Sovereign citizens – family law attacks!
In recent years we have seen the rise of the sovereign citizens delusion, particularly since the rise of conspiracy theories in relation to Covid-19. Australia has seen an increase in the number of people who claim to be “sovereign citizens”, and whilst they’ve often been regarded as something of a joke, they are causing damage, and costing time and money in an already stretched system.
There has been an “alarming escalation of the sovereign citizen movement from public nuisance to dangerous menace”, reports the ABC. And one of the more prominent sovereign citizen groups, the Nmdaka Dalai Australis (NDA), has been found to be involved in “family law disputes around Australia, harassing and intimidating judges, lawyers and officials and parents and children involved in custody battles”. It’s something of which we should all be aware. But what happens when a party in a family court parenting matter claims to be a sovereign citizen?
Sovereign citizens and security concerns.
The NDA group has been issuing threats and “warrants” (under the alleged jurisdiction of their own “court”) to parents as well as to police and court employees, including to their home addresses. Upon being made aware by the ABC that the family courts’ employees were being targeted by NDA, the court’s marshal has now requested help from NSW Police.
Experts say the tactics employed by such groups characterise them as domestic terrorist threats, due to their tactics of intimidation and causing fear, and because they have been involved in numerous violent incidents.
What happens when sovereign citizens go to court in family law disputes?
A recent case is illustrative of the difficulties created not only for the courts but also for the proclaimed sovereign citizen themselves. The courts has to waste public resources and time on applications with no legal basis and that involve “a deluded understanding of the law”.
Challenges to the courts’ jurisdiction are typically based on ancient and/or irrelevant laws including the Admiralty Act 1988, Cestui Que vie Act 1666, the Corporations Act 2001, Bills of Exchange Act 1909, and the Commonwealth Constitution Act.
Even when parties deny they claim to be a sovereign citizen, it is usually revealed in the language and tactics used, for instance describing themselves as “a living person, not words on a page”, their signature as an “autograph”, words on documents as mere “scribble”, and including in their applications invoices (often to the judge personally) in sums such as $1 million for “kidnap” of the subject children.
But rather than dismiss a sovereign citizen’s proposals out of hand, judges will still, fairly, sift through the evidence and material to find any basis or substance to the sovereign citizen party’s case.
The case of Baier & Pitter (pseudonyms) is a recent parenting dispute over arrangements for two five year old girls. The father had previously absconded with the children, meaning the mother had to obtain an urgent recovery and location order.
They were not recovered for seven days. Both parents sought the children live with them. The outcome in this parenting matter was that the children are to remain living with the mother and the mother is to have sole parental responsibility for them. The father is not permitted to know their address, but may have contact in a supervision centre, provided he complies with various conditions (such as attending a parenting program).
Sovereign citizens game-playing in the Family Court.
While claiming the family courts have no jurisdiction over them, sovereign citizens typically engage in the court process in a limited way, usually through what looks like playing games with the court. This is a tactic, however, that backfires; for instance in this case the judge was left wondering whether the father has mental health issues, or is simply “enjoying himself playing games with the court process.” But the upshot is:
“At the end of the day, it does not matter which it is, as he is very clearly not child focussed.”
Sovereign citizens and family law: the concept of children as “property”.
Here, one of the major factors in determining whether or not the father was appropriately child focussed or a risk to the children, was his views on the two young girls as his property. His argument was that, “It’s my case that I am rightfully returned the property that is mine.” He opined, “These are my young women, are they not?” and “Do I not have the right to my young women?” He also claimed he “created” and “owned” them.
The judge found this concerning, since “young women” is a term commonly used to describe adult women:
“With the father referring to the five-year-old children as “young women” and his “property” I was troubled as to his capacity to meet their emotional and psychological needs. Perhaps even their physical and sexual safety. It is not common to refer to or consider 5-year-old children as young women and it raised question marks for me as to why he would do so… the language is noteworthy.”
“That was a troubling way of viewing children and completely at odds with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Family Law Act… I agree with the Independent Children’s Lawyer that the father’s focus on this “pseudo” law did him no favours. It obscured any substance to his case.”
We await developments in the police investigation into security risks posed by sovereign citizen groups.
If you need help with a parenting matter, please call Canberra family lawyer Cristina Huesch or one of our other experienced solicitors here at Alliance Family Law on (02) 6223 2400.
Please note our blogs are not legal advice. For information on how to obtain the correct legal advice, please contact Alliance Family Law.
