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 > Safety first in family law is long overdue > Comments

Safety first in family law is long overdue : Comments

By Elspeth McInnes, published 16/11/2010

Proposed changes to Australia’s Family Law Act will better support children’s safety.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. Page 28
  10. All
ChapZ wrote; "than the inadequate biological fathers"

Maternal gatekeeping; "She may question and criticize his actions as a parent and fail to encourage his interaction with his children"
http://marriage.about.com/cs/roles/a/maternalgate.htm

ChapZ wrote; "who have been rejected by the mothers and by their children."

In her paper the Double edged sword of exclusion and rejection, Barbara Leckie describes the bullying behaviour of schoolgirls that is aimed to inflict emotional or psychological pain on the victim. The victim finds themselves socially isolated.

Leckie in her paper wrote that the bullies, justified their behaviour by statements like "they deserve it" or "they were asking for it".

Now I imagine that a mature adult would actively encourage the children to have a relationship with the other parent, regardless of how incompetent the other parent was.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 29 November 2010 10:49:59 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
Aah!. Antiseptic (There's RADFEMS under my bed) - so we all know what happens in debates - how bright of you to point those things out. I note that you have not included any reference to your own passive aggressive debating approach and your predilection for labelling as a means of neutralising your opponents in debates.
JamesH - "So you wish to extrapolate your own personal experiences and apply that to ALL other relationships." - you certainly can make quantum leaps of wrong assumptions. I make no apology for not giving you any personal information on which to base your attacks so you now create your own faulty image.
Well lets get on and continue to dismantle the Howard government's Sharia Parenting Laws, shall we?. Or do you still want public stoning for mothers who abscond with their children to protect them from abuse?. And the death penalty for women who commit adultery?. Any further amendments you want to your Sharia Parenting Laws?. Send them to the Sharia Parenting Law Association
Posted by ChazP, Monday, 29 November 2010 11:29:38 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
ChazP:"I note that you have not included any reference to your own passive aggressive debating approach and your predilection for labelling as a means of neutralising your opponents in debates."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive%E2%80%93aggressive_behavior

"Passive–aggressive behavior, a personality trait, is passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to following through with expectations in interpersonal or occupational situations. It is a personality trait marked by a pervasive pattern of negative attitudes and passive, usually disavowed resistance in interpersonal or occupational situations.

It can manifest itself as learned helplessness, procrastination, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible"

Nope, can't see me there. That learned helplessness bit sounds a lot like the whole maternal bias thing though, don't you think?

On the "labelling" bit - you're right, it does neutralise the substandard shrillings you've offered as "debate" so far. Well done you! We're making progress.

No need for thanks, I consider it a free public service.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 29 November 2010 12:06:21 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
ChazP "Or do you still want public stoning for mothers who abscond with their children to protect them from abuse?. And the death penalty for women who commit adultery?"

When I've asked about what safeguards could be put in place to prevent abuse of the proposed changes that's not quite what I had in mind.

You do tend to like extreme's.

I'd suggest that mothers face the same consequences as fathers for absconding with children to "protect" them. Those consequences should be based on the circumstances of the act and the likelihood that the children faced actual risk as opposed to a parents unwillingness to act according to the law.

Not sure where punishing adulterers fit's it. Is that a particular concern of yours? By itself it has little to do with child safety but then not much of what you are doing is about child safety is it?

We have had a clear drop in substantiated child abuse during the corresponding period to the Howard reforms being in place (not necessarily causal but significant enough to pay attention to). We may have had a drop in fatal assault of children during the same period. You are desperate to dismantle those reforms without any apparent consideration of what's worked and what's not worked from those reforms. You are clearly driven by agenda rather than any actual interest in the well being of children.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 29 November 2010 3:04:26 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
Robert, I think ChapZ is a tad upset with me. Don't know why ;)
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 29 November 2010 3:21:57 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
Social services accused of hiding truth over baby death.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/docs-accused-of-hiding-truth-over-baby-death/story-e6frf7l6-1225963635072
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 5:33:23 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. Page 28
  10. All

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