The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fathers and bias in the Family Court > Comments

Fathers and bias in the Family Court : Comments

By Patricia Merkin, published 26/3/2010

Why is the Family Court of Australia giving s*x offenders access to children?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 42
  11. 43
  12. 44
  13. All
My summary
- if the case is as described then the man involved should never have unsupervised access to children (and having a friend sleep over is not supervised access).
- if that is true then the blackshirt's are way out of line in sticking up for the finding. Driven by their own issues rather than a real interest in the welfare of children or a fair go for other fathers.
- the author is playing a nasty gender game trying to push for a return to maternal bias which can also result in children being left with abusive parents. My guess is we won't be seeing articles from her attacking mothers groups for pushing for maternal bias because of single examples of risk to children from a woman with a bad history.
- the issues with shared care is not about which gender is better or worse, it's about arrangements which work best for all involved. Insisting on shared care when one parent is clearly a risk is bad but so to is a return to gender based determination of "childrens best interests"

R0bert
-
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 27 March 2010 8:14:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a parent I have always been uncomfortable that the stereotype of the child abuser as male has ensured that women who sexually abuse the children in their charge are extremely unlikely to be reported by the victims, but even where that is done the child/student would not be believed.

What woman didn't hear of 'those' women teachers and coaches who always seemed to be present in the dressing room or were so 'unconscious' of their own bodies that they continually took opportunities to show their boobs or a bit more?

Moreover, where accusations of child abuse concerning women are reported in the media, as is slowly happening although it would never have been contemplated a decade or two ago and the odds are still against such reports, it is done in an understanding way - for the alleged perpetrator! Here is an example from today's online Courier Mail:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/lesbian-teacher-tricia-brown-accepts-blame-after-courting-students/story-e6freon6-1225846168490

I am repulsed by the anti-male stereotyping and the pro-female stereotyping apparent in superficially pro-child articles such as the subject article by Patricia Merkin. While I accept that the author believes in the correctness of her stance, it casts a long shadow over the overwhelming majority of the dads who love and care for their children and seeks to unfairly deny the contribution those fathers can and do make to the safety, care, wellness and happiness of their children.

If the well-being of children is the goal, fact and understanding should rate higher than myth and stereotypes.
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 27 March 2010 8:54:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't believe some father's groups are okay with this decision, some even defending the right to download child porn.

Some Father's Movements are getting so caught up with past injustices they can no longer see the wood for the trees. Replacing one injustice with a different type is not progress.

This is a long way from the days when fathers found it impossible to access their children even for a quick meal or a trip to the movies, other than every second weekend. One extreme to the other.

Publicising the inequities for fathers in the Family Court by supporting this decision and the nonsense that has ensued must be the parallel of the bra burning, man-hating feminists with chips on their shoulders.

Possible solution: let's stop calling parents mothers and fathers and refer to them (intechangeable) as Parent One and Parent Two. This way any court ruling and the facts of the case will be paramount without the burdens of gender bias and special interest groups.

The parents would have to stand behind large screens in Court so the Judge's decision is made without gender bias (using voice obscuring technology to disguise high and low pitch). The lawyers would have to refer to their client as My client or Parent One/Two as applicable.

If we remove gender from the equation we can get on with the business of ensuring children are in good hands and where sexual deviants cannot gain access to their children because of misplaced politically correct, guilt ridden social pressures to include fathers at any cost.

I for one was hoping that the new relationship centres and shared parenting arrangements would be fairer for men and bring the pendulum to the centre. However, if these changes mean moving to the other extreme what have we achieved? It is an unpopular stance but we should really be about doing the best for children - this decision really is all tip and no iceberg (to quote his formerness).
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 27 March 2010 9:16:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There appears to be some very OFF decisions made in the family law courts... no reasonable ,sane person would allow children to be placed in these dangerous situations so I ask, what motivation do these judges have in placing children with pedophiles/sociopaths...is it because there is a personality type within the judicial system that seems to identify with these people? Who is supervising the family law decisions and the personality profiles of some of these judges.....More and more women and childrens rights are being eroded by the most bizzare and cruel decisions that a reasonable and sane person would view as saddistic and immoral... More laws misinterperated to allow sociopaths and control freaks to keep their compaigns of terror ongoing and their families spiralling into chaos.There has to be a better system than the legal system to deal with Families in conflict than lawyers who have only one priority ..CASH and lots of it so keep the conflict on going to the financial ruin of both parties... Sociopaths inc.(some fathers rights groups)so they can they can maximize control over more than their own x wives and and keep vicious conflict never ending and their child support non existant and laws that will jail women for trying to protect their children from all of this by judges who act irresponsibly for what ever their real motivation may be.
Posted by samiam, Saturday, 27 March 2010 10:08:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK, guys, let's adopt feminist tactics here.

FACT: Children are TEN (10) times more likely to be abused or neglected when sharing a household with mum's new boyfriend.

Therefore, any mother that co-habits with another man should automatically be considered an unfit parent and custody transferred to the father (strictly in the best interests of the child, of course).

This is actually a more defensible position then the claim that some fathers are pedophiles therefore there should be no presumption of shared parenting.

Spread the word guys. A woman sharing a house with a guy who is not the father of her children is a BAD ABUSIVE EVIL parent. :-)
Posted by Stev, Saturday, 27 March 2010 10:47:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why are many posters defending something which is not said or implied.

If I read an article about a mob of deadbeat mothers who are heroin addicted during pregancy and birth and inflict awful pain on their newborn child, am I immediately going to think all women are deadbeats?

Give people credit for being thinking and rational human beings.

This new male victimology is unattractive. Advocacy for parental rights is understandable, but advocating for the rights of fathers even those who are undesirable is counterproductive to the cause and plainly a disaster for any children being used as pawns in this ridiculous game.

Stev
Yes a child living with mum's new boyfriend should not live with the mother if the boyfriend has been downloading child porn or inappropriately touching children.

I am not sure of your point?

How would you feel as a father if your daughter or son was allowed to visit with their mother in a house where the defacto boyfriend had been told by a Judge he could have the children there as long as the door was locked and someone else in the house.

Most fathers, brothers, Grandfathers and uncles would be rightly outraged. Why is a woman's outrage viewed as automatically suspicious or any different?
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 27 March 2010 12:22:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 42
  11. 43
  12. 44
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy