Our Blog

Please enjoy watching Bettina Arndt’s excellent Perth speech on feminism and our male-bashing society. Please also note the discussion point at 8:22 mins where Bettina discusses how a retired family court judge wrote to her and openly agreed with both, Bettina’s wider views on feminism, and also (and this is the kicker) that we have given far too much power to the custodial parent – which in most cases is the mother and/or a woman. I am sure none of this will surprise those of you that are members/followers of Scandalum Magnatum – but nonetheless Bettina’s video is an excellent watch. Once again Bettina – with her videos – hits the ball out of the park for a 6. Please enjoy the video and keep the faith that the extreme and/or intersectional feminism that we are currently/unfortunately experiencing all across Australia can be curbed and kept in check if we all stick together and realize it for what it is.

Watch a brave/sensible Senator Leyonhjelm rip apart the flawed assumption (made by the Government’s Workplace Gender Equality Agency – that is all headed up by woman whom seem to be poorly researched – who believe {but can’t support that} there is workplace payment gender inequality and/or) that there is a gender pay gap between men and women. Notice how all the women at the helm of the Government’s Workplace Gender Equality Agency (an oxymoron if ever there was one) are nervous (particularly when questioned) and are, at best, woefully inadequate at supporting their position and/or that of workplace payment gender inequality even existing.

For anyone concerned about how the inter-sectional feminism that currently exists and slanders men across Australia works in the parliament to achieve it’s harmful objectives with flawed statistics/approaches this is a must watch video. Please enjoy it just as much as you have done with the many insightful Bettina Arndt videos I have posted.


Bettina Arndt introduces Patrick Graham, a feminist justice survivor. Patrick Graham, is a retired social worker and one of many false rape accusation survivors. He spoke in London at the International Conference on Men’s Issues, July 20. This is a very interesting/controversial topic that provides insight into just unfair/biased and hysterical the system can be.


Watch Bettina Arndt bravely talking on television about the disgraceful truths about domestic violence and how it demonizes and harms men all over the country.


Watch Bettina Arndt discuss with a male victim how false domestic violence accusations are now part of a world-wide immigration fraud racket – giving more women power to destroy men’s lives than ever.


Watch Bettina Arndt discuss the epidemic of false allegations in the family court system with Ezequiel Trumper, a lawyer that not only knows the real story – but is also brave enough to speak up about it.


Watch Dr Steven Miller deliver a chillingly accurate/timely description of parental alienation to those working in the court whilst explaining how it is possible that they get it wrong time and time again.


Where would we be without Bettina Arndt? A brave woman whom is prepared to expose what’s really going on, including with the anti-male D.V. rort.



Unlock the door to your relationship problems with Scandalum Magnatum.



Anything can happen here’: How the Family Court failed to live up to its promise.

It did not take Rob long to conclude in his first foray into the Family Court system that justice might have little to do with the outcome. No lawyer could offer him any guidance on how much access he might expect to have to his son, Jackson, though he hoped it might be something more than he had, which was nothing. He was told family law did not work on precedents. Rather, he should be prepared to accept a range of outcomes.

“They kept telling me, ‘Anything could happen here’,” said Rob, whose real name cannot be published under the Family Law Act.

He spent nearly $100,000 and six years in litigation only to end up at the bottom end of his outcomes, an experience that left him cynical of a court once touted as the international gold standard for family law practice.

“It’s almost, how good is your lawyer, how good is your barrister and how well do you perform [in court]?” he said.

The Family Court of Australia is better known these days for long, costly and unsatisfying litigation, an institution so malodorous to the Morrison government that it intends to dismantle it as a standalone court.

Legislation to merge the court with the lower-level Federal Circuit Court, which also hears federal law matters, is before the Senate. If the government can gain the support of the crossbenchers, it will become known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

It would represent the biggest shake-up of the Family Court of Australia in 20 years.

The proposal has alarmed stakeholders, who are concerned the specialist knowledge intrinsic to the Family Court will be lost when it is diluted with federal court matters and loses its appeals division. But few would argue the court is performing to its maximum potential in its current form. Litigants wait 18 months on average and up to five years for their matters to go to trial, while children grow up, property sales are put on hold and couples are left in purgatory.

It is a shell of the ideal set up under the 1975 Family Law Act, which also introduced no-fault divorce and wrapped support services, such as mediation and counselling, around the legal business of disentangling couples. Litigation was discouraged, judges removed their wigs to signify a more informal approach and the aim was to make proceedings inexpensive and relatively painless.

When the Sydney registry opened its doors in January 1976, unhappy couples were already waiting outside.

But the concept was never fully realised because the Whitlam government was dismissed before the final pieces were put into play. The founding chief justice, Elizabeth Evatt, says the court was compromised from the start because a senior tier of judges had not been appointed by the time Malcolm Fraser came to power.

“Fraser wasn’t very enthusiastic about the court and wanted to have as few judges as possible,” Justice Evatt said. “All the wonderful ideals that we had didn’t come to fruition, not fully. It was installed up to a point, but it was always a bit over-burdened.”

By 1999, delays in the system had become endemic and the relationship between the government and the court was toxic. It was taking so long to replace retired judges that the waitlist had blown out. Meanwhile, the Family Court bombings of the 1980s and the advent of men’s rights groups had raised concerns the Family Court was biased towards women. The personal animosity between the attorney-general, Daryl Williams, and chief justice, Alastair Nicholson, was well known.

Mr Williams’ solution – both to the systemic delays and the perceived cultural issue – was to set up a separate magistrates court (which later became the Federal Circuit Court), to streamline the less complicated cases and also hear migration, industrial and bankruptcy matters. It was a fateful move.

Two decades later, the two-court system is widely acknowledged to be confusing, complex and wasteful of time and money, with 1200 matters bumped between the two courts annually.

Justice Nicholson – who Mr Williams said was only opposed to the move because he wanted his own magistrates to “boss around” – said the courts competed against each other from the first. “It was a very destructive, fraught system,” Justice Nicholson said. “We had people shopping which court to go to. It should never have happened.”

In the intervening years, funding has not kept pace with demand as the number of parents separating has increased. The senate inquiry into the merger bill heard that some judges in the Federal Circuit Court have more than 600 cases on their dockets.

Paul Doolan, the chair of the family law section of the Law Council of Australia, said some Federal Circuit judges were regularly faced with lists of 30 or more cases per day. “How can a judge who’s trying their very best to do a good job for everyone keep up with that workload?” Mr Doolan said. “It’s not the most satisfactory way of ensuring you get a just outcome for litigants, or a safe workplace for those judges.”

And while people wait for their cases to be heard, there are more interim hearings, more letters to be answered, more complications that require a lawyer, and as a result their legal costs increase.

Mr Doolan encourages his own clients to go through mediation and avoid the courts altogether.

“Even if they’re spoiling for a fight, I say to them, ‘By the end of two or three years in court you will hate your wife or you will hate your husband, you will hate the system, you will probably hate the judge, you will hate me and you will hate your barrister. It’s not a happy system to be involved in. You need to try and find a reasonable compromise.’

“Unfortunately for some people, especially those who have experienced family violence, there is no reasonable compromise available and a properly functioning, adequately resourced court system is needed.”

The perception among litigants is that justice in the Family Court is costly and arbitrary. It depends on the individual case and possibly the individual judge. They struggle to respect the process, especially if the case has not gone their way, and cases rarely do go all one person’s way in the Family Court. Final orders are not necessarily final. And even when one party does “win”, it seldom feels like a victory.

There were times during the six years Rob fought for more time with Jackson that his parents urged him to walk away. It was not the cost they deplored (Rob stopped counting before his legal bill clocked $100,000), so much as the emotional toll that affected every other part of his life.

There are times, now, when he considers the paltry four weeks of access that he has to show for all that litigation, that he wonders if they were right.

“But there’s always something that draws you to your own kid and I just couldn’t do it,” he said. “I had to keep going.” Last month they spent their first Christmas together.

This is the stuff of the Federal Circuit Court. It hears 90 per cent of family law matters in Australia, with the most complicated cases reserved for the Family Court. Last year it finalised almost 16,000 matters.

Attorney-General Christian Porter says providing a single entry point into the federal Family Courts will make the system quicker, efficient and less costly to use because it will eliminate the transfer of matters between courts. It is the least radical path to resolving a failed system, he says.

“There are a lot of vested interests in the legal fraternity,” Mr Porter said. “It is unfortunate that many of the contributions in the debate about much-needed reform in this area misrepresent both the current role of the FCC in resolving family law matters and effect of the bill, as well as reflecting a lack of real commitment to changes that would see more efficient processes for families and less fees for lawyers.”

There is little argument in the legal fraternity that creating a single entry point for Family Court matters will be more efficient than the existing split system. But there is greater support for a model proposed by the NSW Bar Association, which moves all family law work into the Family Court of Australia, leaving the remaining business of the Federal Circuit Court to stay where it is.

It is argued that folding a standalone specialist court into an already overburdened generalist court flies against advice that victims of domestic violence are better served by specialist services, and will not reduce backlogs.

“I just can’t see how it’s going to help,” said family law barrister Melissa Gillies, SC.

“What does it actually mean to clients coming through the door? Will it mean their matters come on quicker? And it doesn’t mean that. So why are we doing it?”

There are other things that can be done to improve the family law courts, and some of them — such as the early identification of people at risk of family violence — are already being done. The most obvious solution is appointing more judges to hear cases and wind down the backlog, which remains outstanding.

Patrick Parkinson, the outgoing chair of the University of Queensland law school, says the best investment the government could make in family law would be to expand the reach of family relationship centres, which can resolve family breakdown issues before the parties become polarised and resort to litigation.

He does not believe the merger will downgrade the Family Court of Australia. “That happened years ago,” he said. He is referring to 2000, when a fiery attorney-general rode around the chief justice to establish a court he could control.



Watch Dr Steven Miller explain to the court how the practice of placing children with the alienating parent doesn’t work and what must be done to remedy it.


By comparison to women a man has almost no options for help and a safe environment when subjected to domestic violence.


Big money and endless acrimony: Family Court reform to rein in ‘dreadful’ litigants, lawyers.

The government’s chief backer for its controversial Family Court merger says the bill would give judges the power to rein in litigants who waste court time and use unfair strategies.

Patrick Parkinson, the outgoing head of the University of Queensland’s law school, said the legislation before the Senate will allow judges to manage cases and ensure they do not rack up massive costs, which will free up the over-burdened Family Court for other litigants.

The government wants to merge the Family Court of Australia with the lower level Federal Circuit Court.
The government wants to merge the Family Court of Australia with the lower level Federal Circuit Court.

“Sydney has a dreadful reputation among judges for the way in which so many cases are so hard-fought and there’s so much less willingness to compromise than elsewhere,” Professor Parkinson said.

“In the high wealth cases, we do see some very bad behaviour by lawyers or lawyers acting on behalf of clients. Particularly where the clients are a little bit better off, every legal point is argued over and there’s a tendency to make fewer compromises early and negotiate settlements,” Professor Parkinson said.

The Family Court system is beset by long delays, drawn-out cases and high costs, which are partly the result of resourcing not having kept pace with demand. Since 2012-13, the backlog of applications has grown by 34 per cent to 6720 cases in the Family Court and by 63 per cent to 17,478 cases in the Federal Circuit Court. Over the same period of time, only two additional judges were assigned to each of the courts.

The government wants to merge the Family Court with the lower-level Federal Circuit Court, which also hears migration and industrial law matters, to simplify the system and make it more efficient. The proposal is opposed by more than 110 individuals and organisations who say it will downgrade the Family Court and put families at risk.

Against their arguments, the government has relied on the submissions made by Professor Parkinson, who advised the Howard government on its equal shared parental responsibility laws while chairman of the now-defunct Family Law Council. He also chairs the conservative think tank Freedom for Faith.

But Professor Parkinson said the merger alone would not solve the most intractable issues of the family law system. The strength of the new laws merging the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was the power it gave judges. These included the ability to order lawyers to bear the costs personally if they hindered a case from running efficiently and inexpensively, and to dismiss applications without merit.

“The merger itself will not set the world on fire,” he said. “It’s a modest improvement. But the other part about the court powers is very important.”

Professor Parkinson had previously caught the eye of the Prime Minister’s office with research that found court resources were disproportionately used by people who had the money to fight protracted battles and came at the expense of other litigants.

It is a theme with which the family law courts are familiar.

In one egregious a couple’s combined legal costs extended to $860,000 during an acrimonious dispute in which voluminous letters flowed between the parties’ solicitors, airing grievances that the judge would later say served no forensic purpose. Their seven-day trial settled on the final day.

Justice Robert Benjamin, presiding over the case in the Sydney registry of the Family Court, was appalled.

“Whether this win at all costs, concede little or nothing, chase every rabbit down every hole and hang the consequences approach to family law litigation is a reflection of a Sydney-based culture by some or many litigants or whether it is an approach by some legal practitioners or a combination of both, I do not know,” he said, referring the solicitors to the Legal Services Commissioner of NSW for professional misconduct.

“Whichever is the cause, the consequences of obscenely high legal costs are destructive of the emotional, social and financial wellbeing of the parties and their children. It must stop.”

But that was 2017, and the acrimonious culture described by Justice Benjamin did not stop.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if he still holds that view,” family law solicitor Deborah Searle said. “The adversarial culture goes on. There are firms that will run it for costs but in some cases where you have an enormous amount of work and the parties are intractable there’s absolutely no way around it. I’ve had people arguing over who owns the debt.”

Last month, a Sydney couple spent $60,000 – nearly 8 per cent of the total property pool – on an interim application that a judge of the Family Court said was devoid of merit, even though the final hearing was only three months away.

Last year, the Federal Circuit Court in Parramatta heard that one man had spent $80,000 on lawyers to quibble with his ex-wife over a sum of $4500. He wanted Judge Joe Harman to make an order for his ex-wife to pay his costs on an indemnity basis. “You’re kidding,” Judge Harman said, learning the size of the man’s legal bill. The proceedings appeared to be a perpetuation of hatred between the parties, Judge Harman said. Taxpayers were already paying $20,000 for the matter to be heard.

“This is a busy trial court,” Judge Harman said. “It is a trial court which has far more work than it can possibly deal with simpliciter on any given day. Matters of this nature take up time which is then … not made available to other litigants. The cases displaced include cases where children are not seeing a parent, or a parent their child. Cases where children are seeing a parent, but are alleged to be at risk. Cases where children are at risk … It is that business which this case displaces.”

Other strategies well-known to the legal profession include “burning off”, when litigants run every conceivable issue or contest applications that are bound to succeed to pressure the other party to settle, and “trial by ambush”, where affidavits are served the night before trial.

Both strategies lend themselves favourably to the Family Court. In the case of burning off, the default rule that each party pays its own costs puts the person in a weaker financial position at a disadvantage. Trial by ambush leverages the delays in the system because people are unwilling to ask for an adjournment if they have been waiting months for a hearing.

Or it just derails them completely.

That is what happened to Angus, 43, when he turned up to a dispute resolution with his wife in 2018. The estranged couple sat with their legal representatives in two separate rooms in the Parramatta court complex. The mediator started by blindsiding Angus with the news that his wife intended to move interstate with their 18-month-old son.

“I just spent the first half of the day in tears,” Angus said. “My lawyer was arguing against their lawyer, saying you can’t just drop a bombshell like that and expect us to make decisions about property. It was the worst day of my life.”

It is illegal to identify the parties in family law proceedings.

Jane Wangmann, a senior lecturer in law at the University of Technology, Sydney, interviewed 35 men and women who had represented themselves in Family Court proceedings for a study published by the Australian National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety this month.

Around 22 per cent of litigants in the Family Court and a quarter of litigants in the Federal Circuit Court were self-represented at some stage in 2019-20, typically because they could not afford a lawyer, which significantly slows down proceedings because judges need to explain legal concepts to them.

Several of Dr Wangmann’s subjects believed that their ex-partners had deliberately tried to deplete their finances.

“When I had a private lawyer the spam from [my ex-partner’s lawyer] increased, drastically, and I quite honestly believe it was to deliberately burn through [my] money as fast as possible,” one woman said, referring to the cost of her solicitor being required to read and respond to the other side’s communications.

“And then when I became self-represented she entirely backed off. Instantly. Less than 10 per cent of the volume of communication from her once I was self-represented.”

It is not clear to what extent those strategies are driven by clients and how much by their lawyers. Lawyers have also pointed out that court delays are endemic across the country and not just in the Sydney registry, where the culture is more adversarial.

Professor Parkinson said family law reform would require a combination of measures, including greater resourcing and restoring the practice of less adversarial trials, but the judicial powers to ensure lawyers resolved cases quickly was a good start. “On their own, these things may not seem like silver bullets but cumulatively they are,” he said.


Watch Bettina Arndt discuss with Augusto Zimmermann how prevalent/wrong DV and immigration fraud is in Australia.


This is a brilliant video about misandry and how skewed the concept of “equality” is in male-female relationships. These Man-Woman-Myth video series are some of the best available out there about how the inter-sectional feminists have quite literally screwed up the world.


Andrew O’Keefe ‘not the aggressor’ in alleged domestic violence, his lawyer says

Television presenter will fight charge after alleged assault of partner in Sydney’s eastern suburbs at weekend.

Andrew O’Keefe in 2019

Andrew O’Keefe in 2019. The Seven network presenter did not appear in Waverley local court on Thursday when his case for allegedly assaulting his partner, Orly Laveek, was adjourned. 

Seven Network presenter and former White Ribbon chairman Andrew O’Keefe was “not the aggressor” in an alleged domestic assault and will fight the charge against him, his lawyer says.

New South Wales police allege the former Weekend Sunrise host assaulted his partner, haematologist Dr Orly Lavee, at an apartment in Randwick in Sydney’s eastern suburbs on Sunday.

O’Keefe did not appear in Waverley local court on Thursday when a magistrate adjourned his case. Outside court, his lawyer, Claudette Chua, said O’Keefe would fight the one charge of common assault.

Chua said her client was “not the aggressor in the situation”. The defence lawyer said she sought an adjournment because O’Keefe had been “unable to give full instructions on such short notice”.

Police say the assault occurred between 11pm and 11.30pm on 30 January. O’Keefe was arrested on a nearby street about 3.30am. He was then taken to Maroubra police station and charged.

O’Keefe, a former lawyer and son of ex-NSW supreme court judge Barry O’Keefe, was a founding member of the domestic violence charity the White Ribbon Foundation, where he served as chairman in 2017. The organisation went into liquidation in 2019.

He was appointed a member of the Order of Australia in 2017 for his service to television and charity work.

White Ribbon relaunched in 2020 under new management. The new executive director, Brad Chilcott, said in a statement that the organisation was saddened to hear of the charge.

“Andrew O’Keefe has no role in this new chapter of White Ribbon Australia that has seen many changes to our approach and activities, including ending the ambassador program,” Chilcott said. “We stand in solidarity with every victim and survivor of men’s violence against women, and believe men who use violence must be held to account.”

O’Keefe has been granted conditional bail. The case is scheduled to return to court on 18 February.