In a further blatant attempt at whitewashing the fraud
against Liam Magill the Chief Executive Officer is now
blaming the Parliamentary Draftspersons for defective
empowering legislation.
How far is this man prepared to go to avoid his
responsibilities to claw back the child support
legallly owed to the Commonwealth for two of the
children born to Meredith Magill and of course
refundable with interest to Mr Magill ?
It seems that this matter will never end.
It will however awaken others whose paternity is
alleged to be making much more certain about their
legal obligations because the Paternity Tax Department
obviously has no interest in making the process fair
and transparent seeking instead to suggest that
fathers should shut up and pretend they are the father
even if they aren't for the sake of the children even
in spite of the obvious health and moral issues that
this raises in the future for the said children.
It is clearer by the day that this legisltaion is
designed for mothers and has no concern for fathers
and obsolute contempt for the needs and entitlements
of the children putatively fathered by the person
levied for paternity tax.

Geoffrey Heaviside

Convenor - Brimbank Community Initiatives Inc
Secretary - International Centre for Health Equity Inc
Member - Australasian Society for HIV Medicine Inc
P.O. Box 2400 Taylors Lakes 3038
Victoria. Australia.
Ph: 61 418 328 278
Ph/Fax : (61 3) 9449 1856

"You can't sing in harmony
If everyone is singing the same note"

Reply to The Age (Melbourne) 13 March 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Woman-speaks-on-child-paternity-triangle/2007/03/13/1173722470066.html>
————————————————————————————————————————————
> >Letter from Patricia ( circulated with her consent )
> > Meredith Magill has admitted guilt and with no fall back position - other than
> > being “unhappy” etc. As you say, and as surely most members of the
> > public would say -”Soooooh? Why didn’t you take precautions?
>
> > Once is a mistake, twice is culpable irresponsibility!
> > You showed no regard for either the husband or the children then, so
> > it’s a little late to claim to be considering the welfare of the
> > children now!
> > You were the one who was utterly irresponsible, not the husband!!
> > Why didn’t you tell the husband you were so unhappy?
> > Why didn’t you end the marriage?
> > Why didn’t you go and live with your lover?
> > Why didn’t you tell your lover (who must have been thick as two bricks
> > not to have known and so is therefore equally and culpable as you) the
> > children were his?
> > Were you having sex with your lover and your husband at the same time?
> > Were you having sex with your lover while you were pregnant?
> > Were you having sex with your husband while your were pregnant with
> > your lover’s children, through all of your pregnancies?
> > What was your given reason for ending the marriage?
> > Had you no guilt taking money from your ex-husband, especially knowing
> > how dire his financial position had become?
> > Had you no guilt keeping the children that your husband believed to be
> > his and loved as his own, away from him, except for alternate weekends
> > and holidays,in the full knowledge that he was extremely unhappy, that
> > it was affecting his work and his health, just because you had felt
> > “unhappy”?
> > Where was your concern for the welfare of the children when you
> > determined to deceive them of the truth of their paternity.?
> > Where was your concern for the welfare of the children when you
> > deprived them not only of the love and company of the father they had
> > known, but also of their real (although obviously undeserving of it)
> > father?
> >
> > If you loved this other man, had you no guilt about deceiving him as
> > well, and depriving him of his relationship with his children?
> >
> > What right did you have to deceive either your husband or your lover
> > as to the paternity of your children?
> > What right did you have to deceive your children as to the truth of
> > their own paternity?
> >
> > What right do you have to encourage your children in their hatred for
> > the man who loved them as his own, who gave them everything he had and
> > everything he could, who shared his dreams for their future with them,
> > who shared his life with them, who believed in them and wanted only
> > the best for them?
> >
> > What right do you have to encourage your children in their hatred for
> > the man whose only crime was to be a responsible and loving husband
> > and father, but who you no longer loved and so turned out, in favor
> > of a lover?
> >
> > What right had you to continue having an affair with your lover, the
> > real father of 2 of your 3 children, while at the same time taking
> > control of the custody of children who weren’t Liam’s anyway?
> >
> > What right had you to continue having an affair with your lover, the
> > real father of 2 of your 3 children, while at the same time enjoying
> > taxpayer’s money, using the Family Court to enforce a settlement from
> > your ex husband based on fraud.?
> >
> > Had you no guilt in taking money from your ex-husband for the
> > maintenance and welfare of children that you have admitted you were
> > aware were not his, while at the same time continuing an affair with
> > their real father?
> >
> > Were you and the real father of your children complicit in this whole
> > process? Was the real father a partner in your criminal fraud?
> >
> > How can you declare that your ex-husband’s ’slate’ has been “wiped
> > clean”, when he had to pay maintenance for your lover’s children for
> > years and is still now thousands of dollars in overpayment of child
> > support?
> >
> > How can you declare that your ex-husband’s ’slate’ has been “wiped
> > clean”, when his health has been so affected that he has lost his
> > employment and his future career and the future earnings and
> > superannuation that would have ensued?
> >
> > How can you declare that your ex-husband’s ’slate’ has been “wiped
> > clean”, when he is now estranged from all 3 children because your
> > neglect and irresponsibility, your stubborn refusal to deal honestly
> > with him, and your encouragement of your children to hate him, as a
> > way of garnering their support for yourself, has left him now
> > childless and with little or no prospect of ever becoming a father again?
> >
> > How can you declare that your ex-husband’s ’slate’ has been “wiped
> > clean”, when your court costs have been fully subsidised by the
> > tax-payer, whereas your ex-husband has had to pay for all of his legal
> > fees and is now liable for your costs as well?
> >
> > How can you declare that your ex-husband’s ’slate’ has been “wiped
> > clean”, when he has missed so many moments of the joys of fatherhood,
> > so many opportunities to dream for his children, so many chances to
> > help them, to guide them, to love them? When he may never get the
> > opportunity to watch them grow into maturity, to marry, to have his
> > grandchildren and to share their joy? When he can only stand by and
> > wonder if they are ok, nourished, secure, happy, lonely? When there
> > is only one true answer, and that is that you were selfish and
> > irresponsible to the extreme, and then compounded the whole sordid
> > saga by refusing to own up to the truth.
> >
> > Have you no guilt that your lies and deceit have embittered your
> > children, have thwarted their personal development, have confused
> > their values and their sense of right and wrong?
> > Taking a lover was not your crime. As you say, you “did it for the
> > same reasons that most people do”.
> > Your first crime was to be so irresponsible as to have continuous,
> > unprotected sex with your lover.
> >
> > Your second crime was to either fail to abort the pregnancy, or to
> > deal with your predicament in an honest and responsible manner.
> >
> > Your third crime was to continue having sex with your lover, while you
> > duplicitously encouraged your husband in the belief that you and he
> > were joyfully nurturing another beautiful child for your family.
> >
> > Your fourth crime was to continue having unprotected sex with your
> > lover, not only during your pregnancy with his child, but after,
> > resulting in yet another pregnancy. Did you discuss having more
> > children with your husband? Did you encourage him to look forward to
> > yet another joyful birth? Did you share moments of your pregnancy
> > with him? Did you let him feel your tummy when the baby kicked?
> >
> > When your husband was with you for the births of your children, did
> > you allow him to believe that he was participating in the bringing
> > into the world of his own flesh? Yes, you did. And that was criminal
> > too.
> >
> > Your other crimes were in your pursuit of your ex-husband for custody
> > and maintenance for your children, and for the anguish, stress,
> > misery, poverty, deprivation of future - of your ex-husband and of
> > your children.”
Mrs Patricia McDonald -Darwin -Northern Territory of Australia
Email :   trishamcdonald@ozemail.com.au

By Akiva Quinn - posted Thursday, 16 November 2006

Reproduced from “ON LINE opinion” Australia’s e-journal of social nad political debate.

Do the moral issues skirted by the High Court ruling against a finding of deceit in the Magill case indicate that when it comes to reproductive choices women have rights but men do not? Or should our social concern rather focus on the children who are denied knowing their natural fathers and hence lose the key to half of their genetic heritage?

The legal establishment, and others who think that society can do no better, may like us accept that mothers should make the choices about having children and therefore we should not be too dismayed about the possibility of paternity fraud.

But it is an historical, social and ethical mistake to consider mothers (and the courts) as the sole arbiters on the needs of children. Fathers can and should also be involved in decisions about what is best for their children.

Women have been insistent in claiming their rights to choose whether to become parents or not. The long-running debates on “a woman’s right to” abortion and the parliamentary debate on making the RU486 abortion drug available are testimony to these vocal claims.

Men would dearly like to assert similar rights to make their own reproductive choices.

But what happens when a woman exercises her reproductive choice to become a mother while misleading her male partner into believing that he has become a father?

According to last week’s decision by the High Court of Australia in the Magill case, the mother, Meredith Magill, is not guilty of the common law tort of deceit even though she knew that Liam Magill was not the father of two of her children.

Men choose to become fathers through insemination, adoption or assuming some of the fathering responsibilities for their partner’s children. What men do not freely choose is to become a “step-father” to children they believe are their own.

Men who are made aware that they are not the father of their partner’s children may still choose to take on a fathering role if they are comfortable doing so. Liam Magill was not given this choice. He was denied any knowledge of the children’s paternity and his right to make an informed choice was unjustly violated.

Any acceptance of paternity fraud sends a strong message that our society recognises the importance of women’s rights but fails to give men’s rights equal consideration.

Worse still in cases where paternity fraud is deliberate. It involves a calculated decision on the part of a mother to deny the children and the natural father the truth about their father-child relationships. This denies the children a key aspect of their identity.

Biological ties are important to each of us in understanding who we are. Family relations are central to our sense of self-identity: “Who are your parents?”; “Is this your child?”

These questions about family relationships are most often inquiries into the biological connections between generations. These parent-child ties are among our most valued intimate relationships and the source of great love, pride, joy and mutual expectations.

How many parents would accept with equanimity the revelation: “This is not your child”? If a newborn child is given to the wrong parents or mother after delivery we are shocked and anticipate significant distress among all the incorrectly identified parents.

Our moral outrage should be no less where children are deliberately misled about the identity of their father. Discovering that you are not the parent of one of “your” children would be a terribly shocking and identity-altering revelation for most people.

There is widespread support from political liberals, equal parenting and fatherhood advocates, and equality feminists, for women and men to have legal equality and enjoy equal social opportunities. However, some people oppose equality for the sexes and “gender feminists” advocate preferential treatment for women in areas including child custody and reproductive rights.

In the wake of the Magill decision, legislative changes should be considered to protect both women’s rights and men’s rights to make their own, individual reproductive choices. In an open society our laws should be a reflection of our shared moral values so legal reform is required to address social concerns about the myriad problems resulting from paternity fraud.

It is in children’s best interests to have both parents share the responsibilities and care for their children. The importance for children of strong relationships with their mothers and fathers is borne out by modern developmental theory and empirical research. Roles for both parents are supported after marital separation by the latest family law amendments.

Children have rights to know and be cared for by both parents. These moral and legal rights are enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by over 190 countries including Australia. As a UNCRC signatory we must ensure that children are able to maintain personal relations with both their parents.

Both women and men have rights to make reproductive choices about having children, as parenting is a partnership chosen by two people to protect the interests of their children. These moral concerns form the heart of the unique social value parent-child relationships have in our society and the law must protect these vital principles.

The unanimous decision by the High Court against Liam Magill – a victim of paternity fraud – has been slammed by two Federal Members of Parliament, the Member for Indi, Mrs Sophie Mirabella, and the Member for Hume, Mr Alby Schultz.

“The unanimous decision from the High Court in the Magill case is breathtaking in its attack on the basic rights of persons alleged to be parents. The social impact of this decision is enormous and the personal damage is immeasurable.”
Download the complete press release here. 

Read the latest judgement from the High Court of Australia.

Click to read court judgement.