求助此文章d' summary.

求助此文章d' summary.
文章贴不下.贴1.半了1.楼接着贴.
A FAMILY Court judge has denied a father any role in the parenting of his Exclusive Brethren children,in part because of his ``continuing criticism'' of the controversial Christian sect.In the judgment,judge Sally Brown ruled that,while there was a legal presumption that both parents should share parenting ,this was ``contrary to the children's best interests'' in this case.
The father,who cannot be identified because of restrictions on reporting of Family Court cases,is ``devastated'',particularly as a previous court judgment had awarded him frequent access to two of his eight children.Justice Brown's judgment means he has no right to see or even communicate with the children,in a reversal of those previous court orders.
``I am a broken man -- I've lost so much that I am totally beaten,'' he told The Australian.``I've got to accept that I'll never see my children again.What have I done wrong?I've lost the children because I've left the church.They (the Brethren,supporting the mother) had two Melbourne QCs,an assisting lawyer and a junior counsel.I was representing myself.I trusted the legal process,but this has cost me $100,000 and I can't afford to appeal.''
The man separated from his wife in 2003 and left the sect,which has a history of bitterly shunning ex-members.
His ex-wife,the mother of his eight children,remains in the church,which bars members from socialising or even eating with non-members,including family members.
In December 2006,judge Robert Benjamin ruled that the two parents shared responsibility for the two youngest children,a boy now aged 15 and a girl aged 10,who can only be known as J and C respectively due to court restrictions.
Justice Benjamin accepted the evidence of a court-appointed ``family reporter'' that family members and other members of the Exclusive Brethren had discouraged the children from spending time with their father.

你给我200分,我在HI里帮你翻