Clutching at Straws – and Self Delusion

The usual silliness from ETT is in blue

The Lobbying for Shared Care Just Isn't Working
It is so good to see that good prevails over evil and that the Shared Parenting Council and the associated mens rights groups are not making any ground on their issues. The bullying attitude just doesn't cut it anymore and hopefully most people can see through the facade when they state "it's in the best interests of the children". The only reason they make it about the children is to gain control. The kids are just the pawns they use to achieve this. They don't really care about the children, if they did, they would be spending the time with them before they split up or divorced. The children are just pawns to be used in their bullying.
Dicosta & Dicosta [2008] FamCAFC 161 (29 October 2008)

ETT then goes on to quote ‘very selected’ parts of the judgment and use emotive terms like good and evil. Now for some reasons best known to ETT they have selected only one judgment in an attempt to illustrate that shared care is not always awarded by the Courts. But why? Well it is only one of many judgments made and of course they are hardly likely to publish Shared Care judgments of which there are many.

So the question is why? Are they trying to convince their readers that there are no shared care judgments knowing full well that their readers can also read published judgments OR are they trying to convince themselves. Unfortunately the latter, they are trying to convince themselves. This is self delusional and indicative of the attacks they are making on various organisations.

We should at this stage repeat ETT math. One equals ALL judgements are not giving shared care. Previously they have used ALL for less than 5% in another context.

We only hope their children are receiving proper math tuition at school –because there is none from the home front.

Then they go on to say
Brown Nosing Judges Doesn't Always Work.
Despite all of familylawwebguide/Shared Parenting Council's brown nosing of FM Altobelli, it seems he still has a mind of his own and wasn't swayed by their self serving poppycock.

Now hold it - the comments are posted by members of the FLWG – so the comments are brownnosing from the FLWG and SPCA –how does that work?
Or does it mean if we posted a comment on the ETT blog that would in essence mean that ETT is supporting what we say? Goodness gracious me – is there no end to the lengths’ that ETT is trying to connect a line of non existent dots?

Actually ETT does support what we say here. Whenever we show the public the errors in ETTs purported facts -they go remarkably silent [or veer off in another totally unrelated direction] This means that ETT is agreeing with us - that our version of the facts is correct.

They then go on to the refer to the case Hogan & Hogan [2008] FMCAfam 1219 (14 November 2008) and make some comments about it.

But and very big but ETT, the case has been discussed in the closed areas of FLWG [which you do not get access to] and the outcome considered reasonable and in the best interests of the children. You never know ETT - perhaps Monteverdi or one of his cohorts may have been in Court following the case and followed all that transpired during the hearing?

So how do these judgments in any way state that the Shared Care ‘business’ is not working and that Altobelli reads the FLWG. These really are delusional long shots.