Preface:

These people think they are above the laws of man because of their imaginary friend.

If you are in any kind of family court tussle in the Western Sydney bible belt or Sydney region, watch out for Dr Peter Krabman, Mr . The Catholic Magistre is retired now, but Hilary HAnnam the family court judge is off with the fairies too.
I do not have and have NEVER had hallucinations nor delusion of reference - and I know exactly what the clinical profile of each is.

Avoid Christian psychiatrists in family court settings, especially if you are a known outspoken atheist.

===============================================================================================

ARTICLE

During the course of the last several years (since 2009) I have been forced to contend for parenting and custody rights with my devoutly faithistic Pentecostal Charismatic ex wife and her extended Baptist and Pentecostal family. The case ended up in the family court of Australia.

INITIATION

The court proceedings were initiated by my ex wife - Mrs Bronwyn Long (now Bronwyn Kibble) as an application for parenting orders in 2010 in response to complaints made by myself to her and to the police on behalf of my daughter about reports made by my daughter. My daughter reported that Mrs Long's then boyfriend (now husband) Mr Alan Kibble had been (repeatedly and on separate occasions) directing her to sit in his lap specifically when there were no other adults in the vicinity or present, apart from one occasion where there were other adults present. In other words – in secret.

Both Mr and Mrs Kibble have lied about the related events in court and in affidavits, and I demonstrated this from email documents sent to me by them during the proceedings.

Regardless, the outcome at this point is dire. My former spouse has been given sole parental responsibility, and I have been savaged by a biased and corrupt family specialist's report prepared by a devout Christian psychiatrist - a one Dr Peter Krabman. I have never been involved in harassment and family violence, and nor have I ever experienced any kind of hallucination, delusion of reference, or difficulties with perseveration or delusions of grandeur as asserted by Dr Krabman after less than one hour of interaction with me. There have been no claims against me of family violence and I have no history of the same. Yet the assertion was made based on a misdiagnosis that although I decry such behavior as a moral agent I could feasibly exhibit such behavior. A serious beat up in and of itself.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT: MY EVIDENCE

I am in possession of a report prepared by another professional psychiatrist prior to the proceedings - which was a result of no less than four separate meetings of one hour (four times as long at least as the court appointed family specialist spent with me) that gives me a clean bill of health and implicates my former spouse's personality as seriously problematic and even pathological, especially in relation to her rigid inflexibility as a faithist.

Those meetings were initiated by me in 2008 because my then spouse demanded that I see a Christian counselor in order to save our marriage (controlling and obsessive much?) I had been slowly losing my faith (which frankly never really took with me), and had been quite depressed by the bad marital relationship and her rather psychopathological and inflexible personality (and that is not an overstatement as you will discover below).

The resulting report and the letter accompanying it in support of my mental health status were dispensed with during proceedings in a very precipitant and untoward manner.

This evidence was thrown out of the Federal Magistrate's court (before the case was handed to the Family Court) by its only seriously devout Catholic Magistrate (who retired only a few months later) on a technicality because it had not been formatted as a formal report and because some of the handwriting was difficult to read. The supporting letter from the atheist psychiatrist testified to my good mental health, but it was ejected out of hand along with the original report. Both should have been retained as general evidence. They demonstrate my good mental health status, and question that of my ex wife.

My daughter's reports about Mr Kibble’s behavior were ejected by the same magistrate as inadequate evidence on the basis that I had conveyed them. They were given by my daughter initially inadvertently in reponse to a general discussion I was having with her little brother in response to his question “what is child abuse”. At the point at which I related the kinds of things sexual abusers do to groom children, my daughter piped up and flatly stated “Alan does that with me all the time”. I almost missed the response at first.

FAMILY COURT: AMBUSHED

During the short 1 hour session (less than that on my own) with Dr Krabman I indicated to him that I had been harassed, stalked, and in some cases threatened by individuals with whom I had had a serious falling out some 14 years prior to the proceedings. It is difficult to identify these persons as some of them are associates of my original antagonist(s) and I do not know their identities, but can only identify them by their troubling behaviour. This behaviour includes public intimidation and insults and interference with my career at the university where I have been studying and working towards my PhD in philosophy for several years.

The individuals in question are related to and associated with persons in the University's academic community in various ways, including at one point being closely associated with my own supervisor, who may have responded by joining them. Dr Krabman opportunistically interpreted these reports as delusory. I have been made aware that there are other persons aware of the harassment in the university community, but they have been unwilling to come forward and give evidence (no one wants to get involved in family court proceedings, and my reputation and character had already been attacked and maligned by those persons involved in stalking me.)

I was forced by the judge in court on the spot as a litigant in person to submit a list of possible witnesses off the top of my head to prove my case, but as most of them were ex girlfriends or former actual or ostensible friends who had witnessed (and in some cases been involved in) the harassment and had decided to abandon me, and was the opposite of useful from a legal and practical perspective. No other list was accepted by the Family Court judge, former Northern Territory chief justice Hilary Hannam.

Hannam also foreclosed outright on my ability to present any forensic counter, with which I could have made my case, by stipulating that the family court seeks to avoid adversarial counter arguments (which would pit the court appointed specialist’s professional capacity against that of another equally well qualified professional). The problem is that this further foreclosed on my ability to defend my mental health status.

SYSTEMATIC ABUSE:

My experiences with the Federal Magistrate’s court and the Family court in Australia have demonstrated that the framework of each of them makes them staggeringly susceptible to manipulation and subversion on the basis of personal opinion and ideological stance of the officers of the court. If you are an atheist liberal going up against conservative puritanical theists the outlook is bleak.
We have legal aid in this Australia, and I was appointed legal aid on two occasions because of concerns about my daughters’ safety. On both occasions the solicitor appointed to me turned out to be a devout Christian - the first a former Jewish Anglican married to the daughter of an Anglican Priest, the second a devout Mormon. I did my best to trust in the objectivity of each of them.

In response to the candid and spontaneous reports made originally by my daughter, my former spouse emotionally abused my daughter calling her a liar and berating her and denigrating her character in front of family and friends to shame her. My daughter at 10 years of age (now 14) had a personality like my own and is both bright and unbelieving. Not traits with which my former spouse handles with any grace or ease.

During the course of the proceedings I had to face much mischief at the hands of officers of the court who have learned over many years how to subvert the family court system to their client’s ends, or against those with whom they have interpersonal or ideological differences. Just prior to a major hearing I was told directly by the independent children's lawyer - a former police detective and religionist sympathiser employed by the legal aid commission who supported my former spouse at every turn and who exhibited personal disdain for me as a PhD candidate in our very first meeting - that if I wanted further legal aid I would have to apply to, and I quote, "my organisation".

My applications for legal aid were often misprocessed and lost in administrative confusion.

Five minutes prior to the final hearing I was able to approach the family specialist Dr Krabman for the first time (having been told illegitimately by his office that this would be my first opportunity to speak with him). It is at that point that he revealed that he would be taking the oath on the bible, and that I should take this as an indication of his beliefs, which I already suspected must be theistic and devout from the contents of his biased and flawed report, which errantly identifies me as seriously mentally ill largely on the basis of my former spouse's say so. His appraisal of her character was all but glowing, but he was forced to admit that she was chronically depressed. Her depression, however, was attributed to me as being because of my personality. This is patently nonsense.

I do not know for certain but the ICL’s special counsel may well have been a devout Christian also. At one point during the pre-session interval inside the courtroom prior to the judge’s attendance or during adjournment she and my former spouse's devout Christian female lawyer had a very cosy conversation in my presence about attending the retirement party of the Catholic Federal Court magistrate who threw my psychiatrist’s evidence out of court. For anyone that knows anything about the court rules associated with impartiality, intimidation, and sabotage of process etc., they are definitely not supposed to do that sort of thing.

THE SURREAL ELEMENT:

Bizarrely, when I tried to foreground the obvious ideological bias and religious obsessive behavior on the part of my former spouse, the judge asserted that there was no evidence that Mrs Kibble was religious! I was too stunned to laugh.
Which brings me to another interesting point. I was the only person in the court room representing myself and my daughter in the last two hearings. I had no support and no counsel. My former spouse had a lawyer, a barrister (apparently paid for or secured by her church), the ICL (who had already exhibited serious bias against me) and the special counsel for the ICL (who usually does not turn up at all). All of them and a rather unbalanced court against me. Mrs Kibble’s entourage often included at least two people who appeared to be pastors or perhaps parents in law of Mr Kibble. That’s rather a lot of firepower to deal with one putatively mentally ill dysfunctional person representing themself in isolation.

A DUMB, BLUNT INSTRUMENT:

Perhaps it was because during proceedings I was able to have my wits about me enough to point out such things as the evident ideological bias of Dr Krabman, and to identify that his report was internally contradictory regarding my former spouse. At one point it identifies her as specifically chronically depressed, and at a later point as healthy and recovered.
My former spouse exhibits all of the traits of a psychopath: lack of empathy, lack of remorse, unwillingness to self-correct or admit error, and bullying and manipulation. During proceedings it was revealed that she had been seriously bullying our daughter - by throwing and locking her out of the house in the cold and rain in the dark on multiple occasions such that my daughter ran away from home twice (our daughter was 10 at the time). On another occasion she and Mr Kibble kicked my daughter out of the car with no shoes to walk to a friend’s home. Their excuse is to blame my daughter’s behavior. Firstly, is it any wonder that she responds to them negatively given their abuse of her, and secondly – this so called school teacher cannot manage her own child, but I can?

No such negative and abusive behaviour was associated with my parenting of the children, and during proceedings at least it was seriously frowned upon by the judge and the special counsel employed by the independent children's lawyer. This alone should have been enough to undermine assignment to my former spouse of sole parental responsibility. There is the imperative to avoid conflict on behalf of the children, but the cost to me and - by extension to the children - has been devastating. As is the threat to expose submit them to the attention of Dr Krabman. I can only imagine with horror what will happen when my children assert their disbelief.

DAMAGE AND IMMINENT DAMAGE INC. :

It was ordered that my former spouse have sole parental responsibility for the children, and that I not be able to approach the children’s schools except for special events (the motivation for which was unstated at any point – I have never had any complaints from school staff and have only ever contributed positively on behalf of my children and gone into bat for them when necessary.) My ex wife is a secondary school teacher, but (in addition to being terrible at mathematics,) tends to agree with everything other teachers say about our kids – even when it places our children at a serious disadvantage or if the other teacher is clearly mistaken or behaving in an untoward manner.

Moreover, it was ordered that the children be told by a psychotherapist chosen by Dr Krabman that I am mentally ill and have a skewed sense of reality and of the threat posed to me by certain members of the public.

It was also ordered that I have to disclose the full identity of any partner or spouse that I have to my ex wife in order for the children to stay with me. This is blatant provocation to rejection of the orders and an indirect way of removing my relationship with the children. It is at this point that the corruption of the family court system on the basis of the collective religionist bias against and dislike of my person and my ideological disposition becomes truly apparent. No partner exposed to rumours about my mental health from multiple random sources approaching them, and exposed to the associated stigma, is going to be able to sustain peace of mind. Not to mention the effect on my ability to secure employment in the marketplace.

There is a mountain of material related to the case, but I have included below a letter sent to the court after proceedings had been finalized.

THE MINDLESSNESS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM:

I am sure that legal minds will boggle at my putative stupidity for approaching the problems as I now am. However, I have learned that this is the point at which legal training is an apparent impediment to good sense and counter to the wellbeing of the children, and certainly devastating to my own outcomes. Lawyers, I am afraid to say, can be terribly stupid agents of a disastrously corrupt and ineffectual system. They are a bit of a waste of time and money when it really matters.

Why should I have to waste all of my time and lifeblood fighting a fight that my religionist former spouse is enjoying – despite her politically correct false overtures to the contrary. She gets the satisfaction of watching me suffer and feeling justified in her belief in her bastard god fiction, whilst bastardising me and my unbelieving daughter with the help of the power of the family court. Then when I recover she gets to take my money and give it to the Pentecostal Church and spend it on Jacuzzis instead of on our children’s university education (which she has expressed a disbelief in).

Understandably the effect on my emotional state and health due to stress and worry has not been conducive to my high functioning, and I can tell you that such stressors are apt to make the healthiest and toughest person a little twitchy. Frankly, people go down in psychological flames over much less.

YOU AREN’T PARANOID IF THEY ARE REALLY OUT TO GET YOU:

Add to all of this the bizarre behavior of members of the public who have some knowledge of the situation generally. I had a contract with an employer in May 2014. The recruitment agent approached me avidly, which for someone my age and with my academic career interlude is rare. It transpired that the employer was a Christian lawyer, friends with the Christian lawyer Chancellor of the university where I study and had been working (until they – ahem – stopped giving me work due to complaints from theist students and perhaps for other even less savoury reasons. I am published in professional journals, and get good teaching reports from peers and impartial students.)

The employer’s daughter was studying philosophy as an undergraduate in the same department where I work and research. After only a few days of working with this employer I was getting comments about my personal psychological wellbeing that 1. It was too early for any reasonable person to be rightfully making based on very limited interaction and exposure to me, even if they had been objectively correct and 2. Should not have been made in public settings such as coffee shops at audible volumes.

It is at times like that I realise that theists are really very much out of their minds. And I mean clinically. They are trying to say I am crazy, but that was – as the common parlance has it – “some crazy shit”.

I have not re-applied for legal aid yet, but will do so. But recall that my last two legal aid solicitors were not just believers or agnostics, but devout theist cultists (Episcopalian and Mormon) and so you can understand my reticence. If you want to discover how easy it is for a religionist to subvert the court system against atheists, then observe your devout theist solicitor – who is aware of your atheist views and activism – ‘legitimately’ and within the bounds of the law exercise their professional discretion and choose strategies that are sub-optimal.

I don’t think everyone is out to get me, nor do I dislike people. However, I am fairly sure at this point that my former spouse and her supporters might just be a little pre-occupied with my continued existence.

===============================================================================================

LETTER/ADDENDUM

Family Court of Australia
At Sydney

From:
Mr Bruce Long
Defendant, Case No. PAC5089/2010.

Friday, February 20, 2015

Dear Madam,

Subsequent to today’s unfortunate and corrupt judgments from the court, I am forced to communicate all of the following.
Despite overtures of the court to the effect that such findings are in the best interests of the children, the outcome is that now I will be forced to spend any monies that I earn on having the judgments overturned. This will of course affect the children’s future. However, this outcome - objectively - is wholly the responsibility of the court and officers of the court representing The Applicant and to the extent that they have been involved in supporting the applicant in a clearly biased manner.

I do not yet have the financial wherewithal to mount an appeal or lodge any application, but this should be expected at a time in the future when my finances are more secure, despite the damage done to my abililty to earn an income by the corrupt malpractical and biased report compiled by Dr Krabman, which report with respect to myself is no more than an ideologically motivated hatchet job barely disguised in clinical parlance and as a clinical forensic report.

Regarding specific orders:

I will be appealing against all orders made, and in the short term there are some orders, parts of which I will not comply under any circumstances:

16. The father is to advise the mother of the address at which he proposes the children are to spend any overnight time with him, and the full names of all other occupants of those premises.

The final clause of this order (see italics) is wholly unwarranted and represents and invasion of my privacy and provides a way for the applicant and her spouse and supporters to interfere with my personal relationships by indirectly exposing my future partners to the corrupt, malpractical, and flawed findings of Dr Krabman. This is unacceptable morally and ethically, and constitutes a dire abuse of my person, and something about which I should be understandably distressed.

In connection with this, I would like to point out that:

When the applicant began their relationship with Mr Alan Kibble, I was not notified of such nor was I appraised of the fact that the children were spending time alone with Mr Kibble (which is a fact supported by evidence given by the children and by the Applicant herself in previous proceedings and in these proceedings).

No such injunction has been given to the applicant, whose behavior in relation to the seriously inappropriate disciplining and abuse of Kayta Joy Long, now 13 years old, was looked upon direly by the court and the special counsel representing the children’s lawyer Mr Walkden. The court’s orders do not appropriately match the recognition of this behavior on the part of the applicant as pathological.

The court and the report fail to adequately recognize the significance of my daughter’s reports of Mr Kibble’s inappropriate and likely sexualized behavior towards her, nor that evidence presented demonstrates that the applicant and Mr Kibble lied about it, nor that Katya was subsequently emotionally and psychologically abused by the applicant because of it.

My own forensic clinical evidence in support of my position and prepared by a professional psychiatrist (not a religious believer)was thrown out of court on the basis of technicalities such as format and handwriting/legibility, with no consideration given to the content thereof as evidence. This will be appealed in the future.

The ostensible justification of 4 based upon the propensity for the court to avoid adversarial counters in proceedings is inadequate (and in fact corrupt) as a justification for blocking my ability to make a case on the basis of forensic evidence.

The protections against the corrupt, malpractical and criminally mischievous findings of Dr Krabman being discovered by the general public are wholly inadequate, and I will be seeking legal advice regarding the same. I expect this to be extremely difficult, but that the corrupt and morally reprehensible actions of Dr Krabman and the court family court and its officers in connexion with is have made this fact irrelevant.

Dr Krabman indicated to me before proceedings that he would be swearing on the Bible, and that this was a clear indication of his religious disposition as a believer. I reiterate, as was revealed in proceedings, that I was told by Dr Krabman’s office that I would not be permitted to approach him until the hearing itself, which seemed to surprise even the judge. I complied and at no point were my extremely limited interactions with Dr Krabman untoward.

If the result of my intention not to comply with this clause of order 16 is that the children are withheld from my care and are unable to spend time with me, then that is or will be wholly and solely the responsibility – jointly and severally - of the corrupt agents involved in formulating these orders and the corrupt actions of Dr Krabman, whose errant, false and ideologically and religiously biased report is not only reproachable, but indicative of general dangerous malpractice.

With respect to the stated findings that I personally have a distorted view of the danger presented by or harassment of my person by other persons:

Dr Krabman’s report with regards to the circumstances is misinformative and confused at best, and largely a blatant biased misrepresentation which exemplifies Dr Krabman’s propensity to misinterpret my character in a negative way, and that of the Applicant (who, based upon her bullying and wonton behavior is probably in fact a clinical psychopath) in a positive way. There are good sound reasons to believe this is largely due to his faithistic and ideological disposition, which matches the disposition of the applicant.

I will now be forced to attempt to prove that pestering interference with, harassment of, and stalking of my person have occurred quasi-systematically over the last 14 years, which undertaking will be expensive and result in harm to my children’s future that I can now not avoid.

In the event that, or if, the expectation of the court is that events that I claim to have occurred pursuant to 9. may well constitute objective facts, and that the current orders are connected with some form of social didactic to force me to engage with and expose the persons involved in harassing me:

This would be completely irresponsible and morally and ethically reprehensible on the part of the court and any agents involved with it, and would plainly breach any basic principles of the law that are intended to protect individuals from false accusations and mischief – including harassment and stalking - caused by agents at odds with them. Disgusting and ridiculous are not too strong as term to apply to such.

In the event that this were the case, I will endeavor to ensure the outcome will - justly - be perpendicular to that desired by persons pursuing it, and frustrate them. As it stands it will only amplify the harm done to my children by the court and its officers, by the applicant and her husband, and by those ostensibly claiming to act in the children’s best interests by way of damage to my own person and reputation and thereby damage to the children’s father and our relationship.

Any harm done to my children in terms of their psychological health and general wellbeing in connection with the above and especially with 2 a. and b. will be and is wholly and solely the responsibility of the court and the applicant and her husband, of persons that have harassed me and interfered with my career prospects over the course of 14 years, the agents ostensibly representing the best interests of the children, and Dr Krabman.

Further Notes Regarding the Proceedings and this Communique

The abuse of my children and myself at the hands of this court and that of the applicant, together with the bizarre ostensible motivation that the same is in the childrens’ best interests, has been disgusting and reproachable, and is beyond contemptuous. My respect for it and for those involved in it as having any kind of worthwhile moral agency with respect to the situation is, appropriately, null.

I will be retaining all of the documents and letters relevant to these proceedings to discuss with the children as adults when they are fully able to comprehend the corruption involved in the applicant’s actions (beyond their current comprehension – which is significant and accurate) and the unfortunate nature of the family court in this Country. Any attempt to block the same will be brought undone by legal appeals with the assistance of the children when they are adults.

Damages to Myself and My Children and Concerns about the Applicant’s Behaviour Going Forward

My personal reputation and my own ability to have peaceful congress and to seek gainful employment and establish gainful enterprise in the public marketplace has already been inestimably damaged by these proceedings and by the likely quasi-sanctioned and unsanctioned leaking of the details or thrust of Dr Krabman’s [report]. It is clear that this serves as an impediment to my further pursuing matters. This situation can not be allowed to stand. Correspondingly, any future negative outcomes are wholly the causal responsibility of the applicant and the court and it’s officers, and I rightly abjure any responsibility.

I have dire concerns that the pathological behavior of the applicant, exemplified by her treatment of Katya through the course of these proceedings, will now be amplified. Clinical evidence shows that Psychopaths such as Mrs Long that regard that they have been given support for their behavior are apt to practice to elevate it. In connexion with this, I would like to point out that it is clearly the applicant whose personality is pathological on the basis of her impression of entitlement, exemplified by her treatment of myself and her own daughter in initiating these proceedings and throughout them.

Neither is it encouraging that this pathological sense of entitlement on the part of the applicant is connected with her extreme devout disposition with respect to doctrinal commitments that are also pathological in terms of clear delusions of grandeur and narcissism (that she is justified in her actions by some almighty god of the universe that is for all intents and purposes simply a figment of her pathological imagination, and is part of a grand holy army marching through history to oppose unbelief and headed by said divine and evidently fictional and hallucinated character).

It is a common misconception that because such beliefs are widespread, that they are not pathological due to community acceptance. Firstly, such acceptance is far from universal, and secondly it does not indicate lack of pathology on the part of those holding such beliefs precisely in connexion with those beliefs. A disposition to such beliefs is arguably an indicator of narcissism, delusions of grandeur, hallucinatory experiences, and delusions of reference on a grand scale. My children and I have suffered greatly because of such behavior on the part of the applicant.

The complete lack of any genuine remorse on the part of the applicant and her spouse Mr Kibble is noteworthy.
Assertions made by the court in the matter that the applicant’s doctrinal commitments were 1. not evident and 2. not relevant are ridiculous in the extreme. They are relevant to the applicants’ clear psychopathology, and to the support given her by the biased report of fellow believer Dr Krabman.

Overall, the actions of the applicant, her husband, the court, and those officers of the court tasked with protecting the childrens’ interests, has been extremely disappointing and immature.

It should be clear to the reader that any claims that this communique is somehow unclear, rambling, perseverative, or confused would be transparently mischievous and ill-regarded by any rational and thinking person given the circumstances.

Yours Most Sincerely,

Bruce Long.