What Are The Most Common Lies You Tell Yourself?

Mine are:

* There’s nothing I can do…
* There’s Something Inherently Wrong or Different About Me.
* I Would Change, But I Can’t Because Of X.
* I Know What I’m Doing.
“I am just not good at X.”
“I don’t regret anything.”
“I’m unlucky.”
“When I’m ready, I’ll finally X.”
“I never had a chance.”
“That’s just who I am.”

I couldn’t even come up with these on my own. I borrowed them from here and here.

I don’t tell these lies to myself very much these days. They’re more lies of the past, not so much of the last five years.

A common lie I notice other people tell themselves is, “I’ll do it tomorrow.” And it doesn’t happen.

Therapist Jon Frederickson writes in The Lies We Tell Ourselves: How to Face the Truth, Accept Yourself, and Create a Better Life:

* We become well by relating to what is here; we become ill by relating to our fantasies. The therapist stops us from running away from ourselves so we can rest in reality. Remaining in this moment, we feel our feelings, which always reach out to us through anxiety. Anxiety, strangely enough, invites us to dive inside to the places from which we always run, the places we are afraid to descend into and explore.

In effect, therapists always give the same message: “What you run from is where you need to rest. What you fear you need to face. What you ignore you need to hear.”

* “You are the most important person you will ever meet,” she says. “Why not be on good terms with yourself?”

* To be on good terms with ourselves, we must learn to listen to who we are under the words, the excuses, and the explanations we use.

* These beliefs, called “projections,” seem true because they are real: they are the realities we reject in ourselves and relocate in others. If we criticize ourselves, we imagine others criticize us. If we ignore ourselves, we imagine others ignore us. If we fail to care for ourselves, we believe people don’t care for us. However, the persons we project upon can be the mirrors we look at to see, learn, and accept what we reject in ourselves.

* “Breakdown can always point to the break-through of a deeper truth, since only that which is false in you can break down. Truth does not break. Some call this recognition ‘waking up,’ some call it ‘self-realization.’”

* When facts kill our wishes, a few of us may seek to kill ourselves to wipe out the pain of the dying wish, what the suicide researcher Edwin Shneidman called “psychache.” 3 Experiencing the living death of the dying dream, we may choose physical death to abort the painful birth known as grieving.

* Waiting is the magic wand we hope will make life fit our fantasy, but our fantasies must change to fit what is here.

* When we stop waiting for life to change, we change instead. Every crisis in life cracks our defenses and unlocks our feelings, revealing hidden dimensions in ourselves. And after bearing those hidden dimensions, we experience insights rising from within. When we dive inside, we experience ourselves more deeply and find the wisdom for which we longed. Then we can choose whether to deny or embrace it.

* Feelings are forms of love, invitations to embrace what is, so the false can drop, revealing the real in you.

* Revenge is a form of magic. When we exact revenge, we pretend that we can get rid of our pain by putting it in other people.

* Why do we tell ourselves lies? To avoid the feelings that arise when we face and embrace reality.
We often avoid the truths of our lives by waiting for fantasies to become true rather than face what is true. Waiting for what is real to become unreal is how we lie to ourselves about our loved ones, ourselves, and life itself. We suffer because we fight reality, a fight we always lose.

* no matter how much we fight reality, reality always wins.

* Rather than face what is, we may choose what is not here, waiting for our fantasies to appear and make reality disappear. When we maintain our illusions, the life we have passes by while we wait for a fantasy life that never arrives. Thus, the losses of life are compounded by the losses we inflict upon ourselves.

* We get attached to fantasies of how we should be loved, respected, or desired. Our suffering is not caused by these fantasies but by our attachment to them.

* Reality often disappoints whereas fantasy seduces us with the promise of infinite fulfillment. When we see a therapist, we mourn the deaths of those seductive promises. When we avoid these painful feelings, we suffer the symptoms that result from ignoring the emotional truths of our lives. In therapy, we can face the feelings we have avoided and stop living in a world that no longer exists.

* What a difficult funeral to hold when we cling to a treasured self-image of one who is loved, victorious, admired, or right. These self-images are the conceptual clothes that hide who we are. Life pulls them out of our hands and we cry, but we have one more strategy for clinging to our self-image: we can treat sadness as a problem to work through and get over.

Our grief is not a problem, however, but a path. When we grieve, we surrender to the truth that washes away the false and leaves behind the real. We do not get over grief but live through it in a communion with what is. In this communion, we need not give up our illusions since the tears wash away our attachment to the fantasies that ward off life.

* The degree of our suffering equals our distance from reality. Rather than end our suffering by running toward the truth, we run farther away from it through food, work, alcohol, drugs, and sex. Mistakenly considered addictions, they merely point to the true addiction. We are addicted to not being here. We don’t want to feel what we’re feeling. We don’t want the present but the imaginary past or future.

* We are hooked on an imaginary experience of the not-me, not-now: the universal addiction. Food, drugs, Internet, sex, fame, work, and booze are tools we use to leave the real world for an imaginary world of how we think people ought to be. We long for an idealized past or future, which never existed. We can’t live yesterday today. Rather than be present to what is present, we wait for what we wish was present.

* We imagine that if we lived in a different time or place, we would find our inner home of calm, rest, and contentment. Craving the not-me, not-here, and not-now keeps us homeless. We try to escape from this moment by racing to the next, but this moment is the only home we ever have.

* We try to run away from our problems: the geographical cure, but we cannot lift ourselves out of life. No matter where we go, our shadow follows: our feelings. Everything we run away from inside us always reaches out for our love. Yet rather than reach out to what reaches out to us, we race away, refusing to sit in, rest in, and be transformed by our feelings.

* We are addicted to not bearing what we feel or being who we are. We are stoned on imaginary selves, imaginary others, and imaginary states of mind: the real drugs.

* Defenses are the lies we tell ourselves to avoid pain.

* Rather than face what is, we pick the parts of life that fit our fantasy, reject the rest, and try to live outside reality. We think we are running from the outer world, but we are running from what the outer world evokes: the inner world—our feelings and anxiety. And we never escape from who we are.

* Rather than embrace life and ourselves, we engage in cherry-picking or its opposite. One man seized on the most negative facts of his life, turning them over in his mind repeatedly until he suffered from chronic rumination. Obsessed with the worst, he could not see how he created a partial view of the universe or that his negative view, not the universe, caused his suffering. He mistook his rumination, a cherished habit, for a higher form of thought. To counter this, I noted that when we see dog feces on the sidewalk, we manage to walk by rather than pick it up, sniff it, and put it in our pocket. Startled, he stared at me and asked, “Oh, you mean I’m a turd hunter?”

* When no longer searching for turds, we hunt for a better truth elsewhere rather than face the truth that is always here. Why don’t we see it? We have blind spots. And since we always have blind spots, we always need others to help us see what we don’t see. For instance, one fellow claimed, “You wouldn’t believe how humble I’ve become!”
Therapy doesn’t eliminate blind spots. It helps us accept our never-ending blindness, so we can welcome feedback from those who see what we cannot. Terrified of our fear, we avoid feedback through illusions and defenses and become blind to the world outside them.

* We enter therapy not knowing what causes our problems. We start by saying, “I don’t get it. I’m doing what I’m supposed to do, but it’s not working.” We have theories to explain our suffering, but those theories, like, “he’s an asshole,” turn out to be forms of blindness, and because we cherish those theories, we ask others to agree: “Don’t you think he was wrong?”

* The Roman theologian Tertullian lamented two thousand years ago that “the first reaction to the truth is hatred.” 7 Hatred tries to make reality disappear, and its constant failure to do so accounts for its violence; hatred always rises as if it only needed to become larger than life to overcome it.

* Another lie we tell is devaluation. One woman claimed I was useless, my comments were ridiculous, and the therapy was worthless. She devalued me, her close friends, and her family, alienating them and punishing herself with a lifetime of loneliness.
All of us will be devalued. It’s nothing personal about us; it’s something impersonal about the defenses devaluers use. It’s not the hydrant’s fault when the dog lifts his leg, nor is it our fault when people devalue us. People claim we have no value to avoid depending on the value we offer. Through devaluation they ward off the danger of depending upon others. Or people may deny our value to achieve an imaginary victory when they envy our genuine success. Unable to tolerate their envy, they devalue in us what they cannot find within themselves.

* Whenever we invite anyone to form a close relationship with us, our invitation will stir up memories of past relationships. In this woman’s past, the ones she loved had hurt her. My offer of help stirred up mixed feelings: she wanted my actual care and feared my imagined cruelty.
Rather than risk being devalued as she was in the past, she devalued people in the present. She enacted her past: “Since you will abandon and devalue me if I depend on you, I will devalue you first.”
When people devalue us, we may feel angry, as they felt when others devalued them. If we do not recognize this anger, we may turn it on ourselves: “Maybe she’s right: I am not good enough.” Or, intimidated by her, we might submit to devaluation as the patient submitted to her mother: “Since she gets angry when I talk, maybe she will like me if I stay quiet.”

* Devaluations are not insights but mind droppings. We are not useless; her devaluation is. Ironically, devaluation reveals our worth—what the devaluer envies and cannot tolerate receiving from us. Devaluation starves a person of any healthy human connection. It tries to kill off anything good that triggers envy.

* When people devalue us, we set limits to keep our relationship from becoming a latrine. 14 If we agree with a person’s devaluation, we encourage her to commit a crime: killing a relationship. We should never submit to devaluation, even though life and therapy involve submission. We submit to the truth, not to a lie, and devaluation is a lie told to us.

* When we doubt ourselves, we refuse to sit with our feelings to discover who will emerge. We preworry, filling the future with fears rather than going into the unknown of who we are.
We go through life with a candle, imagining that the light shows the world when it reveals only a sliver of life. Our true value lies not within the light but in the darkness. Who knows our future? No one. The task is to surrender to and embrace the unknown of ourselves.
Letting go of doubt’s certainty, we realize how it blinded us to our true potential. And as we let go of the lie of self-denigration, feelings open our eyes so we can live the truth formerly hidden under self-doubt.

* Rather than push others to fit our ideas, we must become receptive, allowing what is happening to push our ideas to fit what is real.

* Who has not hoped that love in the present could erase pain in the past? We wish love could do magic, and faced with enormous pain, therapists can wish the same. A psychotherapist years ago invited patients to put on diapers, sit in his lap, and suck on a baby bottle. He tried to reparent them to undo parental failures.
Alas, what is lost is lost. Refathering, remothering, and reparenting are not therapy but magic, attempts to fill the void in the past with fantasies in the present. We can’t make the dead alive. We can’t rewind and rerecord the DVD of life. Unable to wipe out the past, we can only create a better present, accepting loss as part of life.
While we wish we could erase the pain of the past through love, we must face the limitations of life, loss, and death so real healing can occur. Therapy cannot replace what we lost, but it can help us let go of our barriers to love. Then we can mourn what was impossible in the past to form what is possible today.
It is impossible to melt defenses with love. Love is not water, and defenses are not ice. Trying to melt defenses with love is like trying to light a fire while our partner throws water on it. In this blind love, we don’t see the whole person, only the part we want.

* Every time we let go of a lie, we get closer to what is. The therapist interrupts defenses—habits of thought, customary commentaries, popular projections, the barricades we erect to separate ourselves from our loved ones—so we can listen. We become open to them—not our ideas about them.

* To understand therapy, we must ask whom therapists relate to: a list of symptoms, a diagnosis, or a personality disorder? No, therapists relate to the person hidden under the symptoms, the symptoms caused by the divorce from his inner life.
Then therapists encourage us to undo that divorce and embrace our feelings.

* When we come for therapy, we bring the history of our suffering—sometimes in words and sometimes in the ways we treat ourselves. If others have hurt us in the past, we often hurt ourselves today in invisible ways, perpetuating our suffering in the present. The therapist, seeing our subtle forms of self-harm, doesn’t go on a fishing expedition into the past. Instead, she points out how we hurt ourselves in the present.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on What Are The Most Common Lies You Tell Yourself?

Stalingrad

From the Vassily Grossman novel:

* When he spoke about the predicament of science in Czechoslovakia, his voice began to quaver. Then he shouted, “It’s impossible to describe, you have to see it with your own eyes! Scientific thought is in fetters. People are afraid of their own shadows. They’re afraid of their fellow workers. Professors are afraid of their students. People’s thoughts, their inner lives, their families and friendships—everything is under fascist control. A man I once studied with—we sat at the same table and worked through eighteen organic chemistry syntheses together, we’ve known each other for thirty years—this friend of mine begged me not to ask him any questions whatsoever. He’s the head of an important faculty, but he behaves like some petty criminal, afraid the police might collar him at any moment. ‘Don’t ask me anything at all,’ he said. ‘It’s not only my colleagues I’m afraid of. I’m afraid of my own voice. I’m afraid of my own thoughts.’ He was petrified I might quote something he’d said and that even if I didn’t mention his name—or his university or even his city—the Gestapo would be able to trace this back to him. You can learn more from simple people—from chambermaids and porters, from drivers and footmen. They think they’re anonymous and so they have less to fear from talking to a foreigner. But intellectuals and scientists have lost all capacity for freedom of thought—they’ve lost the right to call themselves human beings. In science, fascism now rules. Its theories are terrifying, and tomorrow these theories will become practice. They already have become practice. People talk seriously about sterilization and eugenics. One doctor told me that the mentally ill and the tubercular are being murdered. People’s hearts and minds are going dark. Words like freedom , conscience and compassion are being persecuted. People are being forbidden to speak them to children or to write them in private letters. That’s fascism for you—and may it be damned!”

* [At the Moscow zoo:] Just then a fox cub emerged from the bushes. He looked anxious and troubled; his face looked baleful and his tail was sweeping from side to side. His eyes shone, and his thin, moulting flanks were rising and falling very rapidly. He was longing to take part in the game; he would steal forward a few steps and then, overcome by fear, flatten himself against the ground and freeze. All of a sudden he leaped forward and threw himself into the fray with an odd little squeal, playful yet somehow pitiful. The dingo pups knocked him off his feet, and he lay there on one side. His eyes still shone and he was trustfully exposing his belly. Then he let out a piercing cry of reproach—one of the dingo pups must have bitten him too hard. This was the end of him: the dingo pups went for his throat, and the game on the grass turned into a murder. A keeper ran up, plucked the dead creature out of the melee and carried it away; hanging down from the keeper’s hand were a skinny dead tail and a dead snout, with one open eye. The red dingo pups responsible for this murder followed the keeper, their curled tails quivering with intense excitement.

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Stalingrad

Is Ron Klain the real president? (12-31-21)

Posted in America | Comments Off on Is Ron Klain the real president? (12-31-21)

Republicans Are Surging Thanks To The Culture Wars (12-30-21)

Posted in America | Comments Off on Republicans Are Surging Thanks To The Culture Wars (12-30-21)

Walkabout Guru: Decoding Joe Rogan, Jocko Willink & Life After Youtube (12-29-21)

00:00 Bullshido, https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/special-episode-interview-with-phrost-on-bullshido
04:00 Elliott Blatt joins to discuss office work vs blue collar work
18:30 Elliott’s gambling joy
1:11:30 Some people attract tales of woe
1:18:00 Real estate websites don’t include crime data from property listings due to ‘racial bias’, https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/real-estate-websites-dont-include-crime-data-from-property-listings-due-to-racial-bias
1:20:00 Phrost describes himself as “the world’s most dangeous nerd”
1:22:00 Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe, https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691178707/not-born-yesterday
1:47:20 Decoding Joe Rogan, Jocko Willink, https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/joe-rogan-just-an-average-joe
1:49:30 No audio for a minute
2:09:00 Where I disagree with the Decoding the Gurus hosts
2:18:00 Dave Rubin’s Battle of Ideas: Stefan Molyneux, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LOvoDCPS8

Posted in Guru | Comments Off on Walkabout Guru: Decoding Joe Rogan, Jocko Willink & Life After Youtube (12-29-21)

Haredi children’s author Chaim Walder kills himself (12-28-21)

Posted in Abuse | Comments Off on Haredi children’s author Chaim Walder kills himself (12-28-21)

Shabbat On Christmas (12-26-21)

Posted in Christianity, Conversion | Comments Off on Shabbat On Christmas (12-26-21)

Self-Verification And Self-Flaggellation Theory

I just had a friend ask me when I’m going to stop self-flaggellating. Hmm, I thought, I don’t think I beat myself down anymore. I feel like I have been largely free of this for five years. I think I like myself. But maybe I’m missing something.

So I looked up emotional self-flaggellation on Google and found this: “In line with the predictions of self-verification theory, which posits that people generally feel more comfortable with the treatment that is familiar and consistent with their self-views, the researchers found that participants with low self-esteem were less motivated to feel good because feeling good was inconsistent with their negative self-views, and because they didn’t feel they deserved to feel good.”

That rocked me back. I’ve often chosen to stay in abusive relationships. I’ve often had abusive bosses. When I’d tell friends about how I was treated, they’d say they wouldn’t put up with that for five minutes, let alone five years like I had done. I struck some friends as the prototypical abused husband who wouldn’t do anything about it beyond cry, moan and journal.

Self-verification theory strikes me as true. We do seek out situations and groups and people who verify our own sense of ourselves. That’s why it is so hard to change. Some of us get addicted to losing. When you hate yourself, as I have for vast sections of my life, you can’t respect those who like you.

I notice that some people are uncomfortable with joy and happiness and prosperity. They don’t feel they deserve good things.

My experience of 12-step recovery is that my self-hatred lurks under the surface and if I don’t keep up with my spiritual program, my negative self-view returns along with feelings of fear, resentment and loathing. Usually I catch it fairly quickly and return to the recovery basics of admitting my powerlessness, believing that there is a power out there who can restore me to sanity, and make a choice to turn my life over to the care of this Higher Power.

From a 2017 academic paper:

* Self-verification theory is based on the premise that people have a powerful desire to confirm and thus stabilize their firmly held self-views. This idea was first articulated by Prescott Lecky (1945) who proposed that chronic self-views give people a strong sense of coherence. For this reason, people are motivated to maintain their self-views. Self-verification theory (Swann 1983) developed Lecky’s idea that stable selfviews organize people’s efforts to maximize coherence. This emphasis on the crucial role of chronic self-views in organizing efforts to attain coherence distinguishes self-verification theory from consistency theories such as cognitive dissonance.

Self-verification involves efforts to bring actual or perceived social reality into harmony with longstanding beliefs about the self rather than maximizing the logical or psychological consistency of relevant cognitions present in the immediate situation.

This desire for stable self-views can be understood by considering how and why people develop self-views in the first place. Theorists have long assumed that people form their selfviews by observing how others treat them (e.g., Mead 1934). People become increasingly certain of these views as they acquire more and more evidence to support them. Once firmly held, selfviews enable people to make predictions about their worlds and guide their behavior, while they maintain a sense of continuity, place, and coherence. In this way, stable self-views not only serve a pragmatic function of stabilizing social relations but also serve an epistemic function of affirming people’s sense that things are as they should be. Indeed, firmly held self-views serve as the centerpiece of an individual’s knowledge system. As such, when people strive for self-verification, the viability of that system hangs in the balance. It is thus unsurprising that by mid-childhood, children begin to display a preference for evaluations that confirm and stabilize their self-views (e.g., Cassidy et al. 2003). Indeed, when adults provide inflated praise to children with low self-esteem, it can backfire by lowering these children’s selfworth in the face of setbacks (Brummelman et al. 2016).

If stable self-views are essential to human functioning, those who are deprived of them should be seriously impaired. Evidence supports this proposition. Consider a case study reported by the neurologist Oliver Sacks (1985). Due to chronic alcohol abuse, patient William Thompson suffered from memory loss so profound that he forgot who he was. Thompson desperately attempted to recover his previous identity. For instance, he sometimes developed hypotheses about who he was and then tested these hypotheses on those who happened to be present. Thompson was doomed to enact such tests repeatedly for the remainder of his life. His case not only shows that stable self-views are essential to psychological well-being, but also that self-views are essential to guiding action. Plagued by a sense of self that kept disappearing, Thompson did not know how to act toward people. In a very real sense, his inability to obtain self-verification deprived him of his capacity to have meaningful interactions with the people around him. No wonder, then, that people enact numerous strategies designed to elicit support for their self-views.

People may use three distinct processes to create self-verifying social worlds. First, people may construct self-verifying “opportunity structures,” i.e., social environments that satisfy their needs. They may, for example, seek and enter relationships in which they are apt to experience confirmation of their self-views (e.g., Swann et al. 1989) and leave relationships in which they fail to receive self-verification (Swann et al. 1994). A second self-verification strategy involves the systematic communication of self-views to others. For example, people may display “identity cues” – highly visible signs and symbols of who they are. Physical appearances are a particularly important type of identity cue. The clothes one wears, for instance, can advertise numerous selfviews, including one’s political leanings, income level, religious convictions, and so on (e.g., Gosling 2008).

People may also communicate their identities to others though their actions. Depressed college students, for example, were more likely to solicit unfavorable feedback from their roommates than were non-depressed students (Swann et al. 1992a). Doing so, moreover, actually elicited negative evaluations. That is, the more unfavorable feedback they solicited in the middle of the semester, the more their roommates derogated them and convinced them to make plans to find another roommate at the end of the semester. And what if people’s efforts to obtain selfverifying evaluations fail? Even then, people may still cling to their self-views through yet another strategy of self-verification – “seeing” nonexistent evidence. Self-views may guide at least three stages of information processing: attention, recall, and interpretation. For example, an investigation of selective attention revealed that participants with positive self-views spent longer examining evaluations they expected to be positive, and people with negative self-views spent longer scrutinizing evaluations they expected to
be negative.

Posted in Australia, Personal | Comments Off on Self-Verification And Self-Flaggellation Theory

Thousands Of Flying Foxes Fly Through Tannum Sands (12-23-21)

Posted in Australia | Comments Off on Thousands Of Flying Foxes Fly Through Tannum Sands (12-23-21)

Family Law In Australia

In Australian law, parents don’t have rights to see their kids. Family Law courts in Australia make rulings on child custody and parental access on the basis of what it believes is best for the children. As this is unknowable, the Court just does its own thing, say critics.

Divorce law here is no-fault. Notes Wikipedia: “Australia is an equitable distribution country, meaning that on divorce or death of a spouse net wealth is not split evenly (50/50) as community property. Instead courts have wide powers, taking into account 27 or so statutory factors, to determine what a “just and equitable” division of wealth would be. The vast majority of outcomes result in a division of 55-65% in favour of the wife, or economically weaker spouse, before payment of legal fees.”

“Just and equitable” may strike conservative American ears as incredibly subjective. It sounds like the Court just does its own thing.

From a Yank perspective, freedoms are more objective while equity is more subjective.

What freedom is for Americans (the number one value), fairness is for Australians.

John Hirst writes in this 2005 Quarterly Essay:

One of the gravest failings of the Family Court derives from the noble intentions of its founders.
The Family Law Act of 1975 which established the Court was a progressive social reform of the Whitlam Labor government. It was not an exclusively government measure; members on both sides were allowed a free vote and Liberals had been among those working for divorce law reform. The Act removed fault as a ground for divorce and replaced it with irretrievable breakdown, to be indicated by a one-year separation. The aim was to allow couples to part without the trauma and contrivance of one partner proving fault against the other. Marriages would be buried decently and humanely. The business of dividing property, arranging maintenance and determining custody of children would remain, but these were to be settled in a simple, flexible and inexpensive way. Litigation was to be discouraged and the Court was to be staffed by social workers and counsellors as well as judges. It was to be a court of an entirely new sort, a “caring court” or a “helping court”.
If proceedings were to be simple, flexible and cheap, why, say the wits, were lawyers put in charge of them? Proceedings quickly became complex, rule-bound and expensive – which was not entirely the fault of the lawyers because property settlements and custody cases can be very complex. But though the “caring court” looked more and more like an ordinary court, it hesitated to act like an ordinary court when its orders were disobeyed.
The disobeying of a court order is known as contempt of court and is the offence that threatens the foundations of our society. We are governed by the rule of law and once courts have settled the law, it has to be obeyed by governments and citizens alike. To ensure that their orders are obeyed, courts have large, discretionary powers to fine and imprison those who defy them. Though it was to be a court of a new sort, the Family Court had been equipped with these powers.
Within months of the Court opening, a Family Court judge used these powers to deal with a man who had defied a court order. His offence was indeed gross. His former wife had custody of their children and since he had been violent towards her, he had been put under a restraining order.
One day he burst into her house unannounced, waving a gun, and threatened to kill his son if he did not come with him. The judge sent him to prison for twenty-eight days. From his prison cell, he appealed to the Full Family Court to release him.
The Full Court under the leadership of its first chief, Elizabeth Evatt,was embarrassed at their new “caring court” acting in this crude, old-fashioned way. It immediately set down for itself rules to limit the powers it had been given to punish contempt. An offender had to be properly tried for the contempt, and imprisonment was to be used only as a last resort; counselling, fines and recognisances should be considered first. In the case before them, the appeal judges were disturbed at the trial judge opting immediately for imprisonment, which seemed the more unnecessary since the offender was to face charges in a criminal court, which could well result in a gaol sentence. They released the man from gaol. (The trial judge had been well aware that the offender was facing criminal charges; he reasoned that since the man was still at large he needed to be taught a lesson immediately so that his former wife might feel safe.)
However, the Court quickly became much more hard-headed, as it regularly had to deal with cases of men abducting children from their mothers. The offenders were given gaol sentences. The Court declared that though it was a helping court, its orders had to be obeyed. “Others who may contemplate disobedience of the Court need to know that calculated and grave contempt of its orders will not be tolerated.”
One abduction case, G and G (1981), was of great significance. A father had abducted his son from the mother and lived with him for four years before they were discovered. The man was sent to gaol for two and a half years for defying the Court’s orders. His offence was that he had isolated his son from his mother, but was the Court now going to damage the boy further by depriving him of his father, with whom he got on well? The judge gave the matter earnest consideration because judges are charged under the Family Law Act to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the child. The judge decided that “in a contempt matter the welfare of the child is not the paramount consideration, though it is a matter that must be considered”. This approach was upheld by the Full Court when the father appealed against his imprisonment. Chief Judge Evatt, conceding that the imprisonment of the father may cause suffering to the child, nevertheless said: “If no punishment is imposed, or if lenience is shown, the court’s power to protect not only the individual child concerned, but also many other children, may be diminished.”
These hard-headed pronouncements were all made in cases where fathers did not have custody of their children and had taken matters into their own hands. When the Court came to consider breaches of orders by custodial parents (chiefly mothers), it returned to soft-headedness. The typical case was where a mother contrived to deny a father access to his children, even though he had court orders allowing access (usually it is for every second weekend and half the school holidays). In considering its response to such breaches, the Court declared that the paramount interests of this particular child must prevail. Since the Court could scarcely fine or imprison a custodial mother without having some effect on the child, these options were effectively abandoned. So the “caring court” re-emerged.
The Court was not impelled to this decision by the Family Law Act , which gave untrammelled power to punish for contempt, and in adopting it the Court ignored its own judgements in the abduction cases. Just as the Court had there imagined, leniency had disastrous consequences for children. Since access orders were defied with impunity, thousands of children were kept from their fathers, though the Court had ruled that their best interests required that they see them.
Mothers contrive to deny access to fathers by being away when the father calls, or claiming that the child is ill or does not want to go, or alleging that the father is mistreating the child – or simply moving to a new location. Mothers frequently have good reason to fear access: violent fathers use the contact to re-open old quarrels, to attack the mother and unsettle the children. The Court allows that the custodial parent can deny access with reasonable excuse. If the father is violent, the mother can ask the Court to vary its order and deny him access. If the Court allows access to continue, the pick-up point will be a supervised contact centre where the man will not see his ex-wife. But mothers are not simply keeping away unsatisfactory fathers; decent fathers are being denied access to their children. Mothers who have nothing more to fear from the Court than a slap on the wrist, can, if they wish, exclude fathers from their children’s lives.
The Court itself is not in any matter responsible for enforcing its orders. A father who is denied access must bring action in the Court and either bear the costs of a lawyer ($3000 a day minimum) or conduct the case himself. But even if he wins the case, the mother will not suffer a penalty that will deter her. When the next contact visit falls due, she may well behave in exactly the same way. The Court has made clear in its judgements that the custodial parent is not to be the judge of whether contact is beneficial. However, by making the best interests of the particular child the test when enforcement is being considered, the Court has given the custodial parent de facto control over access.
So the logic of the Family Court is as follows:
The best interests of the child require that they have contact with both parents.
However, if the custodial parent is determined to deny access to the other parent, Then the best interests of the child require that the child have contact with only one parent.
Of course one would prefer that a custodial parent did not have to be coerced into providing access. But if the custodial parent is to determine the matter, why have a court at all? This is not to suggest that the best interests of the child should be overlooked in enforcement; rather that they should not be the paramount consideration – which is what the Court accepted in G and G. The paramount consideration when the Court has been deliberately and persistently defied must be the upholding of the authority of the Court.
The constant refrain of the recently retired Chief Justice of the Court, Alastair Nicholson,was that you cannot fine a custodial mother or put her in gaol. Other jurisdictions do not accept this limitation. A single mother has to pay fines for parking and traffic offences, and many women in gaol are mothers. A single mother who cheats the social security system may occasionally be put in gaol, a necessary act to preserve the integrity of the system. The Family Court has no understanding of system integrity.
But why the talk of gaol? You may think that milder penalties consistently enforced would prove effective. You may think this, but the Family Court, as we will see later, has not been interested in that approach either.
Family Court judges expatiate on the dilemma they face over enforcement since theirs is a “caring court”, which puts the interests of the child first. A caring court! It has not cared for the thousands of non-custodial parents who have wasted their spirit and resources, not in attempting to overturn a decision of the Court, but in a futile attempt to get the Court to enforce its own orders so that they might see their children. Thousands more, perhaps wisely, have decided not to make the attempt. In Middlemarch George Eliot writes that if we could hear the pain of the ordinary tragedies of human life in our midst, the sound would deafen us. When Family Court judges talk piously of the “caring court”, I wish they could hear the roar of pain that their piety has caused.
The man who called the Family Court a “kangaroo court” in his submission to the 1992 parliamentary enquiry claimed he had spent $15,000 in a futile attempt to get access to his children. His former wife simply refused to open the door when he called to collect them.
To my utter disgust and dismay the Family Court judge decided that while I had done all I could as a father, he was powerless to enforce access if she refused to open the door. He just laughed and said “SEND THEM A CHRISTMAS CARD AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS”.
Is this credible? A report of the Law Reform Commission does record this view of one judge: “I am very slow to attach any sanctions at all to breaches of access orders.”
The other systematic failure in enforcement was the Court’s inability to compel non-custodial parents (chiefly fathers) to pay maintenance for the support of their children. Only about 30 to 40 per cent did so. It was in this way that custodial mothers suffered from the laxity of the Court. The low rate of maintenance payment greatly concerned the Treasury because separated mothers were drawing heavily on social security for their support. Indeed, in the heady days when welfare flowed freely, the Court organised the payment of maintenance so that it would not reduce the entitlement of custodial parents to social security. The government called a halt to this in 1988 when it established the Child Support Agency. The Agency collected funds from non-custodial parents and passed them to custodial parents.
The Child Support Agency is not a caring agency. It is ruthless and relentless; it deducts payments from wages and sweeps bank accounts. Its reputation is so fierce that people making payments outside the system are more likely to maintain them for fear of falling into its clutches. Unlike the Family Court, which has abandoned moral judgement for “no-fault”, the Child Support Agency proclaims the moral principle that parents should pay for the upbringing of their children. In this way it has raised the rate of compliance to over 60 per cent.
The comparative success of the Agency means that many fathers who are not able to see their children are nevertheless paying to support them. Fathers’ groups have proposed that fathers denied access should not have to pay maintenance. Policy-makers have looked at this option not unsympathetically, but the decision always is that access and maintenance should not be linked. The argument is that it is not in the best interests of the child to punish mothers by reducing their income. This is typical of thinking in family law matters. Everywhere else carrots and sticks work to keep us in order, but in the semi-chaotic world of the family law they are not to be contemplated. The picture is of thousands of children suffering economic deprivation. No one considers that a mother, motivated by care for her children, might well rethink her position on access in order to retain the maintenance. And if she didn’t, the social security safety net does not allow anyone to fall into life-threatening hardship.
If maintenance and access were linked, there is a concern that fathers could avoid paying maintenance by abandoning their right of access.

Posted in Australia | Comments Off on Family Law In Australia