.

It must surely come as a surprise to fathers everywhere that Australia’s Chief Justice suddenly decided that custody awards merited the keeping of statistics – said by a government source to be ‘a first’ for Australia’ judiciary.

The idea, apparently, was to “understand the results that were being obtained by the parties coming to court.” Why was this not being done already ? (This was a recommendation made to CAFCASS in LCD committee in 2000 by Britain’s fathers groups).

By the end of 2008 enough data had been gathered for the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to make some basic and tentative assessment. The number of finalised cases totalled 1,448 and the number where “early agreements” had been reached was 2,719 (2007 – 2008).

These judicial statistics have to be measured against the larger number that are not decided by courts, made informally in the shadow of the law (and these figures do not relate to orders made in the Federal Magistrates’ Court).

Top

Fig. 1. Click for enlargement - Shared parental responsibility – Time spent with parents (Source: Family Court of Australia, Shared parental responsibility - Statistics in cases conducted in the Family Court of Australia during 2007–08, 2 March 2009)

In the diagram above (Fig1; Click for enlargement) the left most columns represents with whom the child spent the majority of their time. At nearly 70% are mothers with “consent orders”. The next column in the group, at 60%, is mothers with “final order papers”. A round 8% are fathers with “consent orders” and at 17% (light blue) are fathers with “final order papers”.

The next series of columns (and much shorter) reflect awards of a 50:50 division of time between parents. In this category around 18 – 19% of parents get equal time with their children.

The subsequent categories from right to left are 3). 30% – 45%, 4). 10% – 29%, 5). 1% – 0%, 6). No contact at all, 7). no order set, 8). “complex”, 9). Not available.

(See Appendix A below for more analysis).

It would be fair to assess the first 2 years as failing to live up to the fears of mothers and women’s groups that fathers would runaway with the majority of custody awards and the majority of shared custody. If anything the transformation to equality is close to imperceptible.

Overall, the Family Court has made orders that the children spend more than 50% of time with their mother in 60% of litigated cases – but ‘60% of litigated cases’ does not mean 60% of all cases.

By way of balancing this figure, where parents can reach an early agreement it was agreed that the child spend more than 50% of time with their mother in 68% of cases.

It is probably too early to suggest that Pareto’s Law is applying in custody awards.

The Family Court made 50/50 care orders between parents in only 15% of litigated cases. However this figure rose to 19% of cases where parents had came to an early agreement to share care.

If any progress is to be made in other countries – pre-supposing that a full 50:50 share in child care is an unlikely option – then the next category is perhaps the most vital, i.e. cases where the father receives between 30% and 45% of time.

In this category of cases where the father received between 30% and 45% of the time, the Family Court made orders to that effect in 14% of the litigated cases.

In this same category the Family Court made orders that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with the mother in only 3% of litigated cases.

In a third of litigated cases, the Family Court ordered that children spend 30% or less time with their father (Fig 2). Of the 100% of this category, the main reasons for the order included ‘abuse and family violence’ in 29% of cases (Fig 2).

Top

Fig. 2. Fathers - when less then 30% of the time – Reasons for the Family Court to order that children spend 30% or less time with their father in a third of the litigated cases

If 29% of these 30% of cases involved allegations of abuse and family violence, this equates to approx. 9% of the total decided by courts (i.e. 29% of 30%). Where ’entrenched conflict’ is given as the reason this equates to 5% (i.e. 15% of 30%).

In 9% of litigated cases (Fig 3), the Family Court ordered that children spend 30% or less time with their mother. The main reasons for the order include mental health issues (31%) and abuse/violence. The later, at 16%, is higher than one would expect and for some reason no ’entrenched conflict’ is listed for mothers. This pushes the reader towards interpreting all conflict as male inspired.

Top

Fig 3. Mothers - when less then 30% of the time - Reasons for the Family Court to order that children spend 30% or less time with their mother in 9% of the litigated cases

In some states of the USA where shared parenting legislation has been adopted it has been suggested that a declined in the numbers divorcing has followed. This is not conclusively proven but tentative. Observations of a situation can also be deeply influenced by a fall in economic activity; a fall in marriage numbers, or is simply a coincidence.

Therefore, the graph below (Fig 4) should be treated with caution. The apparent fall in divorce since 2001 (itself unusually high) has been followed by further falls but the overall ‘averaged’ level, taken from 1996 to 2005, did not significantly fall until 2007.

Fig. 4. Divorces granted: Australia - 1988-2007 (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2007)

A further word of caution in relation to Fig 4 is needed, namely that the ‘Y axis’ does not begin at zero divorces but starts at 39,000 divorces and rises to over 54,000, thus exaggerating the annual variations and could give a false first impression.

The number of divorces fell to 51,375 in 2006 and fell further in 2007 to 47,963. Whether this is a sustainable downward trend or a ‘statistical blip’ only time will tell.

It should also be added that the number of divorces granted in 2007 was 9.8% lower than five years earlier but only 6.6% lower than 10 years ago due to a peak in the number of divorces granted in 2001.The decade trend from 1998 to 2007 is shown in tabular form at Fig 5. At 47 963 there were still more divorces than there were in 1988.

Fig 5. Number of divorces granted – selected years 1988 – 2007 (Australia).

In recent years the proportion of children caught up in their parents divorce has dropped from 57% to 49% (see Fig 6). The numbers too have fallen. This, however, could be a function of postponing childbearing until later in married life.

Fig 6. Proportion of children caught up in their parents divorce – selected years 1988 – 2007 (Australia).

Top

Looking back over the last twenty years the proportion of divorces involving children aged under 18 years has decreasing but that decline has slowed in recent years (compare Fig 6 with Fig 7).

NB. In Britain we tend to include children aged under 16 and define them as ‘dependent’. In other countries the age for used is 18 (e.g. Australia, New Zealand).

In terms of actual numbers of children affected by parental divorce only figures for 2006 and 2007 were readily accessible (Fig 6 and Fig 7). From other ABS sources it would appear that in 2001, 28,345 children had parents who divorced and in 2002 the figure was 26,820 children. [2]

Fig 7. Numbers of children affected by parental divorce 1984 – 1994

For the first time in 20 years the proportion of divorces involving children fell below 50% in 2007 (49.3%). If this is related to Australia’s introduction of shared parenting it will be intriguing to see what future years will bring.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics then displays this trend as a graph (see Fig 8), however it should be noted that the Y axis begins at 48% and not zero%. This means that the visually dramatic fall seen in Fig 8 is really only a 10% fall, from around 60% to close to 50%.

Top

Fig 8. Proportion of divorces involving children, Australia 1986 – 2006. (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2006)

The duration of marriages, from inception to separation, has risen slightly since 1988 (Fig 9). The duration has risen from 10 years in 1988 to 12½ years in 2006.

Fig 9. Median length to separation and divorce: Australia – 1988 - 2007. (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2007)

At the same time the age at which divorces were sought also increased from 33 for females in 1988 (the key driver) to 40 in 2006 (Fig 10).

If the American predictions about the effects of shared parenting are true then this trend should be reinforced over the coming years.

Once again the Australian Bureau of Statistics have displayed the trend in the graph (Fig 10) not with a zero% Y axis but one that begins at 34,000. However, whereas earlier trend lines had fluctuations giving undue importance to a trend change, Fig 10 has consistently upwards trend lines and so more accurately reflects the changes in society.

Fig 10. Median age at divorce: Australia - 1988-2007. (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2007)

It has been suggested that women would petition less for divorce if they knew (or feared) they would not automatically be awarded custody of the children. Conversely, this might encourage husbands/fathers to petition in greater numbers. However, this does not yet appear to be the case.

This is underscored by Fig 11, which gives an analysis of those petitioning for divorce. The upper line (starting at 50%) represents women applying for divorce and displays a ‘surge’ between 1996 and 2001. The middle line beginning at 38% shows male applications. Both male and female applicant trends are generally downwards, while, ‘joint applications’ emerge from relative obscurity in 1988 to a dominant position by 2006. Why this should have occurred is not clear unless it is related to some peripheral driver, e.g. legal aid entitlement.

Fig 11. Type of applicant: Australia - 1988-2007. (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2007)

Top

Postscript

Vociferous and sometimes vitriolic opposition to equality in parenting has already surfaced in Australia. It comes not from fathers but from women’s organisations which must somehow feel themselves under threat and a few academics, e.g. Jennifer McIntosh. This threat must relate to the prospect of not seeing their children quite so often and/or with not so much of the monopoly over their children that they once previously enjoyed.

Could this horror be rooted in their own fear ? The nightmare that some fathers/men might do to them what for years they have been wantonly doing to fathers ?

For academics the threat is to their reputations. Adele Horin writing in Australia’s ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ quotes Jennifer McIntosh, a highly respected child psychologist as casting doubt on the efficacy of post divorce shared care / shared parenting. [3] Having invested so many years writing papers and authoring books to now be shown (and over the coming years proven) to have got it completely wrong is worth any manipulation of the facts – certainly until retirement. [4]

The current maliciousness towards equal parenting tends to come from those very people that have for so long demanded that Society treat them as equals.

Those that describe themselves as professional and business women are allegedly opposed to equal parenting – if there are any professional and business women in favour of equal parenting they have so far failed to step forward or counter their sisters. Yet is it not the case that shared equal parenting would mimic traditional couples inasmuch that it would give the former wife and mother, more ‘down time’, more quality time for her own personal needs, more time to focus on her career and profession and generally lower her stress levels (see mental health levels Fig 3 above) ?

The other argument ‘thread’ found on Australian websites and in the occasional feature article is one connected to the perceived risk of violence.

Since we have shown above that this applies to only about 5% of families one might be tempted to dismiss it as a comparative irrelevance. However, since it will be ‘majored’ on by opponents to equal parenting (predominantly by that splinter group in society involved with domestic violence against women, but not against men), its deserves a brief demolition. [5]

The policy of this group, perhaps best described as a ‘clique’, is to stress how Australia is a family-friendly nation, and that as such Australia should remain committed to children (note how Nationalism suddenly appears from this quarter).

The needs of children should be the paramount consideration when deciding custody (note, needs are not specified). But who decides custody in both the present and former regimes ? Adults, of course ! Children – when they are asked – uniformly say they want access to and enjoy both parents.

This clique believes the changes to equality in parenting were premised on ensuring the rights and welfare of parents (and why not, there are two parents and both have rights ?), yet they are unable to see this criticism, circular though it is, could be equally levelled at the previous regime.

Their argument then turns to the new system being awful because it adopts a “one size fits all” principle. From the statistics given above this clearly is not the case and is demonstrable nonsense.

If anything can be labelled a “one size fits all” solution it is the former regime where men were totally excluded from meaningful participation in the future lives of their own children and women almost guaranteed 100% custody.

Had women not so recklessly, routinely and gratuitously abused their position of trust and misused their ‘gatekeeping’ powers, a reform might not have been so urgently necessary.

Examination of the clique’s claim that the new law takes no account of the circumstances of individual families and individual children is rendered absurd by the above statistics depicting the division of custody and the reasons given.

Then, by focusing on the dysfunctional and troubled families (which do exist), their logic is that the new regime cannot be rolled out to those families which are not dysfunctional and not troubled, i.e. normal, as this will somehow be unfair and disadvantage dysfunctional families.

Evidently the proverbial penny has not dropped – one cannot have a “one size fits all” criticism if at the same time also complaining about the new law taking into account disadvantaged and ‘troubled families’.

By freeing up resources these troubled families are able to secure the attention and dedication that under the previous regime would have been rationed or curtailed. By implication this means that the hope among even the most dysfunctional and troubled families of a path to normality will be improved.

Critics of the new shared parenting laws prefer not to publicise how broken and defective were the previous set of laws. Papers from 10th Australian National Family Law Conference held in Melbourne (16-20 March 2002) spell out unequivocally how out of touch the model had become by 2002. [6] One speaker was of the opinion that:

“The concept of parental responsibility is past its use-by date. It should be consigned to the dustbin of legal history, like the Roman law concept of paterfamilias.

Society needs a new standard: that of family responsibility [as opposed to ‘parental responsibility’]. By this I mean that family members should be responsible for each other and that the extent of the ‘bundle’ of rights accorded to each family member should depend on the degree of responsibility exercised in practice by each member, whether such responsibility is accepted voluntarily and lovingly or imposed by the law.

The idea of family should be broadly defined to encompass disparate cultural and social models so that the general principle of family responsibility can be adapted pragmatically to specific circumstances.

Thus I endorse the German law that children are legally obliged to financially support their aging parents, with the concomitant rule (followed in Spain) that a young person should not be entitled to welfare benefits if the family can afford to provide support.
My basic premise also leads me to criticise laws, such as in France, Sweden and Germany, which prohibit a father from totally disinheriting an unrepentant prodigal son. Responsibilities conferring rights, yes, but no rights without responsibilities.

The criticism before Australia changed her custody law – and it’s a chorus in every English speaking nation – is that it would lead to the neglect of children’s rights and an increase in domestic violence. This claim is now being re-laundered in the post-legislative phase. This is a useful indicator to other countries of what they might expect should they adopt Australia’s solution.

That esoteric legion which earns it salary through domestic violence advocacy fails to mention that their concerns about rising levels of conflict between parents is unlikely to occur given that there is now less at stake or to argue about. They complain of “a very oppressive culture that desperately needs to be reviewed”, yet fail to see that only the previous regime was oppressive and created a culture of animosity and ‘winner takes all’.

Surely the ideal of such domestic violence interest groups is to eradicate “the problem” and so work themselves out of a job.

Or is it ?

Faced with unemployment would not the kind of review they seek put them back into fulltime employment ?

END

Top

Appendix A

CASES WHERE MOTHERS RECEIVED A MAJORITY OF TIME

• In 60% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend more than 50% of time with their mother.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 68% of cases that the child spend more than 50% of time with their mother.

CASES WHERE FATHERS RECEIVED A MAJORITY OF TIME

• In 17% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend more than 50% of time with their father.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 8% of cases that children spend more than 50% of time with their father.

CASES WHERE 50/50 TIME WAS AWARDED

• In 15% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders for 50/50 care between parents.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, the parents agreed on a 50/50 care arrangement in 19% of cases.

CASES WHERE THE FATHER RECEIVED BETWEEN 30% AND 45% OF TIME

• In 14% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with their father.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 11% of cases that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with their father.
• In 3% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with the mother.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 1% of cases that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with their mother.

CASES WHERE THE FATHER SPENT NO TIME WITH THE CHILDREN

• In 6% of litigated cases, the father was ordered to spend no time with the children.
• Where the parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in less than 1% of cases that the father have no contact with the children.

The main reasons for the order include:

CASES WHERE THE MOTHER SPENT NO TIME WITH THE CHILDREN

• In 1% of litigated cases, the mother was ordered to have no contact with the children.

The main reasons for the order include:

GRANDPARENTS

• In 8% of litigated cases the Family Court ordered that the child spend time with grandparents.
• In 2% of cases where there was an early agreement it was agreed that the child spend time with the grandparent.
• In 2% of litigated cases the Family Court ordered that the child spend time with an ‘other’ person.
• In 1% of cases where there was an early agreement it was agreed that the child spend time with an ‘other’ person.

END

Top

References

1. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2002 http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/FBC6FEDBB2B43180CA256FAF0071CE3F?opendocument
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2006 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyReleaseDate/93C5FC5AF5651286CA2574B30017C7F7?OpenDocument
3. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2007; http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/f356dbb7ea7a96eeca256f10007b6b1a!OpenDocument; http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3307.0.55.001
4. Baroness Deech of Cumnor DBE; Human Rights and Welfare – Do children need a father?, Gresham College – Lectures and Events, 11/05/2009 http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=865
5. Family Court of Australia, Shared parental responsibility – Statistics in cases conducted in the Family Court of Australia during 2007–08, 2 March 2009 http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/eb6b6e03325f52f/SPR_org_02_03_09.pdf http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/eb6b6f033263e7d/SPR_org_02_03_09.doc
6. Robert Whiston and Nigel Hawkes; Violence and the invisible sex; In: Straight Statistics – Tue, 15/09/2009 – 09:10 http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/violence-and-invisible-sex

Top

Footnotes

[1] “A Critical Perspective on the Welfare Principle” by Stephen Gilmore (2001). From: The Law and Social Work; Part I. See also “No yardstick for child’s best interest – It would make more sense to probe least detrimental options”, Leonard Carr, The Times, South Africa Aug 19, 2009 http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article17710.ece

Top

[2] Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2002 http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/FBC6FEDBB2B43180CA256FAF0071CE3F?opendocument

Top

[3] “Children at risk in rise of shared care”, 4 March 2008. Sample was small – 77 court cases involving 111 children.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/children-at-risk-in-rise-of-shared-care/2008/03/03/1204402365352.html

Top

[4] Compare Ruth Deech lecture http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=865 Ref. Gresham College Lecture, 2009, and ‘Divorce Dissent’ with her work devising easier divorce laws. See also (judge) Brenda Hogget exponent of anti-marriage, ‘Ends & Means: The Utility of Marriage’ 1980, who then marries her cohabitee of many years Prof. Julian Farrand.

Top

[5] ‘Violence and the invisible sex’, http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/violence-and-invisible-sex

Top

[6] International Family Law Chambers http://www.internationalfamilylaw.com/pub/10melb.html

Top

Even as I write this article, I’m thinking that writers/authors should already know how to treat readers. I mean, does anyone really have to remind us to follow one of the golden rules – treat others the way you want to be treated.

And yet after years of observing bad behavior among my peers, I’m not so sure they know how to treat readers at all. Some probably do know, but simply don’t care…anymore. That’s fodder for another article. lol.

Hopefully this article comes across as timely advice for authors who want to avoid some of the mistakes of others. For the authors who may have become somewhat disconnected from their readership, this article may serve as a necessary wakeup call.

* * *

Talk to them

If readers take the time to leave you comments, I think it’s only fair that you take the time to respond to them. It doesn’t have to be anything long and drawn out, but certainly some form of acknowledgment is in order. Especially since those comments add even more value to your work.

I can personally attest to the fact that readers love that one-on-one feedback. Many of my readers have become like family to me. Supportive family at that, because they quickly buy every new release I have, largely because of our ongoing fellowship.

To the writers who are fortunate enough to have millions of readers (trying real hard not to be green with envy here. lol), HIRE someone to respond to your readers for you. Preferably someone who has the same positive mindset as you.

* * *

Be respectful

The worst thing writers can do is be disrespectful to their readers. That’s like committing career suicide.

Some of you may ask, “But what if they disrespect me first?”

My response to that is, “Toughen up and don’t stoop to their level.”

You also need to examine your options after a reader initiates the disrespect. One option is to simply delete or ignore the negative comment. Another option is to address the negative comment with dignity (publicly or privately based on the situation).

* * *

Learn to share

I have seen the strangest phenomenon among writers lately. Some authors actually have the nerve to get upset when ‘their’ readers also support the work of others. Some of those same authors have gone on to trash their ‘rivals’ work (anonymously, of course) in order to discourage readers from supporting particular authors.

This requires a stern “Get-over-yourself!” admonition. I mean, really? Are you serious?!

Understand that readers are free agents. They can read any book they want by any author they like. No one has first dibs on them. Or any dibs at all for that matter.

* * *

Don’t be a respecter of persons

Esteem all of your readers equally. A bad practice among some writers is to only respond to certain readers. That just reeks of clique, clique, clique. This practice gets worse when the door to the clique only squeaks open when someone famous or popular at the moment suddenly becomes a reader.

Tsk. Tsk. Come on now. We’re not in high school anymore.

When writers esteem their clique readers over everyone else, the readers who have constantly been ignored (possibly the loyal ones who have stood in the rain to buy one of your new releases) will eventually go away. When this happens, no need to question why your readership and sales are going down. You brought it all on yourself.

* * *

Support your readers

Sometimes writers get so wrapped up with our own stuff, in trying to garner support for our work, that we forget to support the work of others.

I make a habit of visiting the websites and blogs of my readers, including my author friends. When I visit, I take the time to leave a comment or two for them. After all, one good turn deserves another, right?

* * *

Don’t leave your readers hanging indefinitely

This last tip goes out to authors who maintain blogs and websites. Please, please, PLEASE don’t leave your readers hanging indefinitely. Even if you never finish the story you started online, even if your book release date keeps changing, please post a brief note just to let your readers know what’s going on.

I have seen some outstanding authors lose readers this way. This doesn’t have to happen. All it takes is a couple of lines to update your readers on your status.

In conclusion, I hope this article was helpful to someone. That it didn’t make anyone too angry with me. lol. Most of all, I hope this article promotes a positive change in the way writers/authors treat their readers.

© 2009 by Suprina Frazier

UNFCCC Plénière, Bonn 2009

La longue ritournelle des discussions officielles et informelles suit son cours. Après Bonn I, Bonn II voilà à présent que Bonn III se termine. Les négociations de Bonn III n’étaient pas « officielles » mais informelles, elles avaient pour objectif de réduire le document de négociations pour que les négociateurs puissent enfin se focaliser et discuter sur des points importants, fondamentaux et moins sur des points techniques. En termes plus imagés, il fallait diviser par quatre le document de négociations issu de Bonn II, passer de 200 et 50 pages maximum. D’une part pour rendre le texte intelligible et également pour supprimer les redondances, et répétitions de propositions faites par les différents États. En clair, pas un travail très excitant, mais hautement nécessaire avant d’entrer dans les cinq prochaines semaines d’âpres négociations (deux semaine à Bangkok en septembre-octobre, une semaine à Barcelone, puis deux semaines en décembre à Copenhague).
De plus, ces discussions permettent également aux pays de l’Annexe I (ceux devant réduire leurs émissions de GES) de faire état de leurs objectifs nationaux de réduction des gaz à effet de serre. Bonn II avait notamment permis au Japon d’exprimer ses objectifs (extrêmement faibles cf article : “It’s the first time I don’t time what to say”), ce fut cette fois au tour de la Nouvelle Zélande.

La présentation des objectifs de réductions pour la Nouvelle-Zélande a été l’un des points forts de cette semaine, annoncés lundi, premier jour de conférence, ils auront permis de montrer à quel point les pays de l’Annexe I ne sont pas à la hauteur de leur responsabilité. En annonçant un objectif compris entre 10 et 20%, la Nouvelle-Zélande se situe très loin de la fourchette conseillée par les scientifiques du Groupement Intergouvernemental d’Experts sur le Climat. Bien entendu, l’ensemble des ONG présentes en tant qu’observateurs à la conférence ont réagi à cette annonce, notamment en remettant le « Fossil-of-the-Day » à la Nouvelle-Zélande.

S’ensuit ensuite la conférence de presse de Monsieur Yvo de Boer secrétaire général de la Convention Cadre des Nations Unies qui a annoncé que les négociations avançaient avec en ligne de mire un objectif probable et certain de réductions des émissions compris entre 15 et 21% d’ici 2020 (toujours par rapport à 1990). Cette fourchette introduite par Yvo de Boer est assez inquiétante non seulement d’un point de vue scientifique, mais également d’un point de vue politique. Il vient probablement illustrer le recul européen et peut-être également français sur la question des objectifs.

Pour rappel, l’Union Européenne dans sa décision du Conseil des Ministres du 3 mars 2009, ainsi que la France dans son mémorandum défendaient un objectif de réduction de 30% pour 2020 par rapport à 1990. Pour rappel, encore une fois, le GIEC nous adresse un quasi impératif scientifique de réductions compris entre 25 et 40% d’ici 2020 par rapport à 1990. Un article y a été consacré le jour de la conférence de presse : Laissez tout, nous nettoyerons la cheminée !

Pour illustrer cet article, rien de tel que de reprendre les phrases prononcées d’une part par Yvo de Boer, qui déclare simplement :

« Si nous continuons à ce rythme, nous ne trouverons pas d’accord. »

Ou encore Jonathan Pershing, envoyé spécial des Etats-Unis d’Amérique pour les négociations sur le climat qui explique :

« Si nous n’avons pas plus de mouvements, ni plus de consensus que ce que l’on a vu ici (à Bonn III), nous ne trouverons pas d’accord ».

De plus en plus, le terme de stratégie ressort des discussions entre les membres du Réseau Action Climat International, la crainte d’une mise en place d’une stratégie cherchant à nous faire craindre que l’on ne trouvera pas d’accord à la fin de l’année pour en faire accepter un qui ne sera pas à la hauteur commence à s’installer. Se pose alors la question de savoir s’il vaut mieux un accord faible, mais un accord, ou bien alors pas d’accord avec la possibilité d’une CoP de l’urgence décidée pour l’année 2010.

Tout reste cependant encore possible, mais il apparaît très clair que les citoyens de monde entier doivent montrer leur volonté d’obtenir cet accord international sur le climat, respectant ces trois principes de base : équitable, ambitieux, et liant à l’égard des parties.

Mesdames et Messieurs les négociateurs, que faites-vous donc ?

Le Centre Ecologique Albert Schweitzer, ONG neuchâteloise de coopération technique, contribue depuis 25 ans à l’amélioration des conditions de vie d’artisans, paysans et petits entrepreneurs d’Afrique, par des mesures qui allient économie et écologie pour un développement durable.

Pour fêter ses 25 ans,
le CEAS organise un Festival Africain
qui se déroulera le 09 et le 10 septembre 2005
au coeur de Neuchâtel (Suisse)

Découverte, culture, échange et débats sont au programme.

KubaLibre.net – Artisans et Créateurs Africains pour un Echange Solidaire -
participe à sa manière au marché équitable organisé pour l’occasion.

Les étoffes traditionnelles Kuba, vêtements royaux et festifs du Kasaï, en raphia naturel tissé main,
vous invitent à voyager au coeur de la République Démocratique du Congo !

• le vendredi 09 septembre 2005, dès 16h
• le samedi 10 septembre 2005, dès 9h

L’initiative du projet veja tient en une question : Un autre monde est-il possible ?

Coton biologique du Nordeste brésilien, caoutchouc sauvage d’Amazonie, cuir écologique, veja tente d’inventer des façons différentes de travailler.

 Le projet Veja repose sur trois principes forts :
1. Privilégier les matériaux écologiques
2. Utiliser du coton et du caoutchouc issus du commerce équitable
3. Fabriquer les produits dans la dignité

Veja propose une nouvelle manière de penser et d’agir en créant une chaîne solidaire et écologique du producteur au consommateur.

http://www.veja.fr/

Tip 1: Equitable or equable

A reader writes:

I just had a conversation in which the other party used the word, equable, as in: I have to be equable and offer this to all persons or none of them. It reminded me that our former Chair often used the word equable. So often that I had to look up equable and equitable…don’t know if this is an example you might use at some point or have come across it yourself.

Ah yes, equitable and equable are often confused but their meanings are distinct, and they should not be used interchangeably. There are a couple of problems with the example provided:

I have to be equable and offer this to all persons or none of them.

First, equable means unvarying or steady in an agreeable or moderate way. It often is used when talking about the climate.

I love to spend time in Hawaii; it has such an equable climate that packing for the trip is a breeze.

When used in reference to a living being, it connotes even-temperedness.

He never seemed to get angry; he displayed an equable temperament.

Flopsy doesn’t mind it when the children pull her tail; she has an equable personality.

Equitable, on the other hand, means fair or just, and that is the word the author is seeking. However (and this is my second problem with the sentence), equitable is commonly used to refer to the outcome, NOT the person making the decision. Such usage exists but is generally limited to aged philosophy texts.

It was an equitable agreement; the decision was equitable; the division of goods was equitable; it was an equitable settlement.

NOT

He was an equitable man; I want to be equitable, She was most equitable.

NO! NO! NO!

So I would rewrite the sentence above:

I have to make an equitable decision and offer this to all persons or none of them.

[NOTE: Another warning about considering reference sources on the internet to be completely reliable, on <yourdictionary.com>, this was an example of how equable should be used:

Consequently the gifts were divided up in a most equable manner.

No way! Oh dear!]

Tip 2: People or persons

I have to admit that there is a third thing that bugged me about the sentence we discussed in tip 1. And that is the use of ‘persons’ instead of ‘people’ although I would probably have used ‘everyone’ instead of either ‘all persons’ or ‘all people.’

Let’s correct some of the myths surrounding ‘person’ and ‘people.’ First, ‘people’ is actually not the plural form of ‘person’: the words have different Latin roots (populum meaning populace and persona meaning character).

Second, the notion that we should use ‘persons’ when referring to a specific number and ‘people’ when referring to a mass, despite Strunk and White’s exhortations, is silly. We have examples of such use that go back centuries. I have included some examples below courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania’s blog on language, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/

Strunk and White’s argument is specious, too-”If of six people, five went away, how many people would be left? Answer: one people.” Why on earth would we say ‘one people’? Since when has English usage been subject to logic? And how do we handle words like many or several–many persons, several persons?

From Shakespeare’s King Lear (1603), Act II, Scene 2:

I dare auouch it Sir, what fifty Followers?
Is it not well? What should you need of more?
Yea, or so many? Sith that both charge and danger,
Speake ‘gainst so great a number? How in one house
Should many people, vnder two commands
Hold amity? ‘Tis hard, almost impossible.

From John Taylor’s gory pre-1630 poem, Taylors Water-worke:

In Henries Raigne and Maries (cruell Queene)
Eight thousand people there hath slaughtered beene,
Some by the Sword, some Hang’d, some burnt in fire,
Some staru’d to death in Prison, all expire.
welue thousand and seuen hundred more beside,
Much persecuting trouble did abide.

From Jane Austen’s Emma (1815), chapter 8:

Waiving that point, however, and supposing her to be, as you describe her, only pretty and good-natured, let me tell you, that in the degree she possesses them, they are not trivial recommendations to the world in general, for she is, in fact, a beautiful girl, and must be thought so by ninety-nine people out of an hundred; and till it appears that men are much more philosophic on the subject of beauty than they are generally supposed; till they do fall in love with well-informed minds instead of handsome faces, a girl, with such loveliness as Harriet, has a certainty of being admired and sought after, of having the power of chusing from among many, consequently a claim to be nice.

From Charles Darwin’s, Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the countries visited during the voyage round the world of H.M.S. Beagle (1839), chapter 16:

At Ica forty-two people thus miserably perished.

From Mark Twain’s Life on the Mississippi (1883), chapter 45:

If you add six ladies to the company, you have added six people who saw so little of the dread realities of the war that they ran out of talk concerning them years ago, and now would soon weary of the war topic if you brought it up.

And finally, from Agatha Christie’s The Mysterious Affair at Styles (1916), chapter 8:

From your account, there are only two people whom we can positively say did not go near the coffee-Mrs. Cavendish, and Mademoiselle Cynthia.

Third, using ‘persons’ when referring to multiple individuals acting as individuals and ‘people’ when referring to a group acting as a group is just plain wrong.

And finally, the wackiest myth I found demanded that we use persons when referring any group of individuals and ‘people’ when referring to a group of individuals with a single cultural or ethnic identity. The last myth probably is the result of confusing the meaning of ‘people’ with ‘peoples,’ which refers to a group sharing a common condition, e.g., religion, culture, language, race, ethnicity.

So what to use ‘persons’ or ‘people’? To me, it’s pretty simple. As always, our goal in writing is achieving clarity and grace. We wouldn’t use ‘persons’ in conversation; it’s way too stodgy. So why use it in writing? I’d reserve ‘persons’ for legal writing and stick with people for our purposes. Power to the people!

Equitable liability is a remedy of last resort for taxpayers who have fallen behind with their tax affairs. It applies in cases where a taxpayer is facing the enforcement of a tax assessment and/or determination which has become final and conclusive (for example, because of the lapse of time in which an appeal would have been allowed) but the taxpayer can provide satisfactory evidence to show that the assessment or determination is in fact excessive.

Typically, this will occur in cases where a taxpayer has started an activity that has proved to be profitable and, for whatever reason, has failed to register for tax. In many cases, the difficulties faced by such taxpayers will often be compounded by family and other financial problems leaving the unfortunate taxpayer like the proverbial rabbit in the headlights. When HMRC come knocking, panic will often set in and it is only when the bailiffs come will the taxpayer seek help.

Provided that the taxpayer can demonstrate that the true tax liability is lower than the assessment or determination, HMRC will, by concession, seek only the lower amount, notwithstanding the assessment or determination that entitles them to demand the additional sums.

As with many non-statutory practices, not every tax adviser is aware of the practice. In 1995, the then Inland Revenue published an article in their tax bulletin in order to fulfil a promise made by the department to make more people aware of the practice. More recently, in March 2009, it was the subject of an article by TaxAid’s Harry Fulton in Taxation. Indeed, it is within the charitable sector (particularly, LITRG and TaxAid) where the profession has had most cause to use the practice because it assists mainly those individuals who do not have access to professional advice.

In recent weeks, HMRC have announced that they now wish to withdraw the practice. They cite several reasons. None, in my view, is a sufficient justification for the complete abolition of the practice that can prove to be a lifeline (in some cases, I suspect, literally) for individuals.

First, HMRC cite that the practice was originally introduced when the Crown had preferential rights in cases of insolvency. Whilst that is true, it was stated back in 1995 that the former Inland Revenue would equally apply the practice in non-insolvency cases. Therefore, citing the original source of the practice is disingenuous.

Reason 2 is that the introduction of Self Assessment has “eroded the justification for accepting time barred information”. Well, again, one can refer HMRC to the 1995 article. That specifically looked forward to the then imminent introduction of Self Assessment, noting that the régime would change the relevance of equitable liability. Nevertheless, the former Inland Revenue explicitly accepted that, where the conditions were met, they would be “extending their [previous] practice to meet this situation”. Therefore, citing the introduction of Self Assessment is plain dishonest.

Reason 3 is that the Wilkinson decision in the House of Lords prevents HMRC from exercising administrative discretion in many cases. Here, I accept that HMRC have a point. However, this is not insurmountable. Most people at HMRC are aware that there is an annual event known as the Finance Bill. This allows new laws to be passed in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. Where unfairness has come to light, I would suggest that the law be amended so as to allow equitable liability to be retained. Alternatively, HMRC could use its powers in section 160 of last year’s Finance Act which permits previous extra-statutory practices to be legitimised, something that has already happened in some cases precisely in order to get around the Wilkinson problem. In short, by citing Wilkinson, HMRC are just making excuses.

In my view, the idea of withdrawing the practice is outrageous. It will leave exposed the most vulnerable members of our society, with negligible advantage to the Exchequer. At a time when MPs are being criticised for over-decorating their second homes, MPs should consider retaining a measure that could save some taxpayers their only home.

If you agree, I would urge you to write to HMRC. A leading tax barrister has also started a petition on Number 10’s website and I would urge you to sign up to it at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BeFairHMRC/.

Knowing that a general election is imminent, I also suggest you raise the issue with anyone who (draws the short straw and) knocks on your door in the coming months.

Pays d’origine : Madagascar

Dimension : 15 cm
Vendue à l’unité.

Pays d’origine : Burkina Faso

Tous ces objets sont à vendre sur le site La terre vous aime.