ARREST!!! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 -#23

[Jillie]

It is fact in the Family Law of Australia that there are no "rights" per se for Grandparents , or Parents for that matter

The rights belong to the children, , if you like i will find the legislation in the Family Law Act

The article if you read it sets out that the family Court ACKNOWLEDGES the role, but doesn t state that they have rights. PARENTS do not have rights as parents, the CHILDREN have rights to have a parent

I agree with the concept that the children have the rights not the parents - however, it is not in my experience that this actually is the case or how it works:

Even tho when my four sons (aged 4 - 12) expressed their feelings that they DIDN"T want to have access with their father, the Family Court said (in so many words) it was their right to see their father, so they had to...The Family Court said it would only be when they were older (say in their teens) that they could say they didn't want to see him.

I didn't encourage them one way or another, but each time they had returned from a weekend with him they said that had a horrible time. He slept most of the weekend, drank and smoked the rest of the time (even tho two of the boys was asthmatic), hit them and shouted at them if they made any noise, didn't cook anything but rather told them to go to the shops with money he'd gavin them to get something (needless to say they bought lollies and ice-cream etc!), didn't talk to or play with them, didn't take them anywhere and basically let them wander around all weekend unsupervised. All in all they hated it. It is fortunate that there were four of them to keep each other company otherwise it would have been unbearable. There were many instances of him just telling them to go home....giving them the train fare and telling them to get lost (which they did) and I had no idea - no phone call to me or anything!!

Fortunately, after about 6 months of this, the father got fed up of having them and decided he couldn't be bothered...Didn't show up one weekend and never saw, spoke to or contacted them again ....over 20 years ago now. All that I can see from this is that the children's so-called rights to 'have contact with a parent' was not what the children actually wanted at all and no one wanted to listen to them (well, apart from me).

Funnily, he fought for his rights to see the boys with the help of a barrister, but when he achieved it he didn't want it. All just a control thing - which he was really big on. When he thought he had proved his point that he could flex his muscles and force something upon his family he was no longer interested.

Just recently one of the boys (now 32) told me "He [his father] is dead to me." Wow, what a poignant, powerful thing to say!

 

[Watsonian Institute]

You are such a nice (and dare I say, intelligent) person WI!! :hero:

*chuckle*

My secret's out! :hills:


Thank you, Jillie.

 

[Jillie]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...sting-laboratory/story-e6freoof-1226397632135

Step inside the John Tonge Centre, our own 'CSI: Brisbane' forensic testing laboratory

Looks just like where I work.... Only ours has a much bigger lab...

 

[CJ60]

*chuckle*

My secret's out! :hills:


Thank you, Jillie.

What secret, WI?

You are nice, or you are intelligent?

All in good fun!

Mae'n gas gen cathod!

 

[Watsonian Institute]

What secret, WI?

You are nice, or you are intelligent?

All in good fun!

Mae'n gas gen cathod!

Take your pick!

ps: :cat:

 

[Jillie]

I have had a look online to see what seems to be current thinking on the differences between psychopaths and narcissists are. There was this very interesting post on a Phsychiatry forum, which I though may interest some here:

i agree with the notion that the P [psychopath] and the Narcissist are on the same continuum. i have some of my own opinions on this continuum, which have been heavily influenced by postings here.
"without actually using the terms "psychopath" or "narcissist", maybe we can just conceive of a continuum
bounded by two extremes. the low end is a person who has no apparent defense mechanisms. the true self is just "there", exposed, naked for all to see. the person is honest "to a fault" and overly harshly judgmental of themselves. their thoughts are a direct reflection of their feelings. the only time they may warp the truth is through irrational self-criticism. at the other end of the continuum is a person who has constructed an impenetrable fortress around the true self. reality is continually warped and folded into a strangely contoured plane under the auspices of a bizarre style of dyadic communication and, i suspect, systematic self-delusion. the goal of this strategy is shielding the true self from reality, at all costs. those individuals who make the mistake (through no fault of their own) of getting "close" to this person will suffer as they are unwittingly drawn into the warped reality, as they are also bent and twisted to serve the unrelenting guardian of the true self. that same guardian will cast them aside once they are of no use for protecting the true self. this guardian cannot be reasoned with. it says "if you want it (the true self) you will have to go through me first." none of us mere mortals are a match.

as we move along this continuum, from the high end to low end, we see a growing disconnection between the spoken word and reality, as the relative strength of the true and false selves is inverted. we have chosen to call the
person at the upper end of the continuum a "psychopath." I don't know what to call the person at the lower end (although I have known them).

my posting above was intended to convey that the psychopath, the person who is completely under the rule of the false self, is so disconnected from reality (essentially, he or she is "imprisoned" by the false self) that he/she has no hope of any form of self-reflection that might lead to release. some narcissists do have remarkable insight into their own pathology (like sam vaknin), and i think it is because in such cases the false self, in a manner of speaking, does not have the true self completely imprisoned. the true self escapes from the dungeon periodically to look at the world beyond."

 

[Jillie]

What secret, WI?

You are nice, or you are intelligent?

All in good fun!

Mae'n gas gen cathod!

nah...WI wears a cape in his/her spare time.....

 

[grannie]

Great Illustration of the Emotional Guidance Scale

 

[Jillie]

I don't know if this has been posted b4, but another very interesting link to read about what is commonly referred to as "Anti-Social Personality Disorder":

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder"]Antisocial personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

It is very interesting that there is mentioned a sub-set of Sociopath/Psychopathic disorder known as "reputation-defending antisocial – including narcissistic features" which could describe, perhaps, a person we have an interest in??.... IMOO ...(just sayin)

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

I have had a look online to see what seems to be current thinking on the differences between psychopaths and narcissists are. There was this very interesting post on a Phsychiatry forum, which I though may interest some here:

i agree with the notion that the P [psychopath] and the Narcissist are on the same continuum. i have some of my own opinions on this continuum, which have been heavily influenced by postings here.
"without actually using the terms "psychopath" or "narcissist", maybe we can just conceive of a continuum
bounded by two extremes. the low end is a person who has no apparent defense mechanisms. the true self is just "there", exposed, naked for all to see. the person is honest "to a fault" and overly harshly judgmental of themselves. their thoughts are a direct reflection of their feelings. the only time they may warp the truth is through irrational self-criticism. at the other end of the continuum is a person who has constructed an impenetrable fortress around the true self. reality is continually warped and folded into a strangely contoured plane under the auspices of a bizarre style of dyadic communication and, i suspect, systematic self-delusion. the goal of this strategy is shielding the true self from reality, at all costs. those individuals who make the mistake (through no fault of their own) of getting "close" to this person will suffer as they are unwittingly drawn into the warped reality, as they are also bent and twisted to serve the unrelenting guardian of the true self. that same guardian will cast them aside once they are of no use for protecting the true self. this guardian cannot be reasoned with. it says "if you want it (the true self) you will have to go through me first." none of us mere mortals are a match.

as we move along this continuum, from the high end to low end, we see a growing disconnection between the spoken word and reality, as the relative strength of the true and false selves is inverted. we have chosen to call the
person at the upper end of the continuum a "psychopath." I don't know what to call the person at the lower end (although I have known them).

my posting above was intended to convey that the psychopath, the person who is completely under the rule of the false self, is so disconnected from reality (essentially, he or she is "imprisoned" by the false self) that he/she has no hope of any form of self-reflection that might lead to release. some narcissists do have remarkable insight into their own pathology (like sam vaknin), and i think it is because in such cases the false self, in a manner of speaking, does not have the true self completely imprisoned. the true self escapes from the dungeon periodically to look at the world beyond."

Had to read that 3 times lol! :yesss:

 

[Elspeth]

I have had a look online to see what seems to be current thinking on the differences between psychopaths and narcissists are. There was this very interesting post on a Phsychiatry forum, which I though may interest some here:

i agree with the notion that the P [psychopath] and the Narcissist are on the same continuum. i have some of my own opinions on this continuum, which have been heavily influenced by postings here.
"without actually using the terms "psychopath" or "narcissist", maybe we can just conceive of a continuum
bounded by two extremes. the low end is a person who has no apparent defense mechanisms. the true self is just "there", exposed, naked for all to see. the person is honest "to a fault" and overly harshly judgmental of themselves. their thoughts are a direct reflection of their feelings. the only time they may warp the truth is through irrational self-criticism. at the other end of the continuum is a person who has constructed an impenetrable fortress around the true self. reality is continually warped and folded into a strangely contoured plane under the auspices of a bizarre style of dyadic communication and, i suspect, systematic self-delusion. the goal of this strategy is shielding the true self from reality, at all costs. those individuals who make the mistake (through no fault of their own) of getting "close" to this person will suffer as they are unwittingly drawn into the warped reality, as they are also bent and twisted to serve the unrelenting guardian of the true self. that same guardian will cast them aside once they are of no use for protecting the true self. this guardian cannot be reasoned with. it says "if you want it (the true self) you will have to go through me first." none of us mere mortals are a match.

as we move along this continuum, from the high end to low end, we see a growing disconnection between the spoken word and reality, as the relative strength of the true and false selves is inverted. we have chosen to call the
person at the upper end of the continuum a "psychopath." I don't know what to call the person at the lower end (although I have known them).

my posting above was intended to convey that the psychopath, the person who is completely under the rule of the false self, is so disconnected from reality (essentially, he or she is "imprisoned" by the false self) that he/she has no hope of any form of self-reflection that might lead to release. some narcissists do have remarkable insight into their own pathology (like sam vaknin), and i think it is because in such cases the false self, in a manner of speaking, does not have the true self completely imprisoned. the true self escapes from the dungeon periodically to look at the world beyond."

Just wondering is this meaning that the person who is honest to the point of fault actually is the same as a narcissist in some way? Or is it meaning they are naturally victims of sociopaths and narcissists..

 

[Jillie]

Another thing I also found interesting:

The 16 characteristics of a psychopath/sociopath:

1.Superficial charm and good intelligence
2.Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
3.Absence of nervousness or psychoneurotic manifestations
4.Unreliability
5.Untruthfulness and insincerity
6.Lack of remorse and shame
7.Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
8.Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
9.Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love
10.General poverty in major affective reactions
11.Specific loss of insight
12.Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations
13.Fantastic and uninviting behavior with drink and sometimes without
14.Suicide threats rarely carried out
15.Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated
16.Failure to follow any life plan.

 

[CaseClosed]

Just curious ... Is a bail hearing open to the public? If so, will any of our members attend?

 

[grannie]

FYI

A REVIEW OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MENTAL DISORDERS AND OFFENDING BEHAVIOURS AND ON THE MANAGEMENT OF MENTALLY ABNORMAL OFFENDERS IN THE HEALTH AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES
http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/mullen.pdf

 

[Jillie]

Just wondering is this meaning that the person who is honest to the point of fault actually is the same as a narcissist in some way? Or is it meaning they are naturally victims of sociopaths and narcissists..

No, I don't think the writer was saying either of those things, Elspeth.

I think what he was getting at is that all people fit into a long line of personality types - at one end are the types that for whom their sense of "self" or ego is totally non-existent and have no way of defending their self-esteem. Then we get all the shades of grey (if you like) through the normal average and acceptable sense of self (ego) where most of us are situated. (ie we can see ourselves pretty-well as who we are) and all the way up the scale to the black end....where the psychopaths live (who have such a warped sense of self that even they don't know themselves).

I suppose everyone is vulnerable to a pyschopath (as I was) - possibly even another pyschopath themselves although I think maybe they would recognise somehow another psychopath.

The trouble with psychopaths is that they seem so normal! It is very difficult firstly for the "victim" (I would prefer to think of myself as a "target", actually) to recognise what they are dealing with, let alone people who don't have as much to do with him/her.

 

[grannie]

Out of interest for those who have encountered this type of personality (and I'm not saying that I necessarily believe that GBC has this personality type as I don't know him) - is it often the first born child in the family unit?

A birth order is a non-modifiable risk factor, unfortunately. The firstborn children are at higher risk of inheriting defective genes and might be more prone to various kinds of health issues later in adulthood, including mental, obesity, cardiovascular, asthma, allergies, etc, according to some rather provocative studies. Like this one, for example:
Siervo, M., Horta, B., Stephan, B., Victora, C., & Wells, J. (2010). First-Borns Carry a Higher Metabolic Risk in Early Adulthood: Evidence from a Prospective Cohort Study PLoS ONE, 5 (11)

 

[plentyofnous]

Plentyofnous
I have been following the discussion around the children being interviewed and who will have custody with interest from my 'persona non grata' status.

I worked in Indigenous affairs for 15 years and have first hand knowledge of the issues surrounding docs and how only over the last few years policies may have changed but there is still a lack of cultural empathy when it comes to removal of children.
Having said that I also believe that we as a society have an overall responsibility to children and have formed a view (to some degree reflected in policies such as the Family Law Act) that covers all Australian children regardless of their background, culture or situation. This IMO is how it should be. How children (and women) are protected is how societies define themselves as either just or unjust societies.

I can see your argument pertaining to Alisson's children and how, to a certain degree, they may have indeed been part of the strategising around the arrest. We can all question that. My question is slightly different.

If you were Alisson, would you want your children to be looked after at a place (BCs) where the media would be part of your daily life (and I believe the media would respect the privacy of the children, but the public interest issue around the BCs has not yet been played out in my view and IMO the BCs have not yet won the right to privacy)?

I think that the temporary legal guardianship provided to a child safety worker was part of a strategy, giving that temporary custody order to the Dickies was IMOin the best interest of the children. As legal guardians (temporary until further decisions are made re longer term custody and the outcome of the bail hearing) hey can decide if the children can go and visit GBC in prison (not him) based on what is best for the children.

Also if bail were to be granted to GBC (which I doubt very much, but I have been wrong before), custody wold not automatically revert back to him. As the welfare of the children is the overriding issue in he FamilyLaw Act (as you have rightly pointed out) not the right of parents (hence why there is still many removals of children every day particularly in Indigenous communities) and not he right of grandparents.

All IMO MOO

Glad to be back!!

Thank you for your comments, I agree some policies may have changed and that cultural empathy is very lacking in “child removal” by DOCS. In Fact IMO what people think is their inherent rights because they are parents, actually do not exist, and situations where people use DVO s and allegations to secure the status quo of where the children are currently comfortable before they enter or anticipate the entry into Family Law Courts. It is a MAJOR problem IMO with parents access and appears to favour one parent over another when this occurs. IMO , only and i stress only, should a Court be able to determine whether children should be removed, and yes the process supports this, but where the Legislation lets the parents down is when the Temporay Assessment is complete ( 3 days), the DOCS have no further input until such time as a notification is made. Its one of the problems of an adversarial system. How it relates to this present situation is that IF the QPS need to gather interviews with the children to strengthen their case, then under our current system after waiting for GBC to relocate back to Brookfield, they simply have DOCS attend and work to place them with someone who will. One of the major problems especially in Qld is that the Govt Depts do not work together(there is evidence to support this in MSM) and have different agendas therefore the initial “removal” , though on the surface appears in the best interests of the child, can actually damage the child and allow Govt Depts to play Judge and Jury, because ONLY a Court can legally alter custody/residence/care and control on a permanent basis.
It doesn t matter whether i was Allison or not, I believe everyone should be treated equally and fairly under the Law and I wouldn t want anyone making decisions on where my childrens best interests are or where they stayed if I was not a convicted criminal. If the opposite occurred, then everyone who had an argument with their partner could just make some allegations, have the children placed with them, ride out the 3 days and maintain status quo in the family Court until their case is heard, some 2 years away. The standard of proof in these matters is much lower than in a criminal case so most allegations are substantiated to a degree. Its a legal loophole and an abuse of process IMO
I believe if he achieves bail, and on what I have read as reported by MSM, along with adding the current situation in West Aust of Lloyd Raney, I think he is better than fair chance, I think the children will form part of the Bail conditions. My Opinion Only as I am interested in the Rights aspect of this case, not the outcome, that is for the Court to determine. I think his legal team should have seen this coming and had a strategy in place, but , I do not know all the facts, just what I have read in MSM and here.

 

[Jillie]

Another interesting insight into a psychopath's mind:

"Psychopaths do not feel emotions as deeply as an average person. Although they are not totally unemotional, their emotions are so shallow that some clinicians describe them as "proto-emotions: primitive responses to immediate needs." According to Hare in Without Conscience, psychopaths are incapable of enduring, real love, and cannot form caring, lasting intimate bonds with others. Hare also says that psychopaths are more likely to take reckless risks and commit crimes with little heed to the consequences, and that their behavior is driven by shallower impulses, such as sexual arousal, frustration, boredom, greed, and irritability. Prison does not make any deep impression on the psychopath and does little to discourage future criminality, and there are anecdotes of psychopaths reacting nonchalantly to being sentenced to life in prison."

....I have always thought that GBC's face showed no emotion in the picture of him in the car after arrest...although others have seen anger, fear, etc. Yet, in the drive-way interview he tried to put on an expression of "please empathise with me", small smile, tilt of head (classic pleading position - just think of your pup when she tilts her head to the side when asking for a treat), little wining, high-pitched voice...etc. Not to mention the sister biting her lip (CLASSIC meaning "I don't want to say anything cos I'll spill the beans!"). Mental dysfunction can be genetically linked...parent to child, and on down the line.

Just my impression, etc. Moo

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Murder shows and intent to kill or to cause grevious bodily harm or that the accused could forsee the probability that their actions or lack of action(depending on the situation) would result in the victims death.

Manslaughter comes under the voluntary or involuntary category. Voluntary shows the same intention to kill or harm, but that the mental capacity of the accused was somehow affected in a way to reduce culpability for killing.
Involuntary manslaughter is a killing by a person who can not be proven to have the guilty mind for murder, but whos action is not that of which would be a reasonable person under the circumstances.

Why is this particularly telling? Surely that would occur in the normal course of a bail hearing - prosecutors are naturally trying to keep him behind bars, and they would need to produce some evidence to do so. It sounds like normal article filler to me.

I'm interested in the whole 'premeditation' part of this case as it pertains to murder. I'm not sure of the legal definition of premeditation, but murder is the intent to kill and as a result of this, someone dies. But intent to kill can still be a spur of the moment thing can't it? In other words, a rage that ensues as a consequence of some dispute, and in that rage the person means to kill the victim i.e. you can't be convicted of murder if you just push someone over and they fall and hit their head on the coffee table and die. That would be manslaughter would it not?

So in order to successfully bring a murder charge, the police and prosecutors must be very sure that the perp did intend to kill the victim, not just injure them, when committing the crime. Where the premeditation part comes in I am not sure - if it means the crime was planned, or whether the perp just said to themselves, I'm going to kill this person now, and did. And the prosecutors can prove it, e.g. cutting someones throat is murder, because you would know that that is going to kill your victim.

I quoted something I had posted previously regarding this. Yes someone can kill in the spare of the moment and it still be intentional-but not premeditated. Pre- meditated on the otherhand needs to have shown some previous consideration or planning and the intent. It would need to be proven though that it was pre planned.

 

[plentyofnous]

I agree with the concept that the children have the rights not the parents - however, it is not in my experience that this actually is the case or how it works:

Even tho when my four sons (aged 4 - 12) expressed their feelings that they DIDN"T want to have access with their father, the Family Court said (in so many words) it was their right to see their father, so they had to...The Family Court said it would only be when they were older (say in their teens) that they could say they didn't want to see him.

I didn't encourage them one way or another, but each time they had returned from a weekend with him they said that had a horrible time. He slept most of the weekend, drank and smoked the rest of the time (even tho two of the boys was asthmatic), hit them and shouted at them if they made any noise, didn't cook anything but rather told them to go to the shops with money he'd gavin them to get something (needless to say they bought lollies and ice-cream etc!), didn't talk to or play with them, didn't take them anywhere and basically let them wander around all weekend unsupervised. All in all they hated it. It is fortunate that there were four of them to keep each other company otherwise it would have been unbearable. There were many instances of him just telling them to go home....giving them the train fare and telling them to get lost (which they did) and I had no idea - no phone call to me or anything!!

Fortunately, after about 6 months of this, the father got fed up of having them and decided he couldn't be bothered...Didn't show up one weekend and never saw, spoke to or contacted them again ....over 20 years ago now. All that I can see from this is that the children's so-called rights to 'have contact with a parent' was not what the children actually wanted at all and no one wanted to listen to them (well, apart from me).

Funnily, he fought for his rights to see the boys with the help of a barrister, but when he achieved it he didn't want it. All just a control thing - which he was really big on. When he thought he had proved his point that he could flex his muscles and force something upon his family he was no longer interested.

Just recently one of the boys (now 32) told me "He [his father] is dead to me." Wow, what a poignant, powerful thing to say!

IMO the Family Court operates on a “ sort it out between yourselves or we will sort it out for you and you both may not like what we decide”. These cases are tough , emotional and life changing and no matter what the result, will always stay with the children throughout their life. We can t control the minds of “ the other half/ ex half” , we can only focus on what we can do best for our children and make decisions on what we have at the time in experience, gut instinct and of course money. I sincerely hope that all is well and has worked out fine for you.