There seems to be far too much focus on extreme cases of violence and abuse and little thought that some of the presumptions embeded within our family law system are themselves responsible for this same violence.

There is so much unnecessary pain and suffering becuase the system encourages both contention and confrontation. Consider the years of legal representation, claim and counter claim to determine the family asset split: 30/70, 35/65, 40/60, 50/50. Any victory had by one party is in most instances undermined by the delay in settlement, the increased size of the legal fees and the immeasurable emotional, and relationship cost.

An automatic 50/50 asset split would in most instances only hurt the pocket of the legal representatives. It would allow each partner to move on with their lives quickly. Without the insidious court process, separated parties are far more likely to sustain working relationship for the benefit of their children.

A system which rewards the custodial parent with a more favourable property settlement instrinsically makes the children pawns in a disgusting game.

Unless otherwise proven, there should be an assumption that both parents will behave in the best interests of the children. Instead, we actively encourage and reward partners to prove that one or the other partner is incapable, abusive or violent.

Where ever possible the system and courts should demand that the individuals concerned sort it out themselves. Similarly with maintenance payments, the custodial parent must be expected to provide for some of their own income; the current system enables a custodial parent to punish their ex-partner by not working.

This is really a disgrace and everyone involved should hang their heads in shame

YEBIGA, you state:

"Unless otherwise proven, there should be an assumption that both parents will behave in the best interests of the children. Instead, we actively encourage and reward partners to prove that one or the other partner is incapable, abusive or violent."

I would love this to be true (sincerely I would - I am not having a go at you), but over 20 years in teaching shows me otherwise. In all those years I can probably count on one hand divorces in which both parties have truly looked to the needs of the children. No, not all are violent or even what you would consider "extreme" but almost all are damaging to the children as the parents put themselves first.

These are not just my thoughts but based on solid experience. I am the person responsible for providing all the paperwork required by the courts from the school. I am also the one who receives the phone calls from parents trying to manipulate what I submit. I get to meet the parent (mum OR dad) who is suddenly interested in their child's education and spends a whole couple of days coming up to the school to "help." Then, coincidentally, they request a letter from me supporting their custody application.

It's an ugly business.

It has been impossible for abused parents to prove domestic violence and child abuse to the Family Courts in order to rebut a presumption of `shared parenting’as in the words of Chief Justice Bryant, the Family Courts do not have the expertise and resources to investigate such allegations. Allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, have not therefore been `false’, only unproven.
“It has been well documented that men are much more likely to commit suicide or to die from other causes, following divorce and separation.” – JamesH.
Such an assertion may possibly be true if the reason for each of those suicides were confirmed by a Coroner’s Inquest.Is it not more likely that such men commit suicide because they have been rejected as unsuitable partners and parents, and cannot face such truths and realities.?. Or that they have failed to get their own way in the Courts and this has been a severe and unbearable blow to their self-esteem.?.
“The author does not mention the highest rates of child abuse are abuse due to neglect, which occurs most commonly in single parent families with the mother as the single parent. The author mentions that fathers could sexually abuse their children. The author does not mention that mummy’s new boyfriend is much more likely to sexually abuse the children than the natural father.” – Vanna.
Such statistics have neither utility nor validity as they refer to reports of child abuse which have been untested by legal process and are derived from reports by child protection workers. Such records do not record who was the abuser, only that the mother was available for interview regarding the reported abuse. The only near valid statistic on persons who have abused children are those which have been proven in a criminal court. Now give us those statistics!.
Hasbeen - The Family Law Act 2006 has led directly to children being ordered into contact with and even the custody of paedophiles, child sex abusers, and domestic violence perpetrators and to oppose these legislative changes is to support such continuing judicial decisions

What we describe here is an industry built on family break-down. One perpetual industry connected to another, the industry of prisons: Connected with the instrument of the “apprehended violence order” and we now produce a permanent supply of violent criminals.

The Apprehended violence order attached to the Father will list a raft of prohibitions, for example, the prohibition of phone calls to the separated partner effectively eliminating any possible contact with his children; at times even prohibiting contact with the children through the mother. A prohibition to approach the Mother (thus the Children) to within certain distances, usually one hundred meters. Accidental meetings at shopping centres will constitute a crime for which an arrest warrant could and often is issued. A couple of nights in the county jail and he is on his way to becoming a criminal.

If this sounds far-fetched, it is not. I know of countless men put into this situation that have no violent history more than expressing unhappiness verbally to their spouse. Quite often the initial reason was infidelity by their partner, obviously not a cause for happy responses, but not expressed with violent actions at all. At the insistence of the estranged partner, and with much embellishing of facts, the AVO was easily obtained.

Quite often the Male partner will lose his job because of the assumption of violence attached to the AVO. He is forcible removed from his children by the action of the AVO. If he is issued with an order from the Family Court with entitlements to visitation of his children, original AVO’s and conditions still apply and he may be issued an arrest warrant for its breach and still serve jail time. I know of limited cases where this has happened.

The male partner is totally alienated at this point, from past friends, his children and often his own family and his job and future prospects. The system has now completed the production of one very bitter man.

Gee, fellas, I bow out with dignity, returning to see exactly the same old diversion from the topic. McInnes speaks about 5% of the cases in Family Law. The ones with violence and abuse as an issue. Not the other 95% who either do not have the funds to fight, are too scared to fight, who are coerced into consent orders, whose own legal teams are thugs and too lazy to fight and all the rest of types, AND the ones who can actually sufficiently tolerate each other to do what's best for the kids fall into this 95% no contest group.

Same old ill-will about having to pay for kids you cant control or own. Damn Child support! Yet federal courts take no notice of whether it's paid or not as an example of financial committment to the children. Ssomeone suggested 50-50settlements , you must be kidding. Control freaks will not do that!

All over the world the criminal system (Westminster) is breaking down. Police won't act and then courts are so overcrowded that prosecution happens in relatively few.

Lets start by defining DV, child abuse, nationally. Then get on topic.

Cotter

While we are at it, let's define "control". At the moment, he is described as controlling as soon as he asks for anything. She can be as selfish as she wants and be praised for her assertiveness.

TPP

So convincing your kids that daddy is evil isn't a form of abuse?