The author gives no figures as regards the child abuse rates.

Two probable reasons.

1. The highest level of child abuse is “child neglect” and it occurs mostly in single parent families with the mother as the single parent.
2. The rates of child abuse may have declined since 2006.

The father is most commonly the primary wage earner, and the second most common child carer after the mother.

There was never any allegations of fathers abusing children under the 80:20 rule, and fathers were often looking after their children for up to 3 weeks at a time, because they had the children for half the school holidays.

The abuse card began to be waved around when fathers wanted to see their children more than every second weekend and half the school holidays.

The author leaves out a lot of information, and is not to be trusted.

<Yet the lobbying efforts by fathers’ rights campaigners since the early 90s insist that this was “unfair” and biased against fathers.>

This is atticle NUMBER 3, about the family law act.

It is getting a bit tiring. The same old arguements getting rehashed by different authors.

One must assume that onlineopinion editors are in favour of the biased and prejudice approaches of these authors.

It is plainly obvious that these authors have one intention, and one intention only and they will use what ever method they can to get what they want, regardless, Distorting facts, making spurious claims and allegations.

Research into Maternal Gatekeeping shows that "A maternal gatekeeper limits her husband's involvement with chores and children by placing obstacles in his way. She may question and criticize his actions as a parent and fail to encourage his interaction with his children."

<Anyone who claims (as the father rights campaigners do) that a mere allegation with no evidence is all that a mother needs is spectacularly wrong or just mendacious. A guilty party cannot be expected to confess their abuse, but instead they can be expected to minimise or wish that their behaviours be ignored"

This argument comes up a number of times, so one wonders, who the real instigators of domestic violence actually are?

It is not a bad tactic to use to shift the focus off of ones own complicity.

Yet more spin with no substance. Describing Michael Flood as one of Australia's foremost experts on fatherhood sounds a bit like describing Sheik Hilaly as one of Australia's foremost experts on womens safety.

Most of the usual tricks, the link to the supposed rising death toll was to a story about one child killed rather than any evidence that the death toll is in fact rising. If there is real evidence that the death toll has in fact risen with fathers being the perpetrators since the changes relating to shared care were introduced then show us the evidence. The stats I've been able to find while not clear do seem to suggest the reverse may be the case.

Lot's of denigration of the fathers groups and no mention of the way the mothers groups operate.

Once again no real discussion of trying to reduce the motivators for bad behavior by both genders.

No mention of the work going on to add profiling into DV acts and possibly to the family law act which directly discriminates against fathers.

"The biological demands of nature replicated across most of the human and non-human species is that females are presumably more naturally or commonly geared towards taking care of children." - rare to see that go to print. Any comments from feminists on that one.

And then the clincher "Anyone that personally attacks this writer for this proposition would appear to align with those who seek to discount domestic violence and child abuse."

That may be the way some of you try and spin the issue to try and shut down opposition but it does not make it true.

GrahamY given the prohibition on author's being attacked personally and the biased nature of the criticisms of efforts by men to get fairer outcomes in family law made by this author I'm disappointed that the author was allowed to include that comment.

R0bert

Much of the FR Groups claims that children need their (biological) fathers is predicated upon a gross distortion and misrepesentation of research that children who grow up in two parent households tend to be developmentally more advanced than children in single parent households. There may be some essence of truth in this conention, yet some weighting must be given to the fact that there are many successful people worldwide who were brought up in single parent households e.g. President Obama. It is obvious therefore that there are many other factors at play. The research also applies to intact families and not to separated parents therefore there is no support in such research to justify the continued inclusion of the biological father in children's lives, except to meet their own needs. In fact many step-fathers, de facto male partners, and even live-in lovers who are committed to the relationship, are well able to provide a valuable role model and support for children where they take an active interest in the children.
The point made by Trish Merker about whether a biological father has `Shared' the parenting prior to separation is an extremely important one, and should be given high precedency in any post-separation determinations of custody and contact.

"It is getting a bit tiring. The same old arguements getting rehashed by different authors.

One must assume that onlineopinion editors are in favour of the biased and prejudice approaches of these authors."

James I agree with the first point. I'm left with the sense that you can't just ignore this stuff but at the same time there is a lot of the same old stuff. Still no evidence that shared care has caused any increase to the levels of harm (maybe in some specific cases but offset elsewhere).

I'm not so sure of the second. My impression is that Graham publishes a lot of stuff that he disagrees with.

The focus seems to be on increasing the opportunities for conflict between parents rather than reducing it, that report I referenced a couple of day's ago into shared care since the changes highlighted how big an impact low levels of conflict between parents has on outcomes.

Chaz some people have done well being raised by fathers without the involvement of mothers but that does not create an excuse to cut mothers out of childrens lives. Likewise pre-separation family life is often not where any of the parties want it to be, if a family is close to separating the tensions are often so high that things won't work as they otherwise might. Assuming that what happens then should set the patterns for the future does not necessarily make much sense.

If we want to really see how people choose to parent get the property and any other motivators to chase residency out of the equation and see what patterns develop post separation. We should be finding way's to minimize the external factors influencing residency decisions so that it really is about the children.

R0bert

The commonly understood narrative is that false allegations are a commonly misused tool in family court proceedings and that women are the main people making these allegations. If, as two of the linked reports suggest, men are making many false allegations, then fathers groups need to publicise this fact. It may well garner more sympathy for their cause from women.

This article also inclued a number of links to news reports about fathers who had killed their kids. It is unclear why the authors of these articles only ever discuss cases where fathers have killed their kids. It is hard to escape the conclusion that concerns about child safety are just a front for promoting the interests of mothers. Perhaps if they gave equal attention to cases where courts have ignored the concerns of fathers and a mother or step-dad killed their kids then men might feel a little less cynical. I also tire of these people using the Darcy Freeman case as an example, given that no allegations of abuse were ever made during family court proceedings.

Chaz:” The point made by Trish Merker about whether a biological father has `Shared' the parenting prior to separation is an extremely important one, and should be given high precedency in any post-separation determinations of custody and contact.”

Completely lost me there. Why?

R0bert:”If we want to really see how people choose to parent get the property and any other motivators to chase residency out of the equation and see what patterns develop post separation. We should be finding way's to minimize the external factors influencing residency decisions so that it really is about the children.”

Yep, it occurs to me that if DV was an issue it ended at separation. Residency must be really difficult, for the children you would want them to retain a house they have possibly lived in their whole lives as part of some kind of stability for them. I suppose that is “ideal world” stuff.

What would you suggest as a practical way of dividing assets?

“…6 per cent of all divorcing or separating couples use the Family Court, and of those, less than half involve parenting disputes. Therefore, these “millions” of children do not involve millions of children with a parent living elsewhere because of a Family Court order.”

That was interesting.

“In retaliation, father’s rights campaigners insist that the allegations of child abuse (and its inextricably linked cousin - domestic violence) are mostly rampant false assertions raised by malicious mothers.”

Can someone explain this one to me because the Father’s Rights people do keep mentioning DV in solo mothers homes is real and rampant while this is saying that the Fathers Rights people claim they are false assertions…?

Jewely, allowing for some protections over what people bring into a relationship, etc a 50/50 split of assets aquired during the relationship seems to be the most practical approach.

The custodial parent is generally free to sell the house and relocate disrupting schooling, social networks etc without any restrictions so unless people want to start not allowing that to occur then the custodial parent aquiring ownership of the home to maintain stability for the kid's looks to be spin in most cases.

If independant review shows that the disruption really is an issue in specific cases then perhaps the house could be kept in trust for a period until that was resolved. Distributing assets on tbe basis of residency just over a year out from seperation is a recipe for conflict over residency.

The reality is that peoples lives, future plans etc will be disrupted by seperation including the lives of children. There is great value in reducing the impacts on children where we can but trying to do so in a way that set's the parents up for conflict and makes kid's the pawns in the middle is never going to be a good plan.

R0bert

Arent Fathers Rights advocates tiring? Arent they biased and blinkered?
what about this scenario.The father is an abusive alcoholic gambler who refuses to provide for his children in any way and begrudges even the $13 a fortnight that the mother is forced to accept by law and centrelink.The mother is remarried to a really good man,an excellent father model who works hard supports his 2 children from a previous relationship and helps the mother support her own children.All 4 children go to private school,this stepfather gives his time to the stepchildrens school sports coaching,reading,.gets up at 6am while the real father is sleeping off the alcoholic excesses of the night before & never turns up to any event and usually when he has contact leaves his children with his alcoholic girlfriend who has anger management problems and physically abuses the children The stepfather is a good parent and a good role model the father is not.My point is that not all stepfathers are abusive in fact most of the violent abuse perpetrated upon children is from the biological father and the father's girlfriend or wife.But of course this does not fit in with your dogma does it?FACT children are mostly murdered by their BIOLOGICAL father.FACT the biological father is most likely to be abusive and these comments of single mothers having boyfriends,where do you people come from? so obviously all single fathers and esp those belonging to fathers groups must have taken a vow of celibacy and live like monks so dedicated are they to their children!! what rubbish..IF YOU ARE A DECENT LOVING SUPPORTIVE PARENT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM THESE CHANGES,it seems to me that you are all so fearful.WHY?? also lets abolish the CSA and see how many of you really ,really want to play full time daddy!!

[Deleted for "shouting".]

Jewely
I reply to your query regards why so few couples don't go to the Family Court.

I believe the waiting period is currently 2 years, and particularly the father has to have a very deep pocket, because a family law solicitor can charge up to $1 just to photocopy a piece of paper.

To spend over $100,000 is common.

The Family Court system has no jury, and the decisions made are often arbitary. Even Family Law solicitors have been known to say this, and there is believe that the Family Court is also non-constitional because it does not have a jury.

For a father to get 80:20 is basically automatic, and most of the CSA is set up around 80:20.

If a father spends much time looking after the children before the seperation it makes no diference.

He automatically gets 80:20 but has to spend a lot of time and money in the courts to get anything more than 80:20.

This is an excellent well-written article.

While there are mandatory pre-court procedures, there is a loop-hole that is exploited, mostly by fathers. A lawyer told me that about 75% of applicants to the Family Court are fathers, and that they routinely mark their petitions as "urgent". Therefore mediation or any pre-court procedure can be by-passed. This common tactic, implemented mostly by lawyers engaged by fathers, results in the mother being forced into court or if she decides it is too stressful (which is what the father's lawyer wishes to occur)and doesn't or can't cope with court, she must give in to the demands of the father. This is bullying tactics, and the family law court is complicit in it's implementation.

If couples do attempt mediation, and domestic violence is recognised the Family Relationship Centres will refuse to continue and the only option is Family Court. This is especially prevalent in the dynamic of abusive and manipulative fathers and protective mothers. The result is that the Family Relationship Centres have become a filter ensuring the majority of cases that arrive at the FLC steps, are couples where there is an abuser using power and control tactics, either over the ex, or the children, or as is becoming recognised more recently, over both. There is no protection left for the children, the FRC has ceased to assist and the FLC admits to having no powers to investigate abuse and violence.

In an attempt to get to the heart of "what is going on" a Family Assessment is conducted. Lawyers have lists of who understands, recognises and acknowledges power, control and violence issues and will write about it and those who don't. Depending on the client, depends on who they put forward. The result is that child protection takes 2nd or last priority.

With so-called false allegations by mothers. There is no evidence to say it is wide-spread. However, fathers initiating Affidavits that tend to paint a false picture a functional, involved, caring and nurturing father and home life, accompanied with false denials are rampant.

“To spend over $100,000 is common.”

I swore silently at the screen to that one Vanna. But surely the mother has to also pay? So this 80:20 thing is decided between parents out of court? Or does some initial court procedure place them generally with the mother? Do we need a fee free court whenever dealing with issues that affect children?

R0bert:” allowing for some protections over what people bring into a relationship, etc a 50/50 split of assets aquired during the relationship seems to be the most practical approach.”

Yep it does look that way. But this doesn’t happen - court (if involved) gives the home to the parent with the majority of the custody?

I’m starting to guess only the rich people are in court anyway fighting over children for large gains.

I also thought Child Support was like Family Assistance which is very flexible based on each overnight period a child is in your care - I think that one was back to Vanna.

Chiara you got a little bit scary there. It is true, all those things do happen and I agree children should not be forced anywhere. I would like to see the fears children have better addressed and separated from the will or rights of adults.

You will find many of the men agree with this but they are just very dubious about certain allegations and how court is run right now. No one has said they wish any child in the hands of an abusive adult.

Jewely wrote "Yep, it occurs to me that if DV was an issue it ended at separation."

This is not true and is a simplification. Abuse and violence escalates at the point of separation and about 25% of the most extreme of violence against mothers and children, such as murder, occur AFTER the relationship has ended.

Statistically, it is men, not women, who stalk the most, despite the popularity of "Fatal Attraction" from the 80s that firmly embedded the "deranged, wronged, rejected woman" as the ultimate stalker.

Mostly what I observe is that some fathers get stuck on revenge, anger and hatred and have difficulty letting go. For them, the prize becomes what they can "take" from their ex's. If children are involved, they'll use them. It is mostly these ex-couples that end up in Family Court. Unfortunately, the FLC fails to recognise that the priority for some fathers is not about INCREASING time with the children but about REDUCING the time with the mother - this is where the "involvement prior to separation" is important to establish, as one other commenter already pointed out.

For those fathers having difficulty getting past revenge, the pleasure lies in the taking.

Jewely wrote, "I’m starting to guess only the rich people are in court anyway fighting over children for large gains."

Again, this clearly not the case.

Spend some time in the hallways of the Family Law Court each morning, and you'll see that it's quite clear that many of the participants can ill-afford to be there. Many are on legal-aid, or at least many women are, as they juggle single parent pensions, maybe some part-time work with full-time parenting.

It is not a happy place and the only people with "rich" looks are the lawyers.

sorry, last post...not picking on you...

Jewely wrote "No one has said they wish any child in the hands of an abusive adult."

Well, actually some lawyers do. It tends to be done all rather circumspect by denying and minimising the harm the children have occured and saying the claims by the mother are "false".

I know of one case where sexual grooming behaviours, combined with many other abusive behaviours were occuring and the lawyer responded, "Well, people who experience sexual abuse grow up and learn to deal with it." In that case mother told that her concerns were "irrelevant". This type of advice from lawyers to concerned mothers is very, very common.

If that's not saying, "it's not important to keep children away from abusive adults" then I'm not sure what is.

Believe it or not, Australia does not have a zero tolerance to child abuse.

Shiver:”This is not true and is a simplification. Abuse and violence escalates at the point of separation and about 25% of the most extreme of violence against mothers and children, such as murder, occur AFTER the relationship has ended.”

I simplify most things Shivers, terrible habit but I like to start there anyway. It also did not occur to me to call it “domestic violence” once the parents are no longer in a domestic situation. Does Australian law continue to label it this way after a separation?

Does the Family Court need to acknowledge “extreme violence” when implementing laws?

And the lawyers are getting rich. A system of salary paid lawyers for all Family Court issues involving children then? I imagine the “Family” part does suggest children are always involved in this court? I’m sure many parents who have lost their children to state care might be given a chance of a fair go that way also.

Who runs or funds the FLC’s?

“Believe it or not, Australia does not have a zero tolerance to child abuse.”

Well now I need Houel here to explain his position against the broadening of the child abuse definitions. But I have had a few experiences of just how tolerant Australia is to the abuse of children in various forms.

I felt fully picked on… but I will be okay, I appreciate you responding. :)

Jewely,
If a father wants contact with his children, he fills out a standard piece of paper that is called a "Child contact agreement".

It goes somewhere, and when it comes back, the father gets to see his children every second weekend and half the school holidays.

If the mother doesn't agree with it, then the father has to decide whether or not to take the matter to court.

Throughout, the father has to pay child support which can be automatically taken out of his pay, and without his permission.

Most fathers just accept the 80:20, and that has become the norm, regardless.

Very few fathers are ever charged with child abuse or charges made, but it does appear that certain groups and individuals like to suggest that fathers are child abusers.

These same groups and individuals made no allegations of fathers abusing children when fathers were going along with the 80:20 norm, but of course a father cannot be a parent when he is only seeing his children every second weekend and half the school holidays.

I would suggest that these groups and individuals do not want fathers to be parents, and that is their primary motive.

Vanna - again a great distortion and misrepresentation. "I would suggest that these groups and individuals do not want fathers to be parents, and that is their primary motive."
These groups and individuals do not want any parent who has engaged in domestic violence as defined clearly in the proposed legislation and involving the abuse of children, to have an automatic right in law to contact with and custody of their (biological)children and similarly with parents who have taken no interest in `Sharing the Parenting' of their children (as eloquently described by Chiara) prior to separation. This is not gender-specific nor gender-biased This is not a plot to cut biological fathers out of children's lives, but to protect children from dangerous and toxic PARENTS of either gender, and those who have failed to act as good parents to their children in the past, but who now want to assert to right to `Shared (Sharia) Parenting'.
Please think about what is best for children from their perspective and abandon your Hobby Horse of "All (biological)Dads are Good, All Mums and their new partners are the baddies", such arguments are inaccurate and tiresome, although much loved by the euphemistically-titled Shared Parenting Council and its constituent organisations.

[Deleted for abuse.]

ChazP,
The author gives no statistics and gives any names, but attempts to portray fathers as abusers of children.

It is a standard method of villification and discrimination

That is:

Don't give any specifics, but make generalised comments about a group, all of which are negative comments.

Standard villification practice.

In other articles the author has not said a single positive word about fathers or about father's groups.

She mentions the Lone Fathers Association, but always in a negative way.

The Lone Fathers Association is not an illegal organisation, it has never broken the law to my knowledge, and incidentally, 30% of its executive are female.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11331#191920
"Arent Fathers Rights advocates tiring? Arent they biased and blinkered?"

Sometimes, about the same as supporters of a lot of rights issues.

"My point is that not all stepfathers are abusive in fact most of the violent abuse perpetrated upon children is from the biological father and the father's girlfriend or wife.But of course this does not fit in with your dogma does it?FACT children are mostly murdered by their BIOLOGICAL father.FACT the biological father is most likely to be abusive "

Sorry there will be some repetition in this (me doing my bit to be tiring - hopefully not biased or blinkered)

A couple of posts I've written recently dealing with child abuse stats

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11307#191415

and an earlier series of posts starting at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#189898

It's clear from the material I've referenced there that the claims made by Chiara are very contradictory to what appears to be independant and authorative child abuse and child death stats.

The onus is on Chiara or anyone who read her post and agreed with her to provide links to credible statistics which back up those claims.

R0ber

Wow, thanks to this article I now know that the legislative provisions of the Family Law Act have no impact on the 94% of parents who negotiate 'in the shadow of the law' when negotiating parenting agreements.

I now know that in the 6% of cases where there is litigation, the best interests of the child is sole custody with the mother.

I now know that mothers make more natural parents than fathers.

I now know Dr Flood as an expert on family law.

I now know that 100% of funding for separated parents should go to mothers groups and 0% to fathers' groups.

I now know that anyone who disgrees with the writer belittles victims of domestic violence and child abuse.

And I'm so relieved that taxpayers money is being used to fund responsible groups like the National Council for Single Mothers to lobby, make submissions and educate people like me.

There is a tactic that is very effective and that is to accuse, in this instance fathers rights groups of having misleading research, when in actual fact, feminist research by it's very nature is misleading and biased.

there are a number of defense mechanisms at play the include the following, projection, denial, transference, distortion,

and

"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true"

Let me add, dealing with a person who had drug and alcohol problems is another matter, although the behaviour of the addict does affect all members of the family and as such the whole family unit is not healthy, and even if the addict changes their behaviour or dies, the family left behind still has the toxic behaviours bought about by the addicts addiction.

I am feeling terribly brave…

Vanna: Women do not want fathers near their own children for financial gain.

Chaz: Women do not want the abusive fathers near their own children.

Vanna: Women think all men are abusive.

Chaz: No just most.

Vanna: Well most women are liars.

Chaz: Most women are abused.

Vanna: Children are abused in their mothers homes.

Chaz: Because men abused them.

Vanna: But they are not the fathers.

Chaz: But the women and children are the victims of men.

Vanna: And they use that to keep the fathers away from their own children.

Chaz: No just the abusive ones.

We got it guys, cheers.

So this 80:20 thing has become the norm until a parent (usually the father) contests it and they fast track it for some reason to avoid these family centers? And I have no idea what they are.

What should court be doing instead?

Nice one Rogindon, did give me a laugh.

Jewely,

I haven't said any of the above. You wouldn't be trying to misconstrue or misrepresent the situation, or misinform?

You wouldn't be feminist would you?

But what I will say is that the Family Law Court has no jury.

You can ask yourself how likely is it that a law system eventually becomes totally corrupt and unreliable and wretched, if it has no jury.

Rogindon: "And I'm so relieved that taxpayer's money is being used to ....... educate people like me.". and the taxpayers are all clammering for their money back.!
Jewely - "What should (the) court(s) be doing instead?" - that is what this discussion has been about Jewely - Duh!. So you've slept through the whole class again. Again the taxpayers are going to be demanding a lot of money back, but as English seems to be your second language you may get a rebate. Stick to watching Oprah for your updates on world events.

Vanna:“I haven't said any of the above. You wouldn't be trying to misconstrue or misrepresent the situation, or misinform?”

That was more me using your name to represent a common theme of messages and Chaz to represent the common replies. It is how I have understood these debates so far. It was on the right basic track though…? I wasn’t attempting to make either argument the right one.

Vanna:” You wouldn't be feminist would you?”

Honestly I wouldn’t know. I think feminist is one of those things that you can get labeled even by being in support of only parts of it. I could probably get just as easily labeled as a misogynist, a communist, heretic, capitalist, nihilist, I guess it depends what percentage of a person is for or against an idea or against another one?

http://www.labelgame.org/label.html

Jury is a whole other discussion Vanna. I don’t like them or trust them or believe one’s peers are on the whole particularly immune to being lead or tricked or persuaded not on truth but purely on who has the cleverest lawyer, maybe a professionally trained and retained by salary anti-bs jury.

Thanks for the reminder Chaz, I had almost forgotten that not obtaining a better education and staying home to raise children is spat on.

I meant what court should be doing initially about the 80:20 split for two years.

I won't dignify Chiara's rant with a response. She clearly needs help that is beyond the scope of this site to provide.

shivers:"Many are on legal-aid, or at least many women are"

And therein lies the rub. women can access legal aid wth almost no strings if they are a cupporting parent on the dole, which is where so many immediately head upon separation. Men, on the other hand are far less likely, for 2 reasons: they are probably in work and they probably don;t get to have much time with the kids. Oh yeah, they aren;t eligible for funding under the Women's Legal Aid Service budget, most of which is spent in Family Court matters.

Fathers have 3 choices: accept whatever hse wants (cheapest, but he won't get to have much to do with the kids and he'll pay through the nose for CS); pay a lawyer (by far the most expensive and he'll probably not do much better than if he simply gives in); self-represent (cheap but difficult and risky - while some achieve excellent outcomes it is not a foregone conclusion).

So she gets paid to take him to court when she'd only be sitting home watching Days of Our Lives while the kid took care of itself - I wonder why they were all lined up like that?

shivers:"It tends to be done all rather circumspect by denying and minimising the harm the children have occured and saying the claims by the mother are "false"."

That is how the law works: you make a claim, I deny it and say "where's your proof". You disappear in a puff of logic. See?

Antiseptic (RadFems under the bed)- as you are always so fond of statistics, why don't you look up the costs of maintaining a child per week which have been calculated by independent bodies, and tell us the number of separated fathers who are actually paying that amount. (My guess would be zero but you may know differently). Perhaps also you may tell us why the 620,000 children for whom their fathers make NO maintenance payments are not being financially supported by those fathers?.
The tactic of alleging mental illness of Chiara is rather a worn out ploy now, don't you think, and tends to be the last desperate tactic used by sociopathic fathers in FC to distract attention from their own psychoses.

"The tactic of alleging mental illness of Chiara is rather a worn out ploy now, don't you think, and tends to be the last desperate tactic used by sociopathic fathers in FC to distract attention from their own psychoses."

I guess you have not noticed a number of Liz's posts recently. BTW I was not asking for personally attacks on Chiara, rather enough honesty from the likes of you to point out that her claims were seriously at odd's with reality. I didn't expect that to happen.

As a separated father who's son lives with him most of the time and who does not get any child support and is on the low end of the scale for FTB benefits etc I'd have to say that your estimate of "none" for separated fathers paying the costs of raising a child is out by at least one, possibly more.

It all depends on how you count it, my ex pays for expenses when our son is with her, I pay them here. We occasionally share extraordinary expenses if it's agreed that it's something we both want for him and it's not viewed as part of the normal day to day expenses.

So much less troublesome than me thinking my ex owe's me, far better than having her looking at anything new I buy and wondering how much of it she paid for etc.

You could have a look into the review of shared parenting done for the attorney general and see what it says about financial contributions by fathers when parenting is shared. You might also see what it says about mothers income and lives.

R0bert

vanna wrote "Throughout, the father has to pay child support which can be automatically taken out of his pay, and without his permission."

He gave permission when he had sex with the mother.

In the "every picture tells a story" report, there's a published part submission by a father that states that after he's paid for his mortgage and paid for his child support he is left with about 50% of take-home pay.

This is revealing on two levels.

Firstly, it's a clear indication that fathers overwhelmingly directly relate their children to their finances. Secondly, it's a non-argument. As all single mothers who try to survive on a pension when their littlies are young know, the rent takes 52% of their entire net income....and that is before they've even fed, clothed, schooled, transported their family, let alone attempted to pay any bills.

Here's a message for fathers "Children cost a lot of money" and unfortunately, it is mothers that bear the brunt of most of the cost.

Antiseptic wrote: "women can access legal aid wth almost no strings".

Almost no strings? One has to be stoney broke. One has to be almost homeless. One cannot own any assets, have no money in the bank, and cannot be earning a wage, even if it is part-time. In some cases, some women are told to sell their car before Legal Aid will be available. Fees are capped at $10,000 which means that many respondents (mostly women) are given inadequate representation. Protective mothers questions are left unanswered and many get called up to court and they have no idea what they are there for.

In addition, Legal Aid is now denied to Applicants in Family Law. The reality of this is that mothers (and some fathers) who have run from extreme violence and substance abuse do not have the power to invoke the Family Law in a bid to protect their children. The advice they receive is to "lay low and keep your head down, maybe he (or she) will go away and not chase shared parenting". This is all a rather dismal reality when it comes to child protection.

Antiseptic wrote, "when she'd only be sitting home watching Days of Our Lives" resorting to stereotypes is not becoming. Parenting is the most challenging, busiest and frustrating occupation of all. It is actually easier to go out to work in a managerial position and attempt to make a dysfunctional work team productive. And you get paid for it! It's much more difficult to manage 3 kids under 5, get a pension that ensures the family stays in poverty, and then for an added bonus, the mother gets stereotyped.

Antiseptic wrote: "That is how the law works: you make a claim, I deny it and say "where's your proof". You disappear in a puff of logic. See?" And you have described exactly how our child protection system operates through the FLC. Not a skerit of the child's best interests being paramount in sight.

"He gave permission when he had sex with the mother."

I've seen similar comments before and am intrigued by the use of the idea of consent in that.

Are you suggesting that when two people have consensual sex that there is an implied consent to take on the responsibilities of parenthood even if that may not be something explicitly consented to at the time and regardless of the personal hardship involved?

R0bert

Shivers

"He gave permission when he had sex with the mother."

So as soon as any man has sex with you, that makes you entitled to a percentange of his pay? Interesting!

"a father that states that after he's paid for his mortgage and paid for his child support he is left with about 50% of take-home pay."

But you cannot feel any empathy for a bloke who loses half of his pay.

"a clear indication that fathers overwhelmingly directly relate their children to their finances."

But it is implausible that many mothers might also want the kids because of the benefits. Why is complaining about money only dirty when fathers do it?

Seing that children are such an imposition on mothers, they should be grateful to those men who have fought so hard to care for then half of the time.

"And you have described exactly how our child protection system operates through the FLC. Not a skerit of the child's best interests being paramount in sight."

Will proof still be trivial when you are accused of child abuse? Will expecting others to provide evidence still be proof that family courts operate with "not a skerit of the child's best interests being paramount in sight"?

shivers:"One has to be stoney broke. One has to be almost homeless"

No. My ex received nearly 5 years of legal aid funding. The whole time she lived in Housing Commission accommodation, received the maximum entitlements to benefits and worked just enough to stay under the thresholds.

In 2003 her taxable income was just $15000, but her income after tax was nearly $30000 - equivalent to an income of well over $40,000. At the time, my own income was just $28000 before tax and I had to pay private rent and all my own court costs as well as a usurious amount of child support based on an income some 25% greater than I was actually earning.

shivers:"Legal Aid is now denied to Applicants in Family Law."

You're wrong again. I have checked NSW, Qld and Victoria's Legal Aid guidelines and they do not say anything of the kind. My ex was the applicant in no less than 5 legal aid-funded Family Law matters. The last was in 2004.

Shivers:"Parenting is the most challenging, busiest and frustrating occupation of all."

Rubbish. I share the care of my children 50:50 after fighting hard to get it and I run my own business and I have a full and engaging social life. If some women are not up to the same thing, perhaps they shouldn;t be given care of the children?

I used to instal telephony and other services for Optus and Telstra. I entered literally hundreds of homes, a great many of which were single-mother households. On several occasions I had to can the job because the house was simply too filthy to work in. I visited one house no less than 8 times to reconnect the cable TV - the "admirable" single mum would get each new boyfriend to connect in his name then when he inevitably left in a week or two it would be cut off until the next one came along.

I think that it might do some of the sheltered workshop types here some good to see just what sort of scumbags their policies are supporting.

Antiseptic (RadFem) - a determination of Legal Aid is also assessed in terms of the MERIT of the case being brought. Obviously your ex had considerable merit to her case or she would not have been awarded legal aid.
BTW : Educate yourself about Feminism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YA13GNT8Mc&feature=player_embedded#!

ChazP:"a determination of Legal Aid is also assessed in terms of the MERIT of the case being brought."

Yes, it does, but merit is narrowly defined, a bit like the way family violence isn't.

Funnily enough, the ex LOST each of those matters. apparently the only ones o think her claims had merit were the girls at the Qld Women's Legal aid service.

Funnily enough, she stopped the legal shenanigans whe the legal aid people finally revoked their funding. I estimate the taxpayer spent about $20-25,000 on her behalf, while I spent over $10,000 and ended up self-representing.

Still, as you're unlikely to be a taxpayer, that would probably suit you. How much has the taxpayer spent on YOU?

As for your little video, I didn't see a single poverty-stricken, downtroddem woman anywhere. I did see a large number of people who obviously think that professing support for the currently dominant paradigm is going to do them some good in their careers. Just more self-promotion from an ideology that is all about self-promotion.

To vanna,
This is the author.
You stated that,

"The author gives no figures as regards the child abuse rates.

...

The author leaves out a lot of information, and is not to be trusted.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 7:38:44 AM"

The excuse that mothers more often are the so-called abusers of children is a common myth by people who advocate for the so-called "father's rights" agenda. In fact, one prominent men's rights person claimed that research conducted by NSPPC in 2005 proved that mothers were the greatest dangers to children.

I contacted NSPPC and they replied stating the following:

"...our study never claimed or attempted to prove that 'mothers are a greater danger to children'...
o According to our study: 'These are interesting results, as it seems surprising that fear of fathers should be more common when mothers and fathers were both implicated in physical and emotional maltreatment, with figures for mothers’ involvement [in physical maltreatment] slightly higher than for fathers. Nobes et al (1999) suggest that fathers are slightly more likely than mothers to inflict severe punishment. One possible explanation for the greater fear of fathers, could be that fathers’ violent behaviour to the child might have been more serious, even if not more frequent, and another that fathers were violent to mothers’ (Cawson, 2002, p. 27).

‘These figures need to be located in the context of the gender division of labour in relation to child care. Women are much more likely to be involved in the day to day care of children than men, so it would appear that given men’s relative lack of involvement in such care, the figure of 40 per cent is high and replicates similar findings (Featherstone, 1996 cited in Featherstone and Evans, 2004, p. 28).
o These figures also need to be located in the context that 10% of sample had never lived with a father."

Again, you seem to be using the "father's rights" approach that has have misused, skewed and twisted the stats to "prove" a fallacy.

Don't.

Trish.

vanna,
You also stated:
"There was never any allegations of fathers abusing children under the 80:20 rule, and fathers were often looking after their children for up to 3 weeks at a time, because they had the children for half the school holidays.

The abuse card began to be waved around when fathers wanted to see their children more than every second weekend and half the school holidays."

Wrong again.

There were more no-contact orders given before the 1995 "reforms." After the reforms contact with a parent accused of violence increased at the interim level-that means that there was no real investigation into the validity of the allegations, so children were ordered to contact with an abusive parent by default. They couldn't ALL be innocent. Remember, that's when screening was also supposed to have started before being allowed to file.
Justice Fogarty wrote in 2006 that since bout 1996, no appeal ever found that child sexual abuse had occurred in FC.
This is despite the finding that child abuse was the "core business" of the FC, and the cases of child abuse were "real, serious and severe."
That is why Magellan was implemented.
Claiming that ALL of these fathers are "good fathers", but they're victims of women who just want to wave around the abuse card tec. is merely also waving around the common excuse by the accused that they "didn't do it."
It is not a novel notion to be told by a person accused of violence that they didn't do it.
Do you want to paint ALL fathers with the same "victim accused by lying mother" brush and ALL mothers as "lying"? It seems you are. Yet this tact has worked against protective fathers as well, such that the father's rights groups can take credit for the way that protective fathers have also been treated in the FC- same as the protective mothers.

THAT has created the child protection crisis.

Consequently, "Fathers rights" campaigners should hang their collective heads in shame. Just who are they advocating for?
Not abused children.

Trish.

Happy,
Looking at some statistics provided in another forum, there were about 6 children killed by their father in Australia in one year, while more children were killed by their mother.

About 250,000 children are born each year, giving about 3,750,000 children in Australia up to the age of 15.

6 children killed out of 3,750,000 is 0.00016 % of children.

But that is enough for the federal government to want to change the current laws.

I would think that the changes have nothing to do with children’s safety.

The changes have more to do with feminist propaganda designed to vilify and denigrate fathers, and the government is now responding to that propaganda so as to look good for the female vote.

I know of no other laws or programs enacted by the Labor party to improve children's safey, and children's safety was not a priority or a policy in the last election.

"Happy"

Repeating something doesn't make it any more true.

Much of what we hear about child abuse implies that fathers are the main risk to kids. Fathers groups point out that mothers are responsible for about half, merely to defend themselves from an unfair accusation. Claiming that father's groups claim that all abuse is done by mothers is dishonest.

Mother's groups are using untrue claims about child abuse to overturn recent changes that they dislike, mainly for financial reasons. Father's groups, on the other hand, are-not misusing concern over children's safety to promote their own interests. They are merely defending themselves from unfair attacks.

Vanna and Benk,
My question remains the same.
Do you intend to keep repeating the same line that ALL fathers in the FC are innocent victims of women who are ALL lying?
What is “feminist propaganda” if not wholesale vilification for women (AND plenty of men too) that want to point out the errors in your arguments?
It seems to me that you both want to use a broad brushstroke to paint ALL fathers in the FC and ALL mothers in the FC as representing ALL separated mothers and fathers.
This wholesale approach does not work in the FC.
Only 6% of ALL divorcing couples file in the FC. Of those, about 3% are children’s matters. These cases are mainly to do with child abuse that is real, serious and severe, NOT cases of mothers using child abuse allegations for financial reasons.
If you want to use the argument that “mothers” (are these ALL mothers?) use child abuse allegations for financial reasons you can’t. It is well established empirically that post separation mothers are far poorer than post separation fathers, with or without raising allegations.
The empirical findings are that fathers are THE most likely to raise false allegations of neglect, mothers and children are more likely to be truthful re allegations, and allegations in the FC of child abuse are NOT rampant.
You cannot overcome these empricial findings, and will want to do so only if you wish skew the situation in favour of the accused, who always say- It wasn’t me! I wasn’t violent! It’s her fault! She’s lying!
Again, are they all innocent, are women in the FC all liars? In a court mainly dealing with real, serious and severe cases of child abuse?
I think not.

Happy,
It was pointed out elsewhere that the waiting period for the FC is about 2 years.

The costs can also be very high, and solicitors can charge up to $500 to write and send a letter.

A father can easily get 80:20 because that is the norm, so most fathers accept that because they cannot afford anything else.

Are fathers happy about it.

About 70% are not, according to the largest study undertaken to date.

http://192.135.208.240/conferences/aifs8/parkinson.pdf

Your insistence that most fathers are happy souls seeing their children every second weekend or less is not accurate.

Have a read of the report, but I believe you know the statistics anyway.

I also hear very little from feminists about the need to repair marriages.

How odd.

I'm begining to think that feminists don't like the idea of marriage, and don't like the idea that a father is a parent to the children.

Trish, "Do you intend to keep repeating the same line that ALL fathers in the FC are innocent victims of women who are ALL lying?"

I'd be interested to see one instance where any of us have made that claim. Please note the emphasized ALL's in your claim which you had in your post.

Looks like yet another blatant misrepresentation to me.

Most of us recognize that there are good and bad men and women, neither gender has a monopoly on honesty or dishonesty.

What we don't want is a situation where the accused is treated as guilty and no safeguards in place. If accusations are not substantiated then those accusations should not be allowed to have any long term impact on the outcomes. We want a situation where men dealing with the family courts are being treated fairly, not shuffled through an endless stream of activists doing their bit to help women or determined to uphold traditional family roles. We want some recognition that the family circumstances leading up to separation are not generally the way people wish to live nor are they always the free choice of the individuals involved.

The campaign to bring in these changes is marked by outright lies, misrepresentation and hints of what's not true. It's marked by omission and what's not talked about.

Now why was it that men should not be concerned about the agenda's behind it all?

R0bert

Vanna,
What has a 2-year waiting period have to do with my question? - Do you intend to keep repeating the same line that ALL fathers in the FC are innocent victims of women who are ALL lying?
Your comment that re waiting periods in FC merely underlines what I have said-
After the reforms contact with a parent accused of violence increased at the interim level - that means that no real investigation into the validity of the allegations were done and children were ordered to contact with an abusive parent by default. There have been some child deaths by parents under court orders as a result of this. Do not go off on a tangent now talking about child deaths in the general population- stick to the point. These deaths have happened after these children were in the FC.
At no time did I ever say or insist that “most fathers are happy souls seeing their children every second weekend or less ...” and I do not appreciate or accept words being put in my mouth.
There are many feminists- male and female that like being married and are married. Most feminists- male and female, do not like abusive partners. I, a feminist, like men- I do not like abusive men’s behaviour- noir do I like abusive women’s behaviours. Therefore, don’t accuse me of being “anti-men.” I am not! How about ceasing violence against women?
You are again denigrating feminists wholesale.
What about abusive men? Do you deny they exist? Do you honestly claim that the ABS got it wrong when it was established that the number one reason women leave their marriages/partners in Au is because of domestic violence?

Happy,

I’ve heard the “but I like men” stuff many times from feminists.

I remember reading it on another website (NewMatilda) written by an academic feminist after being questioned by someone. Then recently on OLO, the same academic feminist accused every man of being a potential rapist.

Not much trust there.

If the ABS believes DV is the number 1 cause of divorce, then it is the opposite to what has been found by Relationships Australia.

“The three main internal issues were: communication, commitment and expectations. Key external influences identified as contributing to relationship breakdowns were financial stress and work pressures.”

http://www.relationships.com.au/resources/pdfs/reports-submissions/ra-rel-ind-2008-exec-summary.pdf

But DV now includes the following

“Emotional and verbal abuse such as humiliation, threats, insults, swearing, harassment or constant criticism and put downs “

I would think 100% of married men have experienced that from their wives.

I personally don’t know of any man that hasn’t, so I think there is no exaggeration in saying 100% of married men have experienced domestic violence from the wives.

If it is true that women leave men because of DV, then best to eliminate no fault divorce.

Take the man to court and prove the allegation, but the woman should be prepared to have her behavior investigated also, particulary any emotional or verbal abuse.

ChazP:"The tactic of alleging mental illness of Chiara is rather a worn out ploy now, don't you think, and tends to be the last desperate tactic used by sociopathic fathers "

Do you think that I was alleging mental illness? I simply suggested she needs help that we can't provide. Interesting that you took it that way. Even more interesting that you went on to accuse fathers of being sociopaths for wanting to see their children.

I noted this morning a puff-piece by the ever-dependable puffer Nina Funnell in the Fairfax press. The grrrls club is really throwing everything they can at this in their effort to defend the indefensible. It's all a bit risible when their "chairman" is a TV game show spruiker.

happy, your repetition of outdated advocacy "studies" does your case no good at all. I find it interesting that you respond only to vanna, while ignoring the many good and sensible posts from R0bert, benk, James and myself that simply prove your claims to be untrue.

It is not a good look for you. It suggests that you are not a reliable witness of good character, but are motivated by a desire to produce an outcome, ignoring anything that may be inconveniently contradictory.

If I were using my own name, I should think I'd want to be seen to be more rational. Of course, I'm not an advocate for the primacy of maternal rights and I have to make my own living while looking after my children and dealing with a severely personality-disordered ex, so that might explain some of that...

I suggest you take a walk around the back blocks of Nerang and Southport and similar areas and look in some of the backyards of the women you so unthinkingly and uncritically advocate for.

And here's a question for you, Patricia: just who is the National Coalition of Mothers Against Child Abuse? What membership does it have other that you and Marie Hume? It's just a fancy name you made up to make yourself sound important, isn't it? Dear me...

Great article! thanks to the author. Same old gender wars comments. Yawn.

mog:"Same old gender wars comments"

That pretty much summed the article up, really.

I've been thinking I should invent a nice important-sounding "Coalition" or "Council". I wonder if she gets any funding through OSW?

RObert
I am not the one painting all men as abusers, but it is clear by the rhetoric from people like you and vanna that you believe that ALL the fathers in FC cases are innocent good fathers and ALL “fathers in the FC are discriminated against.”
Quote: “the family law act which directly discriminates against fathers”- Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 8:44:38 AM
Quote: “The commonly understood narrative is that false allegations are a commonly misused tool in family court proceedings and that women are the main people making these allegations” - Posted by benk, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 9:34:57 AM
Quote: “The changes have more to do with feminist propaganda designed to vilify and denigrate fathers”- Posted by vanna, Thursday, 9 December 2010 3:48:46 PM

By the way benk, you stated that “Repeating something doesn't make it any more true.” Denying that it is true does not negate its truth either.

You stated- “Much of what we hear about child abuse implies that fathers are the main risk to kids.” Posted by benk, Thursday, 9 December 2010 3:52:27 PM
The implication is correct.
You also stated- “Fathers groups point out that mothers are responsible for about half, merely to defend themselves from an unfair accusation. “ Given the research, most of these accusations against fathers are not unfair, they are true.
“Claiming that father's groups claim that all abuse is done by mothers is dishonest.”- Given the research, most abuse in FC cases is committed by fathers, only a very small percentage is committed by mothers. As a result of the changes to the Act and the culture in the FC, only the worst cases of physical abuse by fathers OR mothers is acted on. This is to the detriment of both protective mothers AND fathers, and to the detriment of the children whether the parent is male or female.

Antiseptic- I DO NOT get any funding from anyone in any way, shape or form.
Patricia.

happy:"I DO NOT get any funding from anyone in any way, shape or form."

I'm glad to hear it.

happy:"Denying that it is true does not negate its truth either."

Perhaps not, but demonstrating that it is untrue by providing proper statistics from Government Agencies like the ABS and the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and many others does negate its truth.

That has been done comprehensively. Denying reality does not negate its existence.

Fathers are not the main risk to their children, their "single" mothers and/or their new boyfriends are. Even then, it's disproportionately an issue in poverty-stricken communities such as exist in the public housing areas of our cities and large towns, as well as many Aboriginal communities.

happy:"Given the research, most of these accusations against fathers are not unfair, they are true."

No, that is a lie, I am afraid. I don't normally resort to the word, but that is so egregious as to demand it. The real research, not the advocacy stuff which is all you read, shows that the rate of genuine offending is very low, despite the constant broadening of definitions by the less-reputable sections of Mother's Rights advocacy, which seem to have the ear of the less-reputable members of the Labor Party at the moment. The fact that an influential politician had a single mum and didn't like his dad should not be the basis of lawmaking.

Nor should research start from a premise and select evidence to support it, while ignoring evidence that contradicts it.

Scab-picking is an old beggars trick, used to make minor injuries look much worse in an effort to create repugnance, gain sympathy and distract the target's eye from the otherwise healthy state of the beggar. It is directly analogous to the tactics used by Mother's Rights groups in their efforts to get a handout of more systemic bias against fathers.

It won't wash as a justification for law reform.

happy's version of a quote "the family law act which directly discriminates against fathers" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11331#192618

Leaving out the context is a useful trick for the less than honest.

The original sentence which put's my comment in context.

"No mention of the work going on to add profiling into DV acts and possibly to the family law act which directly discriminates against fathers." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11331#191902

Again happy please find a single reference where I've stated (or genuinely implied) that I "believe that ALL the fathers in FC cases are innocent good fathers"

Some fathers are absolute scoundrels as are some mothers. I'm more than willing to acknowledge that. I'm quite willing to see kid's protected from either, what I don't want is gender based assumptions used to decide who is the good parent and who is the bad.

R0bert

Robert,
I refuse to allow you to brand me as dishonest, and that is exactly what you called me when you claimed that I was quote “Leaving out the context is a useful trick for the less than honest.”
The preceding phrase did not change my use if it as a quote responding to your challenge when you stated that “I'd be interested to see one instance where any of us have made that claim.” I showed three.
You wrote “"No mention of the work going on to add profiling into DV acts and possibly to the family law act which directly discriminates against fathers."
Note, you wrote “directly discriminates against fathers” not, directly discriminates against ‘certain’ fathers or ‘positive’ fathers. “Against fathers” is by implication fathers generally.
The fact remains that the empirical research has conclusively demonstrated that the majority of allegations in FC made by mothers and children are true and the most likely person to make a false allegation of abuse (in this case neglect) is non-custodial fathers.
The sort of legislative amendments made to the Family Law Act (such as the ‘friendly parent” provisions, costs re ‘false’ allegations and the inclusion of the word “reasonable “ before fear in the definition of family violence) were all designed on the basis of lobbying by fathers rights campaigners. These did nothing to address safety for children from either parent. It just minimised the actual abuse and violence in cases in the FC, to the detriment of the abused children and their protective parents, be they either mothers OR fathers.
While we can both agree that gender based assumptions should not be used, like it or not, the majority of protective parents in the FC just happen to be mothers.

It saddens me to read such one sided misinformed information ms Merkin obviously lives in the world where all men are violent and women are all abused. The day when these self imposed experts actually provide the correct statistics about both men and women that are violent and abusive, will be the day that as a passionate collective group, men and women together unite to stop any violence against each other and especially children. Then that day we will have some hope of moving foward. Reading ms Merkins one sided incorrect articles once again displays to me that we are a long way from solving the many problems in the court system, in incorrect accusations against men and women and depriving children of seeing both of the parents.

happy and I meant discriminate against fathers generally. If profiling is introduced into the acts which states that men are primarily responsible for DV it will be direct discrimination.

I think my use of phrasing is consistent with discussion of discrimination against a group. It does not imply that all members are innocent. I really doubt that you don't understand that, again it's a dishonest ploy to paint those who disagree as extremists. I don't need to brand you as dishonest, you have done that yourself with your repeated misrepresentation of the clearly put position of myself and others.

I've repeatedly acknowledged that some men are absolute mongrels and some women cop a horrific time, what I'm opposing is a system where those who are not mongrels get prejudged on the basis of their gender as though they were.

Those of you supporting the changes has so far been unwilling to discuss any concept of safeguards to prevent harm from false claims. That does not mean every claim is false, just that there needs to be protections to safeguard against abuse.

R0bert

RObert,
The results of credible studies here and overseas have consistently established that “false allegations” are NOT the problem in the FC. The problem in the FC is “false denials”. There are already safeguards to prevent harm from false claims - it’s called principles of evidence law.
False denials in a court that has no regulated or independent investigatory role to properly interrogate these allegations has led to a jurisdiction where there can be no guarantee that abused children are protected. It has been established that children have been killed as a result of a court order that sent those children to a parent that killed them. The question of child abuse after court orders is not reviewed or examined and so is an unknown. Children abuse is unacceptable, but when it happens or could be happening under a court order, it is deplorable.
Your claim and focus on safeguards to prevent harm from false claims of abuse is not a focus on children that may have been abused. It is a focus on those that have been accused of abuse. Those that have been accused are either guilty or not guilty. In light of the fact that it has been established that children have been handed over to parents where there has been NO proper investigation of claims of abuse and some have been killed as a result, it is clear that some are guilty. It is encumbered on ALL adults; it is our obligation, to focus on abused children, not accused adults, whether male or female. The focus needs to be on abused children because their costs are the greatest, they are the ones that suffer the most and they are the most vulnerable

(Con't)
Your concern and proposal to focus on “false claims” is not only misinformed, but is by definition focused on those ALSO that are guilty of abusing their children. It also happens to be the focus of the “fathers rights” campaigners, who look and sound like those who have either been accused or wish to defend those that have been accused of child abuse and domestic violence. Those that have been accused can of course be expected to deny and minimise their abuse. Those that defend them can of course be expected to believe that their son, partner, friend, family member etc. are innocent. But those that are accused and those that are connected to the accused cannot provide a reliable standard by which to measure the truth of the allegations or how to respond to allegations. The reliable standard is in evidence principles. To engage those a proper investigation has to be done. It cannot be done in a court that has no role or independent agency to carry them out.
By far the majority of people that have been accused of abuse in the FC are fathers, and a small number of accused parents are mothers. Given that the research has established that non-custodial fathers more frequently prompt false allegations of neglect against mothers (the most common type of false claim) and the person most likely to be telling the truth about abuse and custodial mothers and their children, your focus on false claims is by inference means that your focus is on accused fathers. As such, your focus is wrong.
It also happens to be congruent with father’s rights campaigners, and does not protect abused children.
It more often protects abusive parents. In the FC, these by a majority are fathers, and in a minority are mothers.

happy:"The results of credible studies here and overseas have consistently established that “false allegations” are NOT the problem in the FC. The problem in the FC is “false denials”."

And these "credible studies" would be...?

I say you're quite wrong and operating from logical premises that are badly flawed.

happy:"a jurisdiction where there can be no guarantee that abused children are protected. "

and what do you propose would be the mechanism by which such a guarantee could be made? We're all ears, I'm sure.

happy:"It has been established that children have been killed as a result of a court order that sent those children to a parent that killed them."

And your point is? Many more children are killed by their mother or her associates than by their fathers. Do you propose we examine every mother for fitness to be a parent if the father alleges otherwise?

Don't bother answering that one, Patricia, I know the answer already. People such as yourself who like to generalise from extremes have no wish to make a better system, just a desire to "make the bastards pay". The kids are only of concern if there's any chance they might go to Dad. Even worse that they might prefer to go to Dad...

happy:"Your claim and focus on safeguards to prevent harm from false claims of abuse is not a focus on children that may have been abused. It is a focus on those that have been accused of abuse. "

And if you were the one to be falsely accused? How would you feel about it then, do you think?

Antiseptic,
These "credible studies" would be:
‘False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate’ Nick Trocme, (University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work, Toronto, Ont., Canada) Nicholas Bala (Queen's University, Faculty of Law, Kingston, Ont., Canada, Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 29, Issue 12, December 2005, Pages 1333-1345

“Results of this analysis show that neglect is the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment, while anonymous reporters and noncustodial parents (usually fathers) most frequently make intentionally false reports. Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the CIS-98, custodial parents (usually mothers) and children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.”

Child Abuse and the Family Court, by Brown, Frederico, Hewitt & Sheehan, Report No 91, June 1998, Australian Institute of Criminology.
“The study challenges the community belief that false allegations of child abuse are more common in Family Court cases than in other situations.” At p. 1.
“Family violence, of different forms, was a prominent one. However, when these issues were brought to the Court, the Court took them into a system which gave no explicit recognition to these particular problems. Instead, the Court assumed the families could proceed through a normal legal process, one which would occur through a series of formal hearings, involve many delays, and not necessarily focus on the issue presented — the issue of possible violence to children.” At p. 5.

There is nothing “illogical” or “badly flawed” about my information. Of course, when these types of results are presented, father’s rights campaigners attack the credibility of the researchers claiming that they are “biased”. This attack is mounted because acknowledged academics and researchers instaed have to be vilified by these campaigner because they didn’t produce the desired results that support the father’s rights agenda.

The excerpts above are included in the following annotated review-
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/ap.html

Read them with an open mind because they challenge your presumptions. Are you big enough to be genuinely honest, or not? Or will you prefer to merely attack the messengers?
Hmmm?

(Con’t)
Antiseptic, you posted-
“happy: a jurisdiction where there can be no guarantee that abused children are protected. What do I propose would be the mechanism by which such a guarantee could be made?”

Listen up-
The proposed mechanism is easily addressed- an inquisitorial jurisdiction encompassing the recommendations of the Family Law Council 2002.

You posted-
“Many more children are killed by their mother or her associates than by their fathers."

I stated in an earlier post- “

The excuse that mothers more often are the so-called abusers of children is a common myth by people who advocate for the so-called "father's rights" agenda. In fact, one prominent men's rights person claimed that research conducted by NSPPC in 2005 proved that mothers were the greatest dangers to children.

Look back and read the rest of you dare- Posted by happy, Thursday, 9 December 2010 1:48:08 PM


Further-
“...with small children we worry much, much more about fathers than mothers.
If a mother rang up and said I’m getting to the edge we’d arrange for the mother to come in and be seen fairly quickly.”
If a father rang up and said the same, we’d call for an ambulance.”
Dr Kerry Sullivan, interview with Martin Powley regarding fathers, mothers and child abuse, 28/10/2004, ABC Radio.

There is nothing extreme in my position. I primarily advocate for children that have been, are and are at risk of abuse. I advocate for mothers AND fathers that are the protective parents.

Any fathers and mothers that are ‘falsely accused’ suffer fewer and less severe costs than children that are abused or killed. That this occurs outside of the jurisdiction of the FC is terrible. When it occurs because those children were sent into the care of a parent after a FC order is unacceptable and worse.

Your vitriolic undercurrents are palpable and I assert that your posture is part of the problem, not the solution. I recommend you rethink your use of vitriol as it just happens to be one of the tactics of choice used by abusers

Is that it, Patricia? Your argument is complete? I'd like to be sure you've had every opportunity to state your case before I reply.

As some 17 hours have passed since my last post and you haven't posted anything else, I'll assume you've finished presenting your list of "credible studies", which sadly, are not really very credible at all. I suggest you may benefit from some training in crtitical thinking. You're obviously not stupid, but judgement is not your strong point.

The first one you cited was the old 1998 Thea Brown "research" backed by Nicholson's Family court. The Nicholson court was not a well-regarded jurisdiction. Unfortunately, he allowed it to become something of an international joke, which CJ Bryant has had to work very hard to change and has made great strides in doing so, to her credit.

The Brown effort was all about advocacy and expanding definitions, not about seeking better outcomes for those appearing before the Court. It was also about the situation prior to either of the last two major reforms to the FLA.

A couple of extracts:"During the study described here, the Family Law Reform Act of 1995 was implemented.It did not affect the study but its changes should be noted. It sought to improve the position of children by encouraging parents to care cooperatively for their children after divorce by jointly making parenting plans. It changed old notions of custody and access to new ones of residence and contact. It assisted in removing jurisdictional conflicts between
magistrates’ court orders on domestic violence and family court orders regarding contact." I think we all know what a great success the FLRA 1995 wasn't.

More from Brown, et al:"As anticipated, the study found that the proportion of child abuse cases within the total of children’s
matters cases in the Family Court was small, some 5 per cent."

and

"abuse of children was described in 80 per cent of the cases. However, it was not presented as an issue to the court.
The abuse was not recognised by the parents or professionals as
abuse."

So, IOW, noone except Thea and her girlfriends thought what they were seeing was abuse. Classic advocacy stuff, but hardly "credible".

[cont]

Next, let's look at the Canadian (oh dear) study you mentioned. I have a copy of that report, as it happens.

It is a considerably more detailed study than dear old Thea's rather limited effort, but it has a few teemsy flaws.

Firstly, it is Canadian. the Canadian legal framework is a great deal different to the Australian one and is extremely gynocentric. Substantiation is much easier in Canada because the definitions are so broad as to include almost all normal human interactions that involve any kind of conflict or disagreement.

Secondly, the definitional expansion that has taken place in Canada makes it meaningless to compare Canadian data with Austrlian or any other data sets.The study itself acknowledges the problem:

"Definitional confusion is a common source of misunderstanding in the debate about the problem of false allegations of abuse. Rates on unsubstantiated abuse typically reported by child welfare services
range from 30 to 70%."

So, I'm sorry, Patricia, you'll have to do better than that if you want credibility, I'm afraid.

You might like to look at this link for a clearer view of the Australian situation.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs1/rs1.html

Just under 30% of investigated claims were sunstantiated, but less than half the claims were thought worthy of investigation. IOW just about 15% of all claims were substatiated, or 1 in 6.

happy:"an inquisitorial jurisdiction encompassing the recommendations of the Family Law Council 2002. "

How does an inquisatorial Court fit into the Westminster framework, do you think? And who shall pay if the allegation is unsubstantiated? Will the falsely accused be reimbursed for costs?

happy:"The excuse that mothers more often are the so-called abusers of children is a common myth by people who advocate for the so-called "father's rights" agenda. "

Patricia, repeating the same misinformation doesn't make it magically correct. One of the great difficulties in understanding the trends in child homicide is the lack of data collected by crime reporting agencies. However, the report below does

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/190_01_050109/nie10592_fm.html

[cont]

From that report:
"Most child homicides are the result of the physical abuse of children, while others are associated with severe mental illness, anger arising from the breakdown of relationships, and a range of less common factors."

and

"Fatal child abuse was the most common cause of death (59 of 165 victims). After excluding teenage homicides, the mean ages of both offenders and victims were significantly younger than those of the offenders and victims in other child homicides (offenders, 25.0 years v 30.5 years; t = &#8722; 3.84; P < 0.001; and victims, 1.5 years v 6.7 years; t = &#8722; 7.3; P < 0.001). The offender was often the child’s mother or de-facto partner."

and

"Conclusions:

Earlier identification and treatment of psychotic illness in mothers, and changes in the way methadone is provided to opiate-dependent parents, might result in a small overall reduction in the number of child deaths. More lives could be saved by measures that reduce the incidence of child abuse, including the prohibition of corporal punishment of children."

Are you beginning to understand what "credible" means yet, Patricia?

happy:"“...with small children we worry much, much more about fathers than mothers.
If a mother rang up and said I’m getting to the edge we’d arrange for the mother to come in and be seen fairly quickly.”
If a father rang up and said the same, we’d call for an ambulance.”
Dr Kerry Sullivan,"

I suggest to you that Dr Sullivan's attitude is poorly informed.

I'm afraid your generalisations from extremes aren't convincing, Patricia.

happy:"I recommend you rethink your use of vitriol as it just happens to be one of the tactics of choice used by abusers"

and I suggest you rethink your use of distortions and lies, which are the tactics of choice of idiots bereft of any capacity to understand reality. Have a lovely day, won't you dear?

Antiseptic,
Posted by happy, Thursday, 16 December 2010 12:12:50 PM “... when these types of results are presented, father’s rights campaigners attack the credibility of the researchers claiming that they are “biased”. This attack is mounted because acknowledged academics and researchers instead have to be vilified by these campaigners because they didn’t produce the desired results that support the father’s rights agenda.”

Thus, you have confirmed my earlier assertion and you appear to be a father’s rights campaigner- not an adult who is prepared to put the interests and wellbeing of abused children first. You are more interested in promoting an environment that advantages those people in the Family Court cases, mostly men, which have been accused of abusing their own families.

You used ten “put-downs” in this your latest post in relation to academically trained researchers and Justice Nicholson, and me.

You cannot propose, seriously propose, that Nick Trocme, (University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work, Toronto, Ont., Canada) and Nicholas Bala (Queen's University, Faculty of Law, Kingston, cannot produce credible research. You only put them down by describing the research with “oh dear” in a condescending tone and proposing a totally irrelevant point that it was carried out in Canada, a Western liberal democracy congruent with the jurisdiction in Australia, because they didn’t give you the results you would like, not because they’re not credible!

You use the derogatory terms “old Thea” “her girlfriends” and “teensy flaws” for Professor Brown, her colleagues and the research because they didn’t produce the results you preferred, NOT because the Australian Institute of Criminology uses substandard professors or inferior research.

You refer to Justice Nicholson as having a court that was not “well-regarded” but my question is- by whom? Certainly not by father’s rights campaigners, to whom it appears very much so that it is your colouring.

It is people with the attitudes that you seem to hold that can take credit for the situation where children are being sent to an abusive parent under a family court order, many of whom are abusive fathers but ALSO some abusive mothers. That is why father’s rights groups cannot help women OR men who are the protective parents. You stand for the men that abuse their own families and by default for the women who should not have the children. Well Done!

Your insult to me that I cannot think critically, you accuse me of lying and distorting, betrays your own modus operandi- ‘when confronted, attack personally’. It just happens to be the method habitually engaged by perpetrators of intimate and social violence.

The research you referenced is about child deaths and the connection to drug abuse mothers in the general population- not the Family Court. It therefore appears that you are the one not critically reading. Thanks to the type of agenda you appear to subscribe to, these are the sort of mothers that are advantaged by a family law environment that minimises child abuse and narrows its definition- the problem Nicholson J. and Brown et al identified

Your suggestion that Dr Sullivan's attitude is “poorly informed” is purely because he stated something that didn’t suit your frame of reference. Not because he said something that is not true. As a leading child abuse specialist and part of a scan team, I and anyone who is genuinely sincere tend to put more weight on his words than someone that promotes the sort of attitude and agenda you do.

You appear to be more concerned with the ‘falsely accused’ adults who happen to be men, and disparage the research that shows that these are mostly not false claims because you don’t like to admit the truth-not because the research is not credible. Therefore, you do not appear to be genuinely concerned with the plight and suffering of children that are sent to further abuse or death AFTER a Family Court order sent them there. You stand for the “poor”, “victimised” self-promoting “good” and so-called falsely accused fathers. It is an adult-centric posture. I wonder why?

You don’t fool me.

Happy - "Thus, you have confirmed my earlier assertion and you appear to be a father’s rights campaigner- not an adult who is prepared to put the interests and wellbeing of abused children first. You are more interested in promoting an environment that advantages those people in the Family Court cases, mostly men, which have been accused of abusing their own families".
That Happy, is the absolute truth which they cannot bear to hear.
If the FR extremists were at all concerned about the safety and protection of children after parental separation, then they would be unreservedly and unconditionally supporting this proposed legislation, not least, because they claim that mothers are worse perpetrators of child abuse and more guilty of domestic violence than fathers. So they don't want to protect children from such mothers either.
Their concerns are not about children but about protecting the position of privilege that fathers gained in the 2006 Act and which enabled abusers, aided by the absence of competent investigation into DV and child abuse allegations, to gain control over children for their abusive purposes.
The FR group's submissions to the ALRC were concerned only with finance and assets and made no mention of children's needs and rights and no doubt the Sharia Parenting Council will fight determinedly for their privileged position to continue.

The case for the proposed reforms has been more than adequately made in the government ordered reviews of the workings of the 2006 Act and the information made known to many Federal MP's by their own constituents, and it is time to move on from this tedious and repetitive debate, and consider the next round of reforms. e.g. that parents must demonstrate to Courts that they have an existing `meaningful relationship' with their child(ren), that they have done and can continue to meet each of their child's physical, emotional, social, educational, financial,and spiritual needs, that they can provide safety and protection for their child(ren) from harms. It is not only domestic violence and other forms of child abuse which harms children, but incompetent and inadequate parenting skills. It is time that a `Parent' was defined as much more than a participant in a coital act, as they are currently defined in the 2006 Act.

ChapZ, sadly history will hopefully reveal some of the more truthful facts.

You alleged that fathers rights activists are more interested in maintaining their position of power and privilege. I guess you have heard of the defense mechanism, projection.

You maintain that the fathers rights activists are not interested in the welfare of the children, yet fathers rights activist point out the children are at much more risk of abuse if they stay with their mothers.

sure there are incompetent parents of both genders. In fact, in the opinion of some or a lot of women, men are always incompetent, regardless. A male could have a masters in child care and still be regarded as being incompetent by many members of your gender.

Sure this a tedious and repetitive debate, but then people are not listening very well.

There is a phrase "Concrete thinker" that comes to mind when dealing with single mother activists.

I put it to you ChapZ, that single mother activists, rather than working collaboratively with the fathers (groups) that children are being put at continuing risk of abuse.

Regardless of you own personal experiences, arguements in this forum indicate, that these single mother have taken their own personal hatred and antagonism that they have towards their ex partner/s and then are transferring this to apply to all fathers, hence the nasty implication about 'power and control'.

Like I said before you are a dirty fighter!
<Their concerns are not about children but about protecting the position of privilege that fathers gained in the 2006 Act and which enabled abusers, aided by the absence of competent investigation into DV and child abuse allegations, to gain control over children for their abusive purposes>

It could be also like a little three year old stamping their feet, because they don't get their own way.

James well put.

R0bert

JamesH - "sure there are incompetent parents of both genders" - now you are beginning to understand what this is about. That it concerns protecting children irrespective of the gender of the abusive parent.
And - "single mother activists, rather than working collaboratively with the fathers (groups) that children are being put at continuing risk of abuse". But your earlier arguments have been that single mother activists have pressed for this proposed legislation (which is to protect children) so how can they be putting children at continuing risk?. I have tried working with FR groups but unfortunately their obsessiveness with male supremacism impedes their rational and reasoned thought processes and as their title clearly indicates, they are concerned with their own rights and interests and not those of their children.
And yes, they do like to spit their dummies and throw their toys out of their cots, as many postings from them here clearly demonstrate.
Shared Parenting/Care (as promoted by the Sharia Parenting Council) has been clearly shown to be disastrous for children.
"Infants struggle in shared care while rigid, shared parenting puts school aged children at risk. Children aged under four and school aged children could be put at risk developmentally through shared parenting arrangements following separation, two new La Trobe University/Family Transitions reports show.
Commissioned by the AG, the findings are the latest in a series of reports into the impacts on children of divorce. The implications of the findings show that greater thought needs to be taken by courts and mediators about parenting arrangements, particularly of very young children The findings show conclusively that rigid arrangements of any kind, often fuelled by acrimony and poor cooperation, and set out in court orders, are associated with higher depressive and anxiety symptoms in children and this form of living became something children often sought to change".
As for fighting dirty, when you have to wrestle with greasy pigs, you've got to get down in the dirt with them. No one wins, but the pigs enjoy it.

happy:"when these types of results are presented, father’s rights campaigners attack the credibility of the researchers claiming that they are “biased”."

Actually, I didn't claim that at all. I said that poor old Thea's effort is incomplete, inadequate and obsolete, while the Canadian (oh dear) report you referenced is not applicable because the Canadian legal framework and definitional underpinnings are too different to the australian one.

I backed up my view with evidence from both the reports themselves and contrasted them with a genuinely credible report from the Medical Journal of Australia.

OTOH, you've done little but hurl abuse. As I keep pointing out to you, repeating the same incorrect and incredible misinformation that has already been shown to be inadequate doesn't strengthen you case.

I asked you prior to my own reply if that was all you have. You disn't respond, so presumably you think the guff you linked to is the bees knees. I disagree, but it still supports my own case rather better than your own.

Perhaps you should stick to watching ACA or something of that nature. It's clear that evaluation of research is simply outside your skill set.

Antiseptic - and your own acidic, misguided, and proctalgic sarcasm doesn't count as abusive then?. But then, you would not be able to see that from your lofty perch. You and Benk and RObert in the Sharia Parenting Council are really struggling for arguments to oppose legislation specifically designed to protect children from abuse and exploitation, so instead you merely try to turn the debate into a (poorly argued) academic grubfest.
So far your only arguments against the proposed legislation is that it is unkind and prejudiced against us `Poor victimised Dads'. Poor you!. Try to put children's needs before your own for a change, or is that just too hard.?.

Chaz your reading comprehension and or honesty is clearly lacking.

We've pointed out that during the period that the shared care changes have been in place there has been an overall drop in substantiated child abuse in Australia (not necessarily because of those changes). The rate of substantiated child abuse occurring in male lead single parent homes has not increased despite more children living in those homes. Eg there is no real indication that more children are being placed with abusive parents than happened under the old maternal bias system.

It's been pointed out that much of the material available suggests that for most kid's ongoing conflict between parents is one of the big factors yet the mothers want's advocates are pushing for yet more conflict.

We've tried to engage in discussions on how the proposed changes could have adequate safeguards put in place to prevent abuse by false claims but the mothers want's advocates have refused to engage in that in any way other than dismissing any need for them.
Some suggestions on that front
- changes in parent/child contact put in place while allegations are investigated should not have any impact on long term outcomes if the allegations are not substantiated
- the acussed should still have access to the things he or she needs to carry on with life and defend themselves against the allegations (access to somewhere to live, clothes, tool's of trade, finances etc etc).
- those involved in the investigation/reporting process be carefully screened to ensure that they are capable and willing to do so impartially and without gender bias.

Kid's should as far as possible be protected from abusive parents but they should also be protected from those who would use them to get back at ex's or for personal gain. They should also be protected from government run programs likely to maximise ongoing conflict. What the mothers want's advocates are pushing for ignores many of the abuses occurring against children.

R0bert

The Medical Journal of Australia report

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/190_01_050109/nie10592_fm.html#0_i1092653

says that child homicide is committed by the natural parent in about 44% of cases. It says that in the period 1991-2995 there were 151 offenders identified, of whom 100 were male and 51 were female. Almost all the females, or about 30% of the total number of offenders were the child's mother. That means that less than 20% of offenders were the child's biological father, while around 50% were unrelated males, most often associated with the mother.

The fact is that creating a situation post-separation in which the parents are in conflict is bound to produce more child deaths, if that is your metric of choice. It exposes children to greater risk of "psychotic" (women have to be seen as mad, not bad) mothers if the father is not around to offer protection. It exposes them to greater risk of "retaliatory" parents prepared to kill to hurt the other parent. It exposes them to much greater risk of abuse and neglect leading to death in some cases.

The best outcome is for parents to share care as the children see fit. My kids are free to spend time with either parent as they wish, which works out well because it allows them space to sort out the usual teen angst, sibling rivalry stuff. Both parents can see if there are problems going on and can intervene as necessary, preferably by talking to the other parent about it.

HO HUM. Same old lack of respect for an opinion. Same old suspects - whatever happened to him by the way?
Patricia Merkin must be castigated because she has an opinion that disagrees with those superior M/R dragoons. Yes anti, that's probably not the right word, so dont quote the dictionary to me - but you lot do drag on and let the blokes down.

Consider this. what if we decided what you all think of as child abuse? What do you lot reckon is OK for a child to 'experience'?
Is it sexual involvement with a parent? Is it being belted? where and how hard, and how often? Dragged by the ear? Sunburned repeatedly? dehydrated? fed rubbish frequently? Locked in a room or cupboard? Pushed so hard to succeed that the child has mental problems, drugs and alcohol exposure? Exposed to people who are frankly unhealthy for the child? Made to go to events that scare them? being left alone?

Re comments about expanding the definitions of DV to include abuse and the suggestion that 100% of husbands had been so abused. I always thought the idea behind the term DV wasn't occassional bouts of bad temper where someone called you an expletive bastard, but where one person was in control and the other was forced to comply or be punished, with increasingly violent strategies to overcome resistance. Fellas, I'm sure there were days when you were 'told' to get to thy shed, but seriously, ever been thrown into a cupboard, forced to sleep outside in winter because you'd said no to sex? My sister was a DV victim. and at no time was she able to 'fight back' or argue without being punished.

I forgot to say - this isn't about the stats - the endless blame around do mothers or fathers hurt their spouses and kids more. it starts with one. any one. cos if you are that one, or its your sister, or your nephew or your child, then it matters.

If only you lot could see that instead of throwing around stats which exclude the one, this one, this situation, then its crap, and irrelevant. As for stats, isn't the change directed to a really small percentage that end up in FC and not shared parenting itself?

So why the drama by you people who seem to have managed to sort out parenting. How many of you were falsely accused....although when you are resisting taking the whole actual DV picture into your minds, you do set up any claim of falsely accused to thorough scrutiny.

Now that's not saying it doesn't happen. It probably does. But the entire criminal system works on the idea of never admitting anything, so it seems false denials are very, very common, as a princile of 'justice' for the actually guilty.

Jackson, "As for stats, isn't the change directed to a really small percentage that end up in FC and not shared parenting itself?"

Some of those supporting these changes have made it really clear that shared parenting is the target. It's also fair to say that the legislative framework impacts on what a lot of people will decide on out of court. If the courts are unlikely to allow grant shared parenting if mum does not want it then people trying to reach residency arrangements outside court are less likely to reach agreement to do it if mum is not keen. She can dig her heals in safe in the knowledge that if a residency dispute goes to court they will probably back her.

The stats do matter because this is being argued that the changes have specifically put kid's in harms way. Possibly correct in some cases but any system involving large numbers of people in conflict will do so in one way or another. What we need to decide is what alternative reduces the risk to the greatest number of kid's and gives us the best options for the rest. Claims of abuse should be investigated but doing so should carry some safeguards to prevent false (or unsubstantiated) claims being used successfully to force certain outcomes - eg patterns of post separation residency and contact being established while the investigation is underway being one of the issues.

We need to find way's to reduce the conflicts involved in this process, not increase them. We need to reduce the personal stakes around residency decisions so that there is more freedom for them to be adjusted over time to suit kid's and parents need's.

The unwillingness of the mothers want's advocates to discuss safeguards makes it clear that they don't want a system that in any way reduces conflict.

R0bert

Chaz:”So far your only arguments against the proposed legislation is that it is unkind and prejudiced against us `Poor victimised Dads'. Poor you!. Try to put children's needs before your own for a change, or is that just too hard.?.”

Hmm… and if they are victimized? Maybe not our OLO men specifically but men in general in Aussie, this is okay and they should just man up and accept it?

Because if they are, if this is happening Chaz then it does have an impact on the children. If a woman is chosen as the primary carer of children as standard in court based on the public’s perception of them that has been augmented towards being unfavorable because of certain agendas then I’m against it. More than against it, I plan to be disgusted by it…but I’m not convinced yet.

Anti can be fully abusive, bless him it’s just his way at times. Hot days I’ve heard make him grumpy. R0bert on the other hand I don’t understand you having a go at in any way at all. Benk has had his moments. Honestly - so what?

How are they supposed to say it or get their message through? There may be less females and less and less as time here goes on and I can see bullying does occur often (it is Accidental Bullying)… again so what? I cannot blame the men for there being more of them with similar opinions than there are females. Vanna should shutup if Benk already left a similar message to a female in reply? That is not fair.

Focusing on the children is about protecting them and we woman do not protect children by conclusions based on personal experiences with men and you can men can flip that and reverse it at will.

JamesH,
The problems with child protection issues and the proposed amendments to the Act are not issues that have been exclusively raised by “single mother activists”. The problems have been raised by a slew of reports from commissioned academics and researchers; these date back to 1995. Single mothers activists cannot collaborate with fathers rights campaigners because the father’s rights agenda caused the child protection crisis in the first place (duh), and single mothers don’t get the public funding that these undeserving “victims” of family law get.
You have assumed that Chaz is operating from a ‘personal experience’ with no actual evidence for that. How would you know what Chaz’s personal experience is? The fact remains that you don’t but merely assume that anyone that disagrees with you must be a single mother. Your assumptions are betraying you.
You painted single mothers as taking “their own personal hatred and antagonism that they have towards their ex partner/s and then are transferring this to apply to all fathers” but recent research indicates that, “Father’s desires to see their children and their availability for contact had a much greater impact on whether contact took place. With mothers reporting twice as many fathers cancelling or not attending planned contact.” ...and “The research findings signal the inadequacy of contemporary family law approaches to post-separation parenting which construct resident mothers as withholders of contact and fathers as the passive victims of biased family law and ‘vengeful’ practices.” McInnes E, AJFL, Vol. 21, 1, pp.34.
It seems to me that the hatred and antagonism is emanating from the father’s rights groups because if they were truly concerned for the state of fatherlessness in Australia, they wouldn’t be addressing it by focussing on changing the law to advantage those accused of abuse in a jurisdiction that is screened for violence before couples can file.

(Con't)
Anyone who does not engage in domestic violence would have no problem with the recognition of ‘power and control’ as the dynamic of DV. To refer to 'power and control’ as a “nasty implication” is like saying that ‘intention’ is a “nasty implication” on the accused rather than an element in the crime of murder.
It seems to me that it’s the father’s rights groups that are the ones acting like little three year olds stamping their feet because they don't get their own way. I base this on the fact that any reasonable adult would agree that in a comparison of rights between fathers accused of abuse in the family court and abused and at-risk children, the adult and mature response is to prioritise the safety of children, not the delicate sensibilities of accused fathers in a court where real, serious and severe child abuse is the core business.

Antiseptic-
"Fifty-one women were responsible, or jointly responsible, for 53 deaths and 100 men were responsible, or jointly responsible, for 106 deaths."
This was from the eMJA report link you posted. What do you make of those stats? Do you seriously believe that this is the basis for changing the FL ACT?

Further, it reported that “The 15 patients who had not received treatment were almost all mothers, over the age of 29, and many were from non-English-speaking backgrounds.”
Do you thus suggest that the Family Law Act be amended so that a presumption is enacted against all mothers over the age of 29 from non-English-speaking backgrounds?

You cannot use your own personal contact arrangement as the basis for family law. Given that the cases arrive after screening for violence, you are in no position to analyse or postulate on FL or any cases in the Family Court on the basis that you talk between yourselves to figure things out. Try doing that with a partner who prefers power and control.

Robert,
You posted- “We need to find way's to reduce the conflicts involved in this process, not increase them.”
That’s not what the Family law Council found. They said that, “There is no greater problem in family law today than the problems of adequately addressing child protection concerns in proceedings under the Family Law Act. Since 2002, the amendments to the Family law Act have done little to address the “this serious [child protection] problem and gap in services.”
Do you propose that you are in a better position than the FLC to analyse the problems in the FC? I don’t think so. Surely you cannot be so self-inflated. Did the FLC find that “reducing conflict” was the most important problem? No.

You posted, “We need to reduce the personal stakes around residency decisions so that there is more freedom for them to be adjusted over time to suit kid's and parents need's.”

Wrong again, the issues are not about “kids and parents needs”. They are about the need to protect children from abuse by a parent because the core business of the Family Court is child abuse. Remember that the issue of child protection was raised again after more children died after they went to the care of a parent after a FC order sent them to the parent that murdered them.

“The unwillingness of the mothers want's advocates to discuss safeguards makes it clear that they don't want a system that in any way reduces conflict.”
True, they instead want a system that focussing on protecting children. By the way, dictators have very effective ways of reducing conflict too.

Happy:“Father’s desires to see their children and their availability for contact had a much greater impact on whether contact took place. With mothers reporting twice as many fathers cancelling or not attending planned contact.”

Cause they are fully woosey. Sorry guys but when faced with the loss of your children and the overwhelming grief and hurt you are coping with I have noticed you men shut down... easier to not front up and cope with it than deal with the pain on the whole.

Happy now happy? It is a closely guarded secret but women fight better when it isn’t a physical competition, we get angrier and nastier and if we believe a man has been mean to us then that man (father or not) best not go near our little ones. Instinct is a hell of thing to challenge in any rationale way. Our children are us; we forget to separate them in protective mode.

Let’s not confuse the core business of family court having anything to do with what is in the best interests of children in this country.

This system is not about protecting children and any mothers group living that fantasy needs to disband based on a new law I would like to introduce if made dictator here where idiots are not allowed to congregate.

Happy, sadly much of the so-called peer reviewed research articles are as honest as political promises.

The vast majority of research (social) conducted in the past, needs to be sent the shreader.

Research is a tool, used correctly it can provide useful insights and is the beginning not an end point.

Often socalled research refuses to look too deeply into what is going on. Often what maybe seen as being apparent, hides what is really going on.

Typically once women stop being the victims the research stops.

One only needs to look at the leading questions to do with DV to realise how biased these things can be, unless that is the bias actually matches your own personal beliefs, biases and prejudices.

The other point is that some researchers rather than improving their research just learn how to hide their advocacy more effectively.

Antiseptic – typically of Father’s Rights proponents using a highly selective and inaccurate extrapolation of data and statistics. The figures in fact refer to NSW and not to the whole of Australia and between 1991 and 2005. Of the 151 child homicide offenders, 69 were committed by a natural parent. There was no data on which parent committed the homicides but as there was a ratio of 2:1 male to female offenders in the overall statistics, then it may be reasonably assumed that the same ratio would apply. i.e. 46 Fathers and 23 mothers committed acts of child homicide.
You notably did not include the findings of the researchers who stated for example, e.g. “Our study confirmed the findings of previous research that most homicide offenders are men...”. and “Some homicide-suicides and retaliatory killings involving children occur without warning, but child welfare agencies and the police should be notified of domestic violence AND OF ANY SPECIFIC THREATS TO THE MOTHER AND CHILDREN.”. Some cases might be prevented by improved arrangements for non-custodial parents.”
Note also should be taken from this Report that 36% of child deaths occurred as a consequence of corporal punishment of children and as FR proponents so often claim that mothers gain custody of children in Family Law cases, it would also be reasonable to assume that many such child deaths by mothers would occur in this way, rather than by retaliatory and vengeful acts, as in the case of fathers. If corporal punishment of children in the home was banned in Australia then the report predicts that many of these child deaths would be prevented, as has occurred in New Zealand and Sweden.
Antiseptic you dared to claim that academic researchers were inaccurate in their data and biased against fathers, but I would suggest it is your own capacity for analysis of data and statistics that is woefully lacking.
“The best outcome is for parents to share care as the children see fit.” – Woo Hoo.!. Well said Antiseptic.

Robet – “We’ve pointed out...etc”. No you haven’t. The Sharia Parenting Council has completely rejected out of hand the proposed legislation!. Ipso Facto the Sharia PC condones Domestic Violence and Child Abuse as they have so clearly admitted in the past.
As you readily admit, any claimed decrease in child abuse `substantiations’ has not been affected by the 2006 Sharia Parenting Act, so why do you constantly repeating it.
There have been no `False’ claims of domestic violence or child abuse in the Family Courts as such Courts have neither the competent expertise nor the resources to investigate such claims by children(Chief Justice Bryant), so how could they possibly have been shown to be `false’, if they have not been competently investigated?. Such claims have failed because of the flaws and failings of the system and at worst are merely ‘Unproven’. This is the major reason why so many protective mothers abscond interstate and overseas to escape the violence and abuse, when their children’s disclosures and complaints are not investigated.
What representative mother’s groups have the Sharia PC tried to engage in discussions with, as you claim?. The protective mother’s groups which I know of met a brick wall when they approached the FR groups and have received far more sympathy and understanding of their evidence and arguments from Lib/Nats MPs than from the Sharia PC.
Kids should also be protected from ex-partners who would use them for continuing abuse and harassment by former partners who are embittered by rejection by their partners and children and merely use the law to evade their financial responsibilities. (620,000 fathers at the last count).
I agree with you entirely that those who investigate children's allegations of abuse and claims of domestic violence should be qualified, trained and LEGALLY MANDATED to do so. Not the hack 'Hired Gun' psychiatrists ($11,000 per report)who postulate on such matters despite those matters being outside their range of expertise.

ChapZ <– typically of Father’s Rights proponents using a highly selective and inaccurate extrapolation of data and statistics>

That is the definitely the pot calling the kettle black!

But then I guess you haven't bothered with manufacturing research and perception are not facts.

What about Dammed Lies, Statistics and Lenore Weitzman.

Or the fact that our own ABS staff raised a number of concerns about the research methods to do with the first advocacy research on womens safety.

happy:"the father’s rights agenda caused the child protection crisis in the first place "

Oh this ought to be good. Do enlighten us with your "cedible sources" for this rather startling piece of new research, won't you?

happy:"The problems have been raised by a slew of reports from commissioned academics and researchers; these date back to 1995."

And the ones that actually examone the subject impartially and fully, such as the MJA and the WA child protection studies, show that fathers being involved in their children;s lives as much as possible after separation is the most protective thing to do for children. Until very recently, most police forces didn't even record whether a perpetrator was the child's natural or defacto father, meaning that there was no way to disentangle the stats. As more complete data becomes available it has become clear that fathers are NOT the ones doing the violence. That myth beloved of Maternal Rights activists is simply not true. Instead it is mothers who can't cope alone or the boyfriends they bring home and the drugs they use that are the real problems.

You don't really care about kids getting hurt though, do you? It's really all about Mum being able to "make the bastard pay", isn't it.

The only "research" to disagree is advocacy stuff and isn't worth the paper it's written on. At its worst, such as the stuff coming from the Bagshaw factory, it's simply dishonest, making use of selectedly limited surveys or self-selected "studies" of women who claim to be abuse victims, from which they then try to extrapolate to recommendations about the behaviour of perpetrators.
Your quote from McInnes is typical:"With mothers reporting..." and then goes on to make a claim about fathers. I reject such gynocentrism as self-serving and a waste of time and money. Actually, that pretty well sums up McInnes et al generally.

Erin Pizzey made clear the sort of thing these women do and it wasn't very flattering. Liz45, ChazP would be classics of the type Pizzey described.

happy:"Given that the cases arrive after screening for violence, you are in no position to analyse or postulate on FL or any cases in the Family Court on the basis that you talk between yourselves to figure things out. Try doing that with a partner who prefers power and control."

Patricia, I can't talk to my ex - she simply won't respond. it's her version of "power and control", otherwise known as "passive-aggression". She won't even respond to emails or text messages and I won't talk to her in person without witnesses present because she has a history of trying to seek spurious DVOs.

I'm about to take her to Court for the first time ever (everything else was initiated by her until the Legal Aid ran out - more "power and control" stuff) because my children missed 30 days each of school last year while in her care. Why? Because she, in her neurosis, decided that they needed "counselling", so she took them from school each Friday morning for a whole semester. No one else thinks they need counselling; not the schools, not the kids (my daughter said "I didn't know I needed it until I went"), not other relatives, not even the counsellor I suspect.

I wasn't consulted and I wasn't even informed. I only found out because the kids told me. She wanted "power and control" you see and if I criticise the decision that would be "abuse".

Wake up to yourself, Patricia. You're not unintelligent, but you're very misguided. Unfortunately, I suspect an excess of feminist ideology and a lack of critical analysis, which is a toxic mix at the best of times.

so no one is interested in discussing defining the real issues - and you want to maintain the lie that most women lie about violence, the court believes they lie, yet they walk away with the booty of a bloke's hard-earned capital, and the kids. To make them pay.

Nothing could be further from the truth for far too many if my sister is any example.

Perhaps if you could think about the ones like my sister and her son, her husband a giant of a man, her a tiny light-framed woman, think about how we felt seeing her lying in that hospital bed, battered and broken, the boy with a perforated ear drum,and bruises but both too afraid to say what he had done to them until much later. Too late for police action, too late for evidence collecting, too scared to try to get an AVO. Since she didn't identify him (present and looming) on admission, any version corrected later in safety shows she is a liar. (because she couldn't and didn't say 'He bashed us and kicked us') Well, that's what the court found - she's the liar. Now they have shared parenting - under threat she'd lose him all together if she didn't agree. He breaks the orders all the time, hasn't stopped abusing and threatening, the kid is a nervous wreck, but mum isn't allowed to get him any help because Dad wont give permission. Her lawyers will not contravene him, because she ultimately had to agree to shared care - which negates the only 'recorded damage' and the boy's word doesn't count, if he was brave enough to say anything. He's nearly ten. My nephew has become sullen, a loner at school, self-harming, aggressive and is constantly told by his father it's his mothers fault and her family.

When we bury him, due to suicide, drugs, or whatever, will he count as a Family Court death?

Jackson it sounds like your sister's story is a bad one but it's not reasonable to extrapolate from that as you appear to be doing to misrepresent what we are saying or to assume the the reverse is the case. One of the problems is that the mothers wants advocates have been so determined to pretend that new or no women would lie about those issues, to pretend that violence is always about men controlling women that it's become the case of the boy who cried wolf.

Rather than working to put any safeguards in place they claim that there is no need, claims of abuse get either lied about or overstated so frequently that anybody not actively promoting the women first agenda's begin to get skeptical about the whole thing.

There are a number of way's claims can be false, outright lies, exaggerations and one sided representations (leaving out one side of the story).

Just because the Happy, Chaz and others insist on miss representing what we are saying does not make it necessary for you to believe them. I'm certainly not against proper investigation of abuse allegations, what I do want is some safeguards in place to prevent an allegation having long term impacts on the accused if the allegation is not substantiated.

I'd also like to see way's of reducing the triggers for additional conflict in the process and reducing the personal stakes involved in child residency as far as practical. What in that do you oppose?

R0bert

I do find these stories of "no one believed me" when there is evidence of injury very hard to credit. My experience is that the mere allegation of violence was enough for 7 months of interim orders keeping me from contact with my kids. I know that there were no allegations of physical violence of any kind in the allegations, because there never was any kind of physical violence, merely mutual arguments. So I know that courts take such allegations very seriously, on the precautionary principle.

What concerns me is how to catch the genuine cases without unfairly prejudicing the parents who may be subject to malicious or simply mistaken false allegations.

Patricia's suggestion of an inquisatorial court doesn't sit too well with our judicial system as far as I can see, although it may have something to recommend it. The ICL/Famliy report system is meant to be addressing a lot of that and seems to be fairly successful from what I can tell.

I think that what is needed is a lot less hysteria around the subject. The constant efforts to whip up an emotional frenzy don't assist in making clear decisions about the best way to proceed.

Jacksun – your sister’s case is very typical of many dozens of such cases across Australia and which come before the Family Courts. (One in three women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime). The FR mob want to play this down of course and have convinced the Courts and those associated with Court proceedings that it isn’t happening. That is why your sister was not believed. When it comes to the Family Courts the Courts don’t have the expertise or the resources to investigate such happenings as in your sister’s case, so her allegations are dismissed. This is what is happening in the Family Courts every week across Australia and why this legislation is so urgently and desperately necessary.
Yes, as you say, children are suffering all kinds of horrors from such events like your nephew and will grow up with severe personality damage (but of course according to the FR mob will still need his ‘Loving Dad’ because single mums cause most child abuse.
No, your nephew’s word will not count because again the FR mob have convinced everyone that children lie and are coached by their mothers into being alienated from the `Loving Dads’ . So rarely will the Court Reporter or `Expert’ psychiatrist actually talk with your nephew to obtain his views or maybe at best give him a 15 minute chat about how he’s going at school. The CR will then tell the Court that he needs to see his `Loving Dad’ and if Mum doesn’t agree or refuses to cooperate, then your nephew should be removed from her and put in the care of his `Loving Dad’.
That is the typical daily scenario in the Family Courts of Australia with many cases less serious than your sister’s but a great many far far worse. Even paedophiles and child sex molesters have been given custody and contact with children by Family Courts.
It is these cruel and brutal `Loving Dads' who the FR mob are defending and are trying to stop the legislation.

Jacksun – Don’t be put off by Antiseptic’s complete inability to cope with anything with an emotional content or his passive-aggressive sarcasm. Express your feelings freely and let them guide your thought processes – that is normal. It is abnormal to repress your feelings in the ways Antiseptic tries to impose. His children obviously do need very considerable counselling as does his ex for her PTSD. If the counsellor considered it unnecessary then s/he would have stopped it long ago, especially as it was taking them away from studies. His children have of course to tell Antiseptic what he wants to hear so his version of their statements can be taken with a very large pinch of salt. And Judges don’t stop contact for six months unless the allegations were very serious. In fact his “no one believed me” sarcasm is a projection of himself, that he must always be believed because of course he always believes he is right (except when he can’t even analyse statistics and data in research and has paranoid obsessions with RadFems under his bed).
Keep your comments and statements full of emotions Jacksun and let Antiseptic and the world know how it feels to be physically, emotionally, and mentally beaten down and constantly oppressed and tormented. Its Antiseptic’s problem and that of many in the FR groups, that they can’t cope with emotions, and not yours.

From The Planned Destruction of the Family, by Erin Pizzey

http://fathersforlife.org/pizzey/planned_destruction_of_family.htm :

"Because men looked upon the refuge movement as a 'woman's issue', newspapers sent women journalists to attack me. I addressed a conference of radical feminists and asked them why, when I respected their right to practice their politics and define their own sexuality they denied me my rights to my heterosexuality, my right to live and work to preserve family life and to enjoy being at home with my family. That I think being a mother and a grandmother has given me more joy than any other achievement. I was screamed down and met with utter hostility.

When I published 'Prone to Violence', a book about my work with violent women and the children in the refuge, I was picketed by hundreds of banner-waving women. 'All men are bastards!' read some of the banners. 'All men are rapists!' shrieked another. 'If those banners said Jews or black people, you would have arrested those women,' I told the policeman who had come to say that I had to have a police escort all around England for the book tour. "

Now off you toddle dear, I'm sure your grrlfriends down at the coven are wondering where you've got to.

Well, it seems some of you have some idea what real violence is like, it's secret nature,the criminal systems failings, the family court's determination to let dangerous dad have his share no matter how it continues the threat and abuse. I have a mate who is a police gay and lesbian liaison officer. Yep, he's gay. A good bloke who likes football,cricket, meat pies and a beer. he tells me that the rate of violence amongst gay men is really high, but higher where an allegedly heterosexual man is caught in a delicate situation, and decides to bash his way out of it. Kids are often present. He doesn't personally see so many lesbian women, but the female officer who does says the violence there can also be bloody, but the general way it is done isn't so vicious. Not all of course - there are exceptions irrespective of gender.

Antiseptic. Quoting Prizzy - one woman whose ideas were laughed at and scorned by women in the refuge movement that allowed women to have somewhere to go (not enough - my sister couldn't get into one) is not counterpoint. Why not quote Sue Price or Bettina Ardnt - they are equally held up to ridicule for good reason, because they throw out the baby with the bathwater as you seem to want to do, in order that the risk of a low-level abuser isn't punished. If you are at all interested in those near the edge of physical danger, read some Barry Goldstein and Mo Hannah or Lundy Bancroft. Frankly, your 'I find it hard to believe' awareness of what really goes on, unhelpful as i imagine anyone trying top identify the real issues - safety for kids (and their other parent/family if there is one)would also do. You seem well read - read something that speaks to the reality for my nephew.

So anti can be precluded from seeing his kids because he is presumed to be a danger to them in the absence of evidence, And Jacksum claims that overt physical harm requiring hospital treatment went without anybody commenting, despite the fact that for years, all hospital staff are liable if they do not report even "suspected" instances of violence, even when the patient denies such?

Someone in the family violence reporting section somewhere is criminally negligent in Jacksums case, at the very least.

Go to it Jacksum. There *will* be a paper trail.

Duty of care is a big thing these days.

Rusty

Thanks Rusty, but its too late, nephew damaged mentally. Sis was too scared at the hospital. Finally had the guts to report, she'd changed her story, therefore couldn't be believed, although apparently her reaction is common. Emergency treated it as accident, she was admitted and operated on. You have to report at the time, no matter why she couldn't, she has lost credibility with the criminal system. It was 'just assault' -after six months, too late to backtrack according to police. Wonder how awake the emergency staff were, but police were never called.
when she went for the AVO, the assault was irrelevent - AVO is about fear of violence in the future, not the past.

He's so cagey - tried to run them off the road twice,much more - family always on high alert, but police wont do anything because it's her word. the boy can't give evidence against the father, he just has to go back there and say nothing. he just has no faith in adults.

Her f/c solicitor didn't warn her what lay ahead, so no idea she'd be seen as the bad parent because she spoke honestly of the violence and her fears for the boy. $100,000 later she had to agree to shared care or her own solicitor said she'd lose all contact. There's no more money to fight, she cant get him help, and the legal aid solicitor is hopeless. That poor kid - he has no voice, no support. I think the father may be a psychopath, because he just has no sense of what he is doing, except beating up on them for leaving. She was threatened by DOCS to leave or they'd take the boy, but where were they in Family Court - the supoened records were incomplete but no one cared. I had no idea this sort of thing happened, until it happened to us. I'm watching my sister get sicker and sicker from trauma and fear for my nephew I guess - it doesn't stop. Her business is suffering. What can I do?

Just read your last couple of posts Jacksun and not followed others posts.

How old is your nephew?

I may be able to offer some tips from long term experience.

I have read all of your posts Jacksun, your nephew is ten years old which is a positive in this situation for a number of reasons.

Send Graham this part of the thread and ask him to release my email address for you to contact me prior to Christmas.

I know the tracks on this one [well].

Your nephew will be okay around his father if you follow the strategies on offer.

Be strong and contact me.

Jacksun - there seems to be little doubt that your ex-brother-in-law has Sociopathic Personality Disorder which is common among those who use violence on others. Lack of emotions, feelings, and empathy are significant elements in their personality and are usually accompanied by narcisissism and a complete lack of self-awareness. The more intelligent sociopaths tend not to use physical violence but instead resort to mental cruelty and cunning manipulation. They can never admit blame or responsibility or faults in themselves or that they can ever be wrong. You may wish to examine some of the previous submissions in this thread to see examples.
Here is some information concerning domestic violence and some of the protective measures which victims can take.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10PYNKYxThg&feature=related

It is the sociopaths who tend to be evident in `high-conflict' Family Law cases and their cunning and manipulation and even grooming of the professionals involved is clearly apparent. Power and control over others is the central feature in their lives and if denied this or thwarted from such goals, this is when they become physically and/or mentally aggressive. (including passively-aggressive). There is no treatment of any kind for sociopaths but often they bring about their own downfall in a number of ways.

I dont know who Graham is, or why the information about what to do cant be given here please?

My sister is terrified if we make waves she'll be punished again by the court so i am reluctant to give names etc. I don't know how he can ever be 'ok' with his dad who is a nasty bully, always putting him down, always denigrating the mother and the boy for when he says he misses her, and in his desire to get my sister to go back to him, he's prepared to frighten the boy if he is with her. So my nephew is getting more and more self-destructive and angry.

I dont know who we are unique is but thank you for your ideas. I don't really understand what you are suggesting.
ChazP that's frightening, that they can't change.

What brings them undone?

Chaz you are probably right about Jackson's ex-brother in law but in the context of the broader discussions it's all pretty close to the sorts of behaviors that Antiseptic, benk, myself and others have been trying to highlight as part of the problem where accusations are allowed to have weight regardless of substantiation.

How much fun do you think it is for a male accused of DV by someone with those trait's given the way perceptions about gender are entrenched?

It's easy to see what a nightmare it is for Jackson's sister, nephew and others close to them. Do you find it so difficult to comprehend that some of the time the person with those behaviors will be female rather than the male? Why the total lack of empathy for males who might be on the receiving end of those behaviors or the silence/rejection when it comes to safeguards against cunning manipulation?

R0bert

Jacksun:"Prizzy - one woman whose ideas were laughed at and scorned by women in the refuge movement "

She STARTED the refuge movement, you silly sausage. It was coopted by Feminist women, including lots of lesbian women as a political vehicle. Pizzey fell out with these women because they wanted to tell lies about what she was seeing with her own eyes.

It seems some women still like liars over honest brokers. You mentioned Barry Goldstein, well big Baz is in just a tiny spot of trouble with the New York Judiciary, it seems.

In fact, he was disbarred and banned from practise for 5 years for misconduct including telling lies to the Court

"The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department imposed a staggering five-year suspension of Goldstein in large part for his conduct in the Shockome case. The Court called numerous statements Goldstein made concerning the Shockome case “dishonest, false, or misleading.” The Court also criticized Goldstein for misuse of funds in another case he handled.

Regarding the Shockome case, the Court criticized what it called the “pervasive nature of [Goldstein's] deceptive conduct”–conduct which it said included “false accusations” about the case and “noncompliance with multiple court orders.” The Court wrote:

On behalf of his client [Genia Shockome], he prepared and filed with this Court a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a petition in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. These materials contained sworn statements which were dishonest, false, or misleading."

Oh dear, poor Barry. So much for credibility, eh?

You mentioned Mo Hannah; well Mo is nothing but an advocate, I'm afraid, being a long-term member of NOW and being involved in several groups advocating for single mothers. What she writes is opinion, not fact and is based on her political motivation to achieve a biased Family Court system.

As for Lundy Bancroft, this quote sums him up:"the abusive parent tends to be the father while the protective parent is usually the mother, because most perpetrators of domestic violence and of child sexual abuse are male."

Oh dear...muddled at best.

To continue from above, the genuine statistics show that mothers commit much more abuse and neglect than fathers do. In fact, the only category of child abuse in which fathers feature more is sexual abuse and that is a very tiny proportion indeed, despite the hysteria whipped up by the victimologists. The reality is that the "protective mother" is very often the "woman scorned" and she is not a nice person. Just ask Shakespeare.

I'm sure there are cases like the "nephew" you claim, buit they are a very, very tiny minority and they are assiduously looked for by the courts. Your reference to Goldstein and Hannah suggests you are involved in the Mother's Rights movement or academic Feminism to some extent, since these are not household names outside organised Feminist circles. What is your interest?

I am still very skeprtical of your claim that the court was uninterested in a case in which there is a clear physical trail. What did your "sister" say had happened to her when she attended hospital if it wasn't due to an act of violence? It must have been a hell of a story if the court continued to believe it after she changed her mind.

My experience in the courts, both the Family Court and Magistrate's Court. as well as with the Police DVLOs is that they don't behave the way you claim. A mere accusation of shouting was enough for me to prevented from seeing my kids for months.

I will add my voice to the others offering sympathy for your "sister's" situation if you can convince me it's not a fabrication. You've given yourself a handicap with the reference to Goldstein and the other advocacy stuff along with the rejection of the impartial stuff from MJA and so on, it should be pointed out.

I reckon it's beyond you to prove the truth of a falsehood.

Anti:”To continue from above, the genuine statistics show that mothers commit much more abuse and neglect than fathers do.”

Genuine statistics is a weird phrase. From what James said about stats and the link given they are all complete rubbish anyway.

With the women having the greater numbers of children in their custody we can just assume that the only reason men aren’t equally represented in child abuse stats is because the opportunity to abuse children isn’t presented to them as often in our society.

So if we decide we’re all equal and want court to treat the genders equally we have to also say we are all equally capable of abusing children as not.

Or are you saying we aren’t equal and because of the stats you have looked at you have decided that if fathers got equal or more custody then less children will be abused in future?

How come men are working mines, why aren’t more running day care facilities and becoming caseworkers, why are the services for children completely dominated by females? It looks to me like they aren’t that interested in children.

Antiseptic-
I am not mis-guided; I am analytical- I’m also experienced. I have experienced first-hand the way my own father broke my mother’s front teeth in front of me, his 4 year-old daughter at the time, and then proceeded to trumpet to everyone who would listen far and wide, at how she was “violent” when she had enough of being bashed by him one day and defended herself with her shoe to stop his next bashing. She was tiny next to him and was sick of his abuse. My siblings and I were sick of his abuse.

He then proceeded to make all the noises I hear now from father’s rights advocates.

He said that he was a victim of the FC because they didn’t give him what he wanted- custody of my very young 4 year old brother and ongoing contact with him.

He said my brother needed a father role-model with no thought to his actual violent modelling before my mother fled.

He said my mother “poisoned” us against him when we didn’t want to see him anymore- but didn’t put 2 and 2 together that HIS own behaviour before and after separation was the cause of our reluctance to see him. My mother still sent us to for contact but we (my other siblings) found him just as abusive without my mother there!

He said my mother made up all the accounts of violence- but I witnessed it on more occasions than I care to remember.

He said he was a “good father” but his abuse outweighed the good times.

He said fathers were victimised in the FC, but he provided the material that eventually led to a no contact order.

In other words, he “whipped up emotional frenzies” about his own version of what happened.

He is the poster boy for father’s so-called rights today.

Don't give me your rhetoric that fathers need "safeguards"- it doesn't fly.

(Con't)
If my father went to the FC today, he would have custody of us all, and my mother would be branded as a liar and mentally ill.
I would be branded as having been brainwashed by my mother and suffering from Parental Alienation because my mother raised allegations of child abuse and DV.

BUT, that is not my sole basis for taking the stand that I do- a stand you persist in characterizing as a character flaw on my part, accusing me of lies, distortion and “misguided” feminist ideology.
THAT is the evidence that the research and literature has consistently pointed out.

However, my experiences have also enabled me to pick the dodgy accounts of DV from ten paces. I KNOW the difference between the made up allegations from both men and women, and I have done and continue to do the hard yards in academic training, research and critical analysis. I am not fooled by my own experiences nor by the ranting of mostly men and some women who are the primary aggressors.

The problem with FL today is not the suffering of falsely accused fathers- It is the suffering of their victims, the women and children that have tried to escape abusive fathers and partners. It is also the suffering of protective fathers that find no help from the father's rights groups either. The system is so skewed towards protecting the accused father that actual abusive mothers also end up with the kids.
http://www.parentsformeganslaw.org/newscategories/newsArticles/General/SHAME_ON_YOU/JUSTICE_SYSTEM/COURTS_DON_T_TAKE_CHILD_POR

(Con’t)
Your own experience that “the mere allegation of violence was enough for 7 months of interim orders keeping me from contact with my kids” is not believable today’s FC. If this happened to you 30 years ago you may some basis but not since 1995.
You claim as the accused that “there were no allegations of physical violence of any kind in the allegations” is not the basis for innocence on your part- my father said the same.
You claim that there “never was any kind of physical violence, merely mutual arguments.” How convenient, but verbal abuse is psychologically more damaging than physical abuse. My father also claimed that he and my mother merely “argued.” Your posture, like my father’s, is that of minimising and denying your abuse because you ostensibly did not hit? That makes you a very poor and reliable standard for analysing the problems in the Family Court.

I have not had an excess of feminist ideology, you merely denigrate me personally with this accusation because it’s what you have revealed yourself to do- the verbal personal attack. Quote- “Wake up to yourself, Patricia. You're not unintelligent, but you're very misguided. Unfortunately, I suspect an excess of feminist ideology and a lack of critical analysis, which is a toxic mix at the best of times.”

I am a woman whom you do not know and have no personal connection with, yet because I don't agree with you, you have attacked me personally and put me down, denigrated me, and insulted me. If you are prepared to do this to me whom you do not know, what did you do to others that were?

I completely agree with you Happy when you say, "..because I don't agree with you, you have attacked me personally and put me down, denigrated me, and insulted me. If you are prepared to do this to me whom you do not know, what did you do to others that were?". There is a very different story to be told by Antiseptic's ex thats for sure. If Antiseptic dared to put up the reference pseudonyms on Auslii then we could all get a more accurate picture.
He clings to those child abuse statistics like a drunken man clings to a lamp-post, for support rather than enlightenment. He's already shown himself to be less than adequate in critically analysing statistics and data and doesn't have the wherewithal to analyse statistics and data, simply beating on about his stats being right, and everyone else's being wrong. When the reverse is true. And there is obviously a very deep misogynistic streak with his paranoid obsession with RadFems. I do hope his ex has regained some of her sanity after she rejected him, and that his children aren't too disturbed by their experiences and are benefitting from their much needed counselling.

Jacksun - " I don't really understand what you are suggesting. ChazP that's frightening, that they can't change. What brings them undone?". Sociopaths/psychopaths have permanent neurological malfunctions which result in frequent episodes of psychotic behaviours. Sociopaths/psychopaths are estimated by psychiatrists to represent 3-6% of the male population, whilst such disorder is rarely present in females. (Note the similarity in the percentage of fathers who apply for custody/contact in high conflict situations!). It is genetically determined and incurable and does not respond to any known form of psychiatric treatment.i.e. surgery, medication, or talk therapy. Until about 50 years ago they were usually locked up in mental insitutions but because they are untreatable and were occupying hospital beds, psychiatrists argued for their release into the community and for them to be subject to due process of law if they offended. Of course they have devised very clever means of evading being caught in criminal activities and inflict their violence where they can be least detectable. They are also very highly skilled at `Grooming' professionals such as lawyers, Family Reporters etc and manipulating them to achieve their ends. They can take a small grain of truth and twist it into a treatise of argument and of course they are never wrong, or to blame, or at fault (from their own twisted perspective). Sociopathy/psychopathy can be seen on a continuum with minor violent offenders (cruelty to animals) at one end, and serial killers at the other. Your sister's ex would appear to be towards the severe end of the scale. Because they do not have emotions and feelings they tend to place themselves in dangerous situations, e.g.fast and reckless driving, violent confrontations on the streets with other violent men, severe drug/alcohol addictions which may lead to early death, numerous sexual partners some who have severe STDs such as HIV/Aids etc etc. If they are finally neutralised and lose their power and control, they frequently kill themselves and this is why so many fathers who are barred from contact with their children and ex-partner commit suicide. Their power and control has gone.

happy:"If this happened to you 30 years ago you may some basis but not since 1995."

It happened in 2004 and it was the Magistrates Court, since the Family Court defers to the Magistrates' Court in such matters.

Perhaps your information is Canadian (oh dear) in origin?

happy:"because I don't agree with you, you have attacked me personally and put me down, denigrated me, and insulted me"

Actually, it's your views and the way they are arrived at that of which I've been quite rightly critical, as well as your lack of "inclination" to read quite straightforward reports that disagree with that POV.

I've been quite complimentary of you personally. I even called you intelligent. I'm prepared to acknowledge my mistake. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

ChazP:"I hate that antiseptic cos he's a man and he's horrid"

Yes dear, we know. Surely you should be down at the beach making sure there are no perverts lurking around the change rooms or whatever it is you do to fill your holiday? Just trun up in a bikini - that should do the trick.

Happy has at least revealed to us what drives her obsessive and dangerous need to attack man and undermine any concept of fair treatment for fathers in family law.

"Don't give me your rhetoric that fathers need "safeguards"- it doesn't fly." - at least we know why it does not fly with you.

Happy you might consider that all men are not your father, you have let your own history override any sense of decency and balance because of the scaring from your own life.

R0bert

Antiseptic. I dont give a rats whether you believe me or not. I see that anything that doesn't fit the model of your own limited but ever-so important experience, must be trivialised. ChazP could be right about a little narcissim there. As for the 'sausage'put down, let's not get into a competition there as you sound like a man with small man syndrome, and I am not a fellow sufferer.

I had read very little about the family law, or winning in court until this happened. I have not studied feminism. I read a webguide that was very 'how abusive men should act to win'. I found the references to those people I mentioned from my sister, who was apparently also uninfluenced by your approved reading list. We found so much that mirrored my sister's case that I was excited to get some confirmation that we hadn't landed in some other universe.

The point of engaging in the conversation was to gather useful information and I have done that. I can now see why so many men will fight to stop any law that might call their abuse for what it is. (Anti)no, still Septic - no one believes you were dudded. Your behaviour is like a spotlight which lights up your poor me story with clarity missing from your version.

We will continue to fight for Adam's wellbeing, thanks to those who cared to help

Anti:”It's because many jurisdictions, including all Australia ones as far as I know, have a crime called "infanticide", which is not regarded as seriously as murder. It exists because of the outdated notion that new mothers are not of sound mind and should therefore be excused for killing their child.”

Fair enough, tragic but it must be an unsound mind that does that. Doesn’t sound outdated to me.

I think both men and women that suddenly decide to kill their own offspring must all be mentalcases at the time.

Anti:“The real evidence is that it occurs about equally between men and women, while women form the majority of abusers of children, especially young children who can't fight back.”

Not sure if being able to fight back is where abuse comes from though Anti even if it has the potential to put an abrupt end to it. I know abuse can lead to death but it seems a very different beast from murder, or anything ending in “…side”.

R0bert:”… you have let your own history override any sense of decency and balance because of the scaring from your own life.”

Is there anyone here that has lead a totally abuse free life from the opposite gender?

Because I think the flight back to their home planet is now boarding...

Jewely:"Fair enough, tragic but it must be an unsound mind that does that. Doesn’t sound outdated to me. "

I agree it must be an unsound mind, but if a father does it, he goes to jail as a murderer for 10 years. If a mother does it, she gets a suspended sentence and lots of therapy. That's why it's outdated in the Brave New Feminist World.

Jewely:"Not sure if being able to fight back is where abuse comes from "

The point is that if a row escalates between a man and a woman the woman often ends up worse off. The same thing between a woman and a child means the child cops it. The weaker protagonist bears the greatest consequence of a physical confrontation.

Cotter/Jacksun, I'm more than happy to acknowledge when I'm wrong, but We Are Unique offered to help and you flatly rejected the offer. Why would someone who claims to want to "fight for Adam" reject an offer of assistance?

Frankly, I reckon your story is about as believable as that of the wino who "just wants a dollar for a feed, mister" then spits in you face when you offer him a hamburger.

On the other hand, my own case has been very well described on many occasions. You're welcome to go back over all my posts if you want a full picture. Feel free.

ChazP:"I hate that antiseptic cos he's a man and he's horrid".Yes dear, we know. Surely you should be down at the beach making sure there are no perverts lurking around the change rooms or whatever it is you do to fill your holiday? Just trun up in a bikini - that should do the trick”..
I don’t hate you Antiseptic, I find you a pathetically sad and bitter person over your rejection and that you’ve never given or received love from your children – they simply comply with your demands as their biological parent.
I just don’t accept you as a worthy opponent in debate and dislike your abusive, dummy spitting comments when you are shown to be WRONG and at FAULT and don’t like it when a mirror is put up to your conduct. I guess I really touched a raw nerve. I spend my holidays with my wonderful hubby, a great father who loves and respects his children, a marvellous lover, and most importantly of all, my very best friend. But rather than go to the beaches here at Noosa, I’d be willing to come round to your shed and put some soothing balm and bandages on your sore hands. Or will you be out lurking round the change rooms.?.
Jacksun is perfectly right to be suspicious of `Greeks bearing gifts’. Wee are Unique sounds like one of those hack Sydney psychiatrists who do far more harm than good. A bit like a snake inviting a mouse over for dinner.
As usual, the FR extremists have turned this debate into a Gender Wars battle, when it should be concerned about the safety and protection of children and victims of domestic violence – but then, their concerns have never been about the children only about maintaining power and control over them and of course to evade child support payments..

Anti:”If a mother does it, she gets a suspended sentence and lots of therapy. That's why it's outdated in the Brave New Feminist World.”

Yeah but more and more people in general seem to walk away (after doing bad things) in different ways. I know a bloke sentenced to twenty years, I don’t think he even served a full two… one of those crimes where you are safer in solitary confinement, but if you spend time there it shaves years off your sentence. This world just does not work well for the innocent Anti.

Anti:”...The weaker protagonist bears the greatest consequence of a physical confrontation.”

I had a friend get in lots of trouble in court not because he was the aggressor but he had the something dan (karate?) black belt and the other bloke didn’t. I did have a policemen give me a lecture about fighting... they push you can push back, and if they hit you can hit back in kind (huh?) not break all his windows, every plant pot he owns and kick his balcony apart while he hides in the house after hitting one of your children.

Now kids, yep they are always weaker but the abuse isn’t often extreme and generally parents think they are doing their job same as their own parents did. It isn’t normally a matter of the child being a protagonist – maybe in the parents mind I guess. That would only cover physical abuse then we have all those new definitions. Women who get hit by their partner often lash back at the children – typical cycle in some of our unhappier households.

But help me here… I have dated and lived with men who have gone on to be immediate perpetrators of DV and some of their new partners (chicks I’d lose to in a physical fight). So I don’t believe it is just about size or physical ability, something else is going on as well.

Umm... Chaz? I think you went way too far there, I’d quote it but it was too foul to repeat.

'I am not fooled by my own experiences nor by the ranting of mostly men and some women who are the primary aggressors. '

I think you are fooling yourself.

I suppose it's unavoidable that the 'industry' is full of well meaning people who have a personal interest in helping other people who are in a situation they have been through. But when they kid themselves their attitudes have not been at all skewed by their personal experiences there is a problem.

I'm sure the 'Fathers rights' groups are full of the same sort of people as the White ribbon people and all the other advocates are who commission 'studies' and 'surveys' and interpret them and put out hyperbolic one in 3, 3 in 2 fantastic slogans designed to induce gender-guilt and raise so called 'awareness'.

Well, I'd rather see some more 'awareness' from people about their own bias and some honesty of why they come from the angle they do.

happy,

'I am a woman whom you do not know and have no personal connection with, yet because I don't agree with you, you have attacked me personally and put me down, denigrated me, and insulted me. If you are prepared to do this to me whom you do not know, what did you do to others that were?'

But that's exactly what you're doing to antiseptic. You don't know him and you're deciding based on his manor that he's 'like your father'. In fact it comes across that you are arguing with your father rather than antiseptic.

I find it interesting that people are much more interested in punishing a perpetrator. than actually trying to figure out how too pervent a crime from occuring in the first place.

Punishing someone for a crime that they allegedly committed. For centuries people have been subjected to capital punishment, ie the electric chair or hanging for murder.

The threat of these punishments did not stop these people from committing crimes where they would wind up facing capital punishment.

So anyone with any brains would perhaps look at trying to prevent crimes from occuring, but then to do that would mean looking at ALL the contribuiting factors.

Sure there were factors where someone from the upper class would get off a conviction, when a working class person would be punished.

A catholic might be punished and a protestant would be forgiven.

Scot verses, Irish, verses Taffys, Southerner's and Northerner's. East verses west, League verses Rules, Blondes verses Brunette's. Tall verses short, Highlanders, and lowlanders.

The point is all the above believe that they are right and in the right, and everyone else is wrong.

More importantly is that those who believe strongly that they are in the right WILL not be prepared to listen to alternative points of view, that happen to conflict with their preset ideas.

Labelling any who dare to question or to challange feminist ideology as being misogynists. Hence by doing so makes it much easier to discount and helps to justify behaviour that otherwise would not be acceptable.

I wonder how many of the opposition would have been one of the females who gave white feathers to men, during the second world war. aimed at intimidating men to join the armed services?

I believe many of the women approached the feathering of a male with a great deal of zealotry.

Scapegoating or the scarificial lamb from my understanding in ancient cultures was a method used where for example the villagers could project all their evil demons onto another object or perhaps person. and clear the villagers of their sins.

Thus when they project onto another, one can avoid recognising the exact same traits within themselves. Hence the focus their anger carries all the negative traits that they find unacceptable to recognise within themselves.

Take for example the issue of DV, virtually all the feminist advocacy research women are the victim and men are the perpetrators.

Typically much is made of male perpetrators not taking responsibility for their behaviour, there is a huge propaganda program aimed at convincing us of this, yet at the same time women are told that they are not to blame, not responsible.

This matches the earlier (Victorian) position that women were the weaker gender, which suits the purpose of feminists.

Because being the weaker, disadvantaged, oppressed, gender makes it much easier to deny responsibility for personal choices or the effects of ones own behaviour.

We are often told that women have difficulty expressing anger, yet there is perhaps not a single man in this forum, who has not experienced an angry woman.

James:”We are often told that women have difficulty expressing anger, yet there is perhaps not a single man in this forum, who has not experienced an angry woman.”

Or a woman here who has not been physically attacked by a male it seems.

I’ve decided that the men run feminism, telling women they are victims and made oppressed, subservient and controlled by bullying rage filled monsters.

And the women run the fathers rights groups telling the men they are the victims of maternal gatekeeping, manipulative devious lying shrews.

Maybe we should all go back to our respective covens and caves and decide whether we keep letting them use these fear mongering tactics.

This article about safety for children has been corrupted by people with their own narrow agendas where children are not the focus at all.

James, the women's movement focused on women. They were unlikely to focus on men simply because men are not women. Only in recent years has their focus moved a little to include children. The men's rights people focus on men's rights, to the exclusion of even male children. The argument should be stop abuse and violence of any type by any person.
In order to do that one has to admit that anyone can be a victim and anyone a perpetrator. The types of abuse and violence vary.

And septic, Cotter is my mother, Adam is her grandson. Make of that what you will in your narrow world view. I have watched her try to get sanity into the argument for most of my life - for men, for women, for children.

As for the secret squirrer stuff, if there is help to be had, do it publicly. I am not interested in more self-serving 'help' until someone can explain to me why it's OK for a kid who's going off the rails because of his father's behaviour 'will be ok with his dad. That just is too suss.

Jacksun, I understand that there were men who supported the suffragettes, and initially I supported feminism as did other men.

To concentrate on one gender, is perhaps the incorrect approach, simply because females and males exist as a binary system. We interact with each other and some how muddle through most of the time.

Sure there are separatists that would like women only spaces, and to keep men and women separate from each other which goes way back.

Take for example, ChapZ stayin on message about how 1 in 3 or 4 women will experience violence in their lifetime, there seems to be a silence about how many men experience violence in their lifetime. One problem is that men and women tend to take a different view of the same incident. where men may brush off an incident and some women may regard the same incident as a crime.

The mens rights movement I believe was formed in reaction to the excesses of feminism and feminists, if feminism did not exist, then the mens rights movement would not exist. Feminism began in the 1960's and the mens rights did not start until the 1980's.

Me, I have been subjected to violence from both genders, I have never been kneed in the testicles by a male, but have by a female.

Jacksun:”This article about safety for children has been corrupted by people with their own narrow agendas where children are not the focus at all.”

I always consider it a bloody miracle that CS hasn’t swooped on in and taken the children off both parents whenever FC is in session as they are worth so much money to the not-for-profits – the ones I believe have a bigger impact on the laws regarding children here than anyone else. Child threads don’t go anywhere on OLO unless they morph into an adult concern. And those adult concerns are often about an end result of who should be more likely to get custody of children.

Jack:”As for the secret squirrer stuff, if there is help to be had, do it publicly. I am not interested in more self-serving 'help' until someone can explain to me why it's OK for a kid who's going off the rails because of his father's behaviour 'will be ok with his dad. That just is too suss.”

I thought someone offered you help already? You’d reckon if someone offered help publically they’d be potentially embarrassing you so they asked you to contact them privately.

But oki doki then. Having not been in court I’m wondering if court heard that he was violent towards another adult in the home and not children? No, none of it is okay but how do you mean “off the rails”?

What is his dad doing to your nephew on visits then? When you say “beating up on them for leaving” do you mean by using court?

Jewely:"This world just does not work well for the innocent Anti."

That shouldn't mean we give up on trying to make it work better. The greatest triumph of the Westminster system of Laws is that it holds the protection of the innocent very highly. Centuries of common law have supported the idea that it is better for the guilty to go free than the innocent suffer unjustly.

The hysterical victim-centric agitation over the past couple of decades has not succeeded in creating lynching laws as well as its proponents would like, because the protection of the innocent is such a basic function of jurisprudence.

Jewely:"I don’t believe it is just about size or physical ability, something else is going on as well."

Of course there's lots more than just size involved. It's just that when a larger person has a fight with a smaller one, even if the larger one is the "victim" of an assault by the smaller one, if they retaliate just once it can be catastrophic. My children could hit me all day with no significant chance of doing serious harm, but if I hit either one of them with close to full force they'd be in quite serious trouble.

Most men learn this sort of thing very early, so they don't pick on the big bloke, even if he's pretty easy-going. Telling women this doesn't apply to them is simply asking for trouble. My father was contemptuous of men who allowed themselves to be baited by their wives into violence. My Mum was also contemptuous of the women who couldn't hold their tongue.

Her attitude seems to have been lost in the noise from Feminists.

Jacksun, thanks for clearing up the relationship between you and cotter. I actually asked Graham about you two and suggested you were running a sock puppet. I'm glad to hear that you're not.

Still, I can also see that you're your mother's daughter. Having read some of cotter's more egregious rants it's clear that she doesn't much like men. It's a shame this seems to have become an intergenerational meme in your family. I wonder how much of the problems your nephew is experiencing come from the rather nasty attitudes toward men that exist in his family?

jacksun:"if there is help to be had, do it publicly."

The help was offered by we are unique, who seems to know what she is talking about. If I were in your situation I'd be taking up the offer instead of snapping at the hand that's held out to help.

jacksun:"explain to me why it's OK for a kid who's going off the rails because of his father's behaviour 'will be ok with his dad."

You haven't given any details about what his father's "behaviour" is. does he not take him to school? Fail to adequately clothe and feed him? Fail to provide entertainment and other needful things? Does he beat him or otherwise assault him?

Or does he simply refuse to accept the Feminist-dogmatic worldview that seems to be entrenched in the mother's family? Is he justifiably angry that his formerly loving wife has tried to stitch him up with vile accusations?

You see, I don't think that you're really all that interested in reaching any kind of understanding with this man, you simply want to hurt him.

I don't think that's very admirable at all and it isn't anything to do with your son.

The greatest triumph?? of the (failing world wide) the Westminster system is the get the guilty off scheme, not the protection of the innocents. I think that could be one of the reasons its failing.

It is better that 99 guilty men should go free than one innocent go to jail.

Better for whom? Society? Their victims? The crooks? Their lawyers? Or just the 'innocent' abusers - the people who just can't look in the mirror and see what they are, why cry 'not guilty' when they are absolutely guilty. False deniers.

Again people here play with the law - what is an assault and what isn't. It is writ - go read and comply! As if every little woman a mean man shouts at runs off to the police shouting 'abuse' when they have usually been groomed to obey, to be silent, to blame themselves - anything to try to keep the relationship. Until they realise, then they leave.

If YOU want to know what Jacksun already wrote, septic, YOU read back over the posts. We think he described sufficiently the range of abuse and life threatening behaviour of dear old psycho dad.

Boring - cotter hates men..... only sadistic, cruel, violent ones. You'd be surprised at the number of poor ignorant fool men who eat at my table, laugh and have fun, seek my support, never knowing I apparently obviously hate them, presumably only because they are male, rather than damned decent males. I'm not at all nice to women who abuse - not that you care about that.

Go pull the wings off some more flies and then tell them it's their fault for trying to fly away.

cotter:"We think he described sufficiently the range of abuse and life threatening behaviour of dear old psycho dad."

And even more accurately described the behaviour of bitter, twisted Mum.

Nice of you to call for the introducton of lynching, BTW. A very good demonstration of why the Westminster system has relied on the judgement of "twelve good men and true" instead of "1 hysterical woman".

Reaching understanding with this man? Oh yeah, cos no one's tried that over the past five years! (sarcasm intended) Heck we've done nothing at all like that. Perhaps if we just ask him to understand, he'll turn all soft and cuddly, she can go back to him (again) and all will be just peachy until he decides she's not living up to his expectations, or she stands up for Adam and they'll be back in hospital again and we can play this game again....

We have tried every feasible thing, everything services have suggested, complied with every access, . At the end of the day, the man's behaviour is his choice. And he often chooses really, scarey behaviour. But never in public, never where there is an off duty police officer with a camera. Which suggests this is not an anger management issue.

Twelve good men in a room. Yay, a picnic. and I know its annoying for you pet, but they let women onto juries these days. I'm not bitter at all, and hysterical? Go anti, if you say so it must be true. In your small mind - the land of the flies.

So much for trying understanding. Your poor grandchild seems to be getting used as a pawn. I do hope you're all ashamed of yourselves, but somehow I don''t think that word is a well-understood part of the vocab around those parts.

And yes, they do let women onto juries these days, as they should. They still don't accept the uncorroborated word of one hysterical woman, thankfully. That's the sort of thing that went out with the inquisition.

"String 'em all up and let god sort 'em out" might have been good enough for Judge Roy Bean, but it's not at all acceptable in a modern society, no matter how the lynch mob howls.

Jackson "This article about safety for children has been corrupted by people with their own narrow agendas where children are not the focus at all."

Have a look at Happy's (who is apparently the author) comments at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11331#193542

This piece was never really about safety for children, it's about Happy's unresolved issues over her own father and a desperation by the mothers groups to bring back maternal bias. Nothing has been put forward which gives any reason to believe that the changes will actually make kid's safer (maybe some specific ones at the expense of others).

In my view expanding the power of allegations without putting in safeguards to prevent abuse of the system will make family law a whole lot less safe for all involved including the children. It will increase the level of conflict involved. It pushes people who might otherwise be no risk to anyone to a point of despair where bad choices start to seem like taking a stand. It would be great if everybody was at their best regardless of the provocation or their mental state but that's not how the real world is.

We do need systems where claims of abuse are properly investigated, we do need to ensure that kid's are not placed in (or returned to) the care of someone where there is a genuine risk of that person abusing the child. We also need to ensure that merely making an allegation does not bring benefit to the accuser and harm to the accused if the allegations are not substantiated.

cotter, sometimes letting the guilty go free for the sake of not convicting the innocent does do harm but not nearly the harm that's done when the government stop's paying attention to the presumption of innocence. I doubt that the system work's as well as it should nor do I understand why some ever need to be freed but I'd still prefer what we have to the kind of approach you and Happy seem to take to justice.

R0bert

I wonder how often conflict over parenting styles get turned around and distorted.

In some families, it is the father who is given the role of being the one whose role is to apply discipline. Such setting boundaries.

In a functional relationship both parents support each other, even if they disagree, in a dysfunctional relationship one undermines the other. Nothing better than setting the other parent up to look bad.

Jacksun if you know it all, why bother requesting 'help' as you termed it, a few days ago ie "Can anyone help"?

If your main focus is 'Adam' out of love and profound concern, why bother wasting your time entering into debates with other people who are not focussing on assisting you directly regarding Adam's situation residing with his father in shared custody.

I put myself out there for you, a few days ago, willing to take the time and disclose my identity to a complete stranger on line, to benefit 'Adam'.

You were more concerned about yourself, identity and reputation in your response refusing assistance in your defensive mannerisms.

Best of luck Jacksun in your future endeavours to assist your nephew when you have not;

(a) married a controlling individual for 20 years and further, created a family [children] with the controlling father
(b) you are non objective - your sister married Adam's father. You have your own history with your ex-brother in law ie are non-objective. This will influence your ability to seek factual assistance from experienced parents who have travelled down that road long before the separation of your sister and/ or affect your ability to view your nephew's true situation within the home with his father on his own.

There is a great deal of acting that is involved and emotional blackmail that, once your nephew is aware, makes the road easier to travel in the interim period.

Strategies were on offer to you, for 'Adam's' benefit.

Instead you chose to be suspicious and distrustful, placing yourself before Adam's needs. There were ways around this issue had you been sufficiently intelligent.

You were too selfish [egotistical] to follow up on a kind giving deed on offer from someone in a professional and personal capacity.

All as a result of protecting yourself.

You put YOURSELF before your nephew.

Thank you Antiseptic - believe it or not, I read your posts after posting. What led me to interfere in this thread was solely 'Adam's' happiness and the quotation of the following words 'I am sure your nephew will be okay'. Jacksun, you omitted to conclude the quotation - IF you follow some strategies that are on offer from someone who has travelled down a similar path as your sister and nephew.

Your family appear to have the answers to your situation if all of your comments to others are genuine.

Self serving is the term you used of others, people who have given a great deal to other Australians on OLO and other forums, out of the goodness of their hearts, sacrificing their time and energy.

Of course people are to a degree self serving,yourself included - you benefit, your sister and nephew benefit. Discussing their experiences and interacting with one another is how OLO long term participants learn and grow.

If you found nothing on this thread to assist your nephew, why bother participating?

The main strategy paramount for both your nephew and his father to enjoy their time together are joint hobbies, ie motorcross riding, grandprix visits, fishing and boating trips/weekends, car racing, football, hanggliding, abseiling, flying, Go-Karting, any activities that are able to be enjoyed together keeping them busy and interacting with many other walks of life.

Recognise, acknowledge and congratulate your ex brother in law every time he has put the effort in for his son, paying the utility bills, paying for his clothes, having a mate over of your nephew's for the weekend, taking him to sport. Fathers do sometimes need more recognition for their time and contribution. Many are not mothers with the same bond or make-up. Chromosomes. Many blokes not having experienced love or attention through a happy childhood, later value their marriage and family being all together a great deal more than a person who has enjoyed this part of their life previously.

When this is taken away or the marriage falls apart jointly, most people take years to deal with the break up and at the same time, children are suffering in the interim, while those parents are dealing with the pain and loss of control in their lives.

Keeping Adam's father busy in his little bit of spare time is paramount ie Dad and Son could enjoy swimming of an evening together, cricket at the oval or bike riding. If no-one on either side of the family, or mates of Adam's father, are able to suggest or include both of them in additional activities, life will be hard for both of them.

Hopefully, Adam's father has some mates to include them both in weekend or holiday time sports and activities.

One other point I had forgotten to raise Cotter in your role as Grandmother.

Allow your daughter to strengthen herself during her life journey violence or no violence without family interference. Sure, support, however ultimately your daughter should be making her own decisions to stand up to mental and physical outbursts/violence.

The only way for any adult to stand up on their own two feet to any person inflicting abuse on another is when the victim no longer plays. By running backwards and forwards your daughter has not as yet learned one of her life lessons.

Adam will have two years before he is able to state legally whether he wishes to stay with his father on a 50/50 basis. In the meantime, I suggest your family start acknowledging the positives that Adam's father is performing in his father/parent role, ask Adam to compliment or thank his father for any positive behaviour, encourage his Dad to allow a mate to stay over from time to time, encourage Adam to request his Dad's participation in the aforementioned activities.

I suggest that Adam not inform his father (at all) of any conversations he has had with his mother.

Encourage Adam to express his feelings without family interference, I suggest no commenting about his father, or gathering of information to be used against his father.

If you all continue to interfere with the sole objective to gain full custody of Adam [and his father knowing this], the outcome may well be a great deal more tragic.

Adam is able to notify the school counsellor and Teacher if mental and physical abuse is occurring in the home with his father, along with DOCS or another parent of a mate's.

Adam is able to file a complaint and lay charges through the police of his own accord, if there is sufficient evidence of physical abuse. If this has not occurred this year or recently, leave them alone to build upon their relationship.

R0bert:”We do need systems where claims of abuse are properly investigated, we do need to ensure that kid's are not placed in (or returned to) the care of someone where there is a genuine risk of that person abusing the child. We also need to ensure that merely making an allegation does not bring benefit to the accuser and harm to the accused if the allegations are not substantiated.”

Agreed + we need a system to put the children in (when they cannot be with their families) that is safe. We do not have that here.

AND it should not be of benefit to any organization to retain the child in care or fail at attempts for reunification. We do have a foster system that profits hugely from the family not regaining custody.

How many custody cases between two parents are these laws affecting compared to custody cases where family vs state? In foster care the ngo’s do continue to benefit from a child being harmed by not substantiating any complaints. Families are considered guilty and children removed on the presumption (not proof) of guilt.

So that whole Westminster thingi… it isn’t practiced here far as I can see.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/foster-carer-linked-to-sex-abuse-slipped-past-the-barriers-20101212-18u1w.html
"The Supporters of Carers, as the contractors are known, or SOCs, do not need relevant welfare qualifications. The system presents a financial disincentive to report problems because a SOC's income is dependent on the number of children who are placed - and remain - with carers.
An internal investigation found monthly reports on the man and his wife were "cut-and-paste" copies that used "exact statements, quotes and evidence" about their competence taken from another report. The SOC who recruited the man runs 37 carers and earns $15,000 a fortnight, invoices reveal.

we are unique. jack and I had never heard of you until that first post. others may know who you are from earlier posts on different topics.

Thank you for your considered response. There are some useful ideas in there that may be helpful. I guess it's up to this dad to decide and respond. Sometimes he was great fun, but others, downright frightening. It's the frightening bits that are our concern for him.

Adam does worry about his mum being in the car, since dad tried to run them off the road three months ago. I guess that will pass and probably wont happen again.....but if it does? Building his confidence in his dad may backfire? He already does every possible thing to be the child daddy wants him to be.

I do try to assist my kids to be empowered, decent people. However it can take a very long time for anyone to recognise escalating violence for what it is, rather than 'just bad temper' occasionally.

In my opinion it isn't a parent's job to denigrate, rather it's to nurture, educate, support, and guide. Even being raised by a self-serving feminist, man hater, lych-mob mentality etc etc etc etc as I am frequently accused of being by certain elements here has obviously not 'set up' my daughter to hate men, or her brother, or her father, or try to keep Adam from seeing his dad, but when it isn't safe, she lives in fear.

Should we just ignore those times and hope forthe best?

we are unique, excellent suggestions. Unfortunately, I get the sense that the last thing this family wants is for Adam to look forward to seeing his father.

Jewely, you know I agree with you about the child welfare system. Along with the Family Law industry and the victim-Feminist industry, it has become entirely self-serving and has little focus on achieving resolution of the underlying interpersonal conflicts. These are creations of lazy Governments unwilling to make hard decisions, blown by the winds of media storms. Naturally where such creations exist, unscrupulous individuals move in on the feast and the whole thing slides into the sewer.

On another thread there is a discussion of family and loyalty. The young woman has obviously decided her prime loyalty is to the State above her family. I think she is representative of very, very many young women and some men. I place a great deal of the responsibility for that on the victimologists and parasites that infest so much of the world that families in distress have to exist in, none of whom gain anything if there is no conflict.

One of the major efforts they have made is to get the presumption of innocence overturned and even the onus of proof is under threat. With these protections gone, the trial of anyone accused is more like a lynching - "He had a fair trial: she said he done it so we hanged him".

Jewely most of my exposure to that side of stuff has come from your own posts, I've known a few people who have been involved in foster care over the years. All have cared strongly about kid's but a couple have left the impression that they lacked the skill's to turn anything much around. Very good at accepting attitudes, not so good on dealing with damaging behavior. On the other hand one in particular really took the whole package seriously.

R0bert

No, the last thing this family wants is to identify the bodies and attend the funeral of my daughter, and/or her son due to the foreseeable actions of a violent, nasty man (when he chooses).

I do not know of all this 'push' to overturn the presumption of innocence. If you send me links i'd be interested in reading about this apparently energetic movement.

It's amazing that countries like France have survived with a truth-seeking system. Must be the fault of that well-known feminist, Napoloen Bonaparte?

A presumption of innocence could be accompanied by an obligation to take part in one's defence, rather than engage in the 'hide the truth' No perjury system we have now.

The right to silence was introduced when the old country killed people who killed and one didn't have to incriminate one's self. Since we don't need that now, perhaps that's useless too?

What about provovation, the men's defence 'I killed her because I thought she was unfaithful. Or she criticised my anatomy. Ask Jane Ashton how she feels about overturning that one for Victoria.

Heather osland tried provovation and spent 14 years in jail, after killing Frankie, an absolutely violent man. Actually her son killed him, but he went free. Vagaries of the law? A good solicitor? The law as it is now is an ass. 18 months for manslaughter watching your new bride drown. All seems a bit silly to me.

It doesn't seem logical to me to apparently be a great defender of the system then scream it isn't working, at state or federal level. And decent 'victimology' should be about balance with the rights of the accused.

For the record, more men are victims of violence than women. Often from violence from other men. (and violence by women, and against women, by women, is increasing. ) Are they part of this so called victim revolution? Boney would be laughing at such a slow revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model

"The Duluth Model is based on a strict "violence is patriarchal" model, and assumes that all domestic violence in the home and elsewhere is perpetrated by men on women victims. The model focuses on the men's use of violence in abusive relationships, rather than on the behavior of all parties concerned. This helps the men to focus on changing their personal behavior in order to be nonviolent in any relationship. "

Most Australian police forces use a version of the Duluth model to inform their response to DV. It makes their job easier if they can just arrest the man and not have to bother too much about working out what's happening. Besides, cops don't like tasering women...

A bit more:

"The exclusive focus on males as perpetrators and the rejection of system dynamics models has been criticised from perspectives influenced by psychology, education or remedial therapy. The fields of psychology, psychiatry, and social work all provide for application of skill learning, improved social understanding and practised behavioural mastery to provide for corrected and alternative behaviors. By contrast, the Duluth Model presents only "once an abuser, always an abuser" constructions to this important social problem. FBI crime statistics consistently indicate that 65 to 70% of all child (abuse-related) deaths occur at the hands of their mothers or female caretakers. This very broad and clear example of female initiated violence could moderate any exclusively "anti-patriarchy" model of interpersonal violence."

and:

"The Duluth program is widely used but clear evidence of success is limited. U.S. states are now recording abuse statistics relating to the marital state of both the perpetrator and the victim. In all jurisdictions with reports available, the rate of interpersonal violence for co-habiting couples exceeds that of married couples by margins approaching of ten to one."

R0bert:”… at accepting attitudes, not so good on dealing with damaging behavior. On the other hand one in particular really took the whole package seriously.”

It’s a very quiet industry, with a lot of money being moved around. The first thing a foster parent should do is not assume they are doing anyone, let alone the child, any favours. No foster parent I have met seems to know anything about the system they work in or how it is structured – they don’t seem interested in knowing either.

Knowledge can cause a certain amount of guilt I guess.

The media has helped the public see govt as the bad guy, they absolutely play their part but I don’t see them making the big money.

I know when custody battles go wrong those children come into care. Usually dad is considered violent and mum um... not protective…? I’m sure they used bigger words at the time but from what I see the men and women aren’t going to team up to fix anything for the children and so both are made to suffer. If the children weren’t also suffering I’d smile and walk away.

Anti:”Naturally where such creations exist, unscrupulous individuals move in on the feast and the whole thing slides into the sewer.”
I think Jeremy Sammut described them as bottom feeders and it must be time for another article from him. Jayne over in the dobbing thread; I’ve met two women and one man like her. Not sure that says anything, I don’t get out much. One of the women was a psycho though and her reasons to nark were big high faluting political “good of mankind” ones while the bloke was just bloody annoyed at some other bloke and he happened to work for the govt. department involved.

I suppose at a basic level anyone dobbing in another has judged them guilty already.

'Domestic violence is one of the greatest criminal problems facing the UK, accounting for a quarter of all violent crime (1). It is a pattern of violence that includes physical, psychological and sexual violence.
Crime statistics and research both show that domestic violence is gender specific - i.e. predominantly experienced by women and perpetrated by men (2). Any woman can experience domestic violence regardless of race, ethnicity or religion, class, sexuality, mental or physical ability or lifestyle: 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence at some time in their lives. It is women who suffer the most serious harm, intimidation, threats, rape, strangulation and post-separation violence, and are most likely to be killed by current or former male partners (3).'

1) Macpherson S (2002) 'Domestic Violence: Findings from the 2000 Scottish Crime Survey'; Kershaw C et al (2000) 'The 2000 British Crime Survey England and Wales' Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/00
2) Research findings of 'gender symmetry' in domestic violence have been criticised for flawed methods including problems with sampling, a focus on physical violence only and ignoring the context in which the violence occurs - see Paradine and Wilkinson (2004) ' Research and Literature Review: Protection and accountability - the reporting, investigation and prosecution of domestic violence cases' CENTREX for HMIC / HMCPSI.
3) For example see Mirlees-Black (1999) 'Domestic violence: findings from a new British crime survey'; Dominy N and Radford L, (1996) Domestic Violence in Surrey'; Mooney J (1993) 'The Hidden Figure: Domestic Violence in North London'.

In Australia males outnumber females 76% : 24% as killers of children. The largest number of children 35% (n43) died as a consequence of a family dispute, usually relating to the termination of their parents' relationship and men were the offenders in all these incidents (26).) Strang, H. (1996) 'Children as Victims of Homicide' in Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. No 53

"Contact is good for the child, even if it is with a parent who is violent"
There is no evidence to show that contact with a violent parent is good for the child. It is the nature and quality of parenting by the contact parent that is important, not contact in itself, and where there is abuse, parental conflict or domestic violence, contact is extremely damaging to children (14).

In 2000 a Court of Appeal decision (Re L) described domestic violence as 'a significant failure of parenting'.
Children who have lived with domestic violence need support, safety and a stable environment to recover from its effects. Children's emotional and behavioural problems are associated with their relationship with their father. The more fear and anxiety, the greater the problems. The longer children are away from a violent father, the greater the improvement in adjustment (15).

MYTH: Children are not being placed at risk by court ordered contact
FACT: A recent report stated that there are 'serious concerns that contact is being inappropriately ordered in cases where there are established risks' (18).
Since the introduction of court guidance on contact and domestic violence in April 2001, across England and Wales - at least 18 children have been ordered to have contact with fathers who had committed offences against children (schedule 1 offenders); 64 children have been ordered to have contact with fathers whose behaviour previously caused children to be placed on the Child Protection Register. 21 of these children were ordered to have unsupervised contact with the violent father. 101 children have been ordered to live with a violent father, often because he was living in secure accommodation in the former family home (19).
14) Hunt J and Roberts C (2004) 'Child contact with non resident parents' Family Policy Briefing
15) Jaffe, Zerwer and Poisson. Access Denied. The Barriers of Violence and Poverty for Abused Women and their Children After Separation. 2003
18) Hunt and Roberts Child contact with non-resident parents 2004
19) Saunders H and Barron J (2003) op. cit.

Antiseptic,
On Tuesday, 21 December 2010 6:05:35 AM you posted;
“Jewely:"Fair enough, tragic but it must be an unsound mind that does that. Doesn’t sound outdated to me. "

I agree it must be an unsound mind, but if a father does it, he goes to jail as a murderer for 10 years. If a mother does it, she gets a suspended sentence and lots of therapy. That's why it's outdated in the Brave New Feminist World.”

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/870624/mum-jailed-for-life-after-girl-starves

One starved dead child- mother in jail for life.

“Her husband, who "could not have cared less" by not coming to her aid, will spend at least the next 12 years in prison, the court was told.

After a five-week trial, the girl's 36-year-old mother was found guilty of her murder and her 48-year-old father was convicted of manslaughter."

I think you are operating on “male ideological” presuppositions.
Feminism is actually good for males because it assists the marginalised male demography. Feminism is actually rejected by those that stand the most to gain from a white male landed elitism.

http://www.unisaustralia.com/2010/07/16/infants-struggle-in-shared-care-report/

Infants struggle in shared care while rigid, shared parenting puts school aged children at risk. Children aged under four and school aged children could be put at risk developmentally through shared parenting arrangements following separation.
Findings show conclusively that rigid arrangements of any kind, often fuelled by acrimony and poor cooperation, and set out in court orders, are associated with higher depressive and anxiety symptoms in children and this form of living became something children often sought to change.
‘A cooperative parental relationship and a history of warm, active parenting before separation are key to school aged children doing well in any care arrangement,’ she added.
Findings imply that shared care – when children stay overnight with the non-resident parent five nights or more a fortnight – for very young children should not normally be starting point for discussions about parenting arrangements.
‘The negative impact on the emotional and behavioural functioning of this age group is significant.
The study found that shared care arrangements were less stable over time than primary care arrangements, and that rigid arrangements had a significant impact on children and mothers but not fathers.Boys in rigidly sustained shared care were most likely to have Hyperactivity/Inattention scores in the clinical/borderline range.
‘Fathers with shared care arrangements were the most satisfied with the arrangement, despite reporting higher levels of ongoing conflict about parenting and poorer dispute management,’ she said.
The second study investigated infants and toddlers in separated families using data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children.
In infants under two, the study showed that overnight care with the non-resident parent once or more a week was independently associated with high irritability and more vigilant efforts by the infant to watch and stay near the resident parent.
In children aged two to three, shared care at five or more nights per fortnight was associated with lower levels of persistence –playing continuously, staying with tasks, practicing new skills, coping with interruption – and more problematic behaviour – crying or hanging on to the resident parent, high anxiety, being frequently upset; eating disturbances and aggressive behaviour.

Chaz:”In infants under two, the study showed that overnight care with the non-resident parent once or more a week was independently associated with high irritability and more vigilant efforts by the infant to watch and stay near the resident parent.
In children aged two to three, shared care at five or more nights per fortnight was associated with lower levels of persistence –playing continuously, staying with tasks, practicing new skills, coping with interruption – and more problematic behaviour – crying or hanging on to the resident parent, high anxiety, being frequently upset; eating disturbances and aggressive behaviour.”

Grownups make me puke for a variety of reasons but the above pretty much sums it up (because I have lived it over and over). No empathy when in some warped competition with another adult/agency. I’ve seen it from parents to foster parents to agencies wanting their money fast - I’ve seen children begging in the streets of other countries that are happier and less screwed up than Aussie kids. I wonder at which point the children became property/weapons/chattels here…. Nah I don’t care... 34k children and counting in Australia that no one is interested in because unless topping up bank accounts they remain rather off topic.

When you allow the outsourcing of care and protection of children what do you expect…someone to care about your families?

Quid pro quo peoples.

Jewely - In research studies in America of adults who had been in Foster Care in their childhood, 28% stated they had been abused while in Foster Care. This is of course, proportionately far greater than the likelihood of a child being abused in the general child population. It may be reasonably stated therefore that a child is far more likely to be abused while in State Care than by being out of State Care. There is also a far greater likelihood of children who have left care becoming part of the prison population, prostitution, drug and alcohol addiction, and marital failures. New Zealand and many European countries use Kinship Care as their primary care methods where children are kept within their extended families until it is safe for them to return to their natural parents, if that is a realistic objective.

Posted by ChazP, Thursday, 23 December 2010 8:52:30 PM

I think it says it all. A rigid black and white thinker.

The above post does show a extreme degree of Maternal Gatekeeping.

It is relatively easy to manipulate research findings and whilst ChapZ post this

<2) Research findings of 'gender symmetry' in domestic violence have been criticised for flawed methods including problems with sampling, a focus on physical violence only and ignoring the context in which the violence occurs - see Paradine and Wilkinson>

Even a casual glance of feminist advocacy research questions, show a larged degree of prejudice and bias in the types, structure and the manner the questions are asked.

So the same criticism of flawed methodology can be said of feminist research and more accurately it would apply to feminist research.

Such research findings have been used a propagande tools, and as in sophistry, appeals to the emotions.

Daphne Patai pointed out the use of inflammatory annologies are used to manipulate our perceptions.

Even in an intact family there will be times that children do not like either parent, because the children did not get their own way.
ChapZ brings out all this research about how poorly children are doing in contact arrangements, yet much of the behaviour is normal child behaviour that occurs within an intact family at times.

But what the research does, is simply take this behaviour and exaggerate and magnify it. Not all children behave in the same way, some will toss temper tantrums, not unlike some adults here.

However in the primary carer can have a huge influence over the behaviour of a child, subtley rewarding behaviour and thus reinforcing that behaviour. Thus manipulating many situations.

chazP, still scab-picking, I see. You go grrrrl, but those old wounds don't seem to be attracting too many flies. Perhaps a bit of self-excoriation might be required? Maybe a bit of clothes-rending? I'm sure an experienced beggar can do better.

happy, I recall the case. It was a tragis case of a pair of no-hopers who should have never been allowed to have a child, ler alone several. Both parents were long-term drug-users for a start.

However, this was an intact family, not a Family Law matter. What relevance do you think it has to the subject?

happy:"Feminism is actually rejected by those that stand the most to gain from a white male landed elitism."

Actually, it's rejected by those who see the tragic consequences for families and children. It is an ideology of the damaged, designed to pander to the weak of mind and the feckless.

It cannot inform a true debate because it does not recognise that any other than the dogmatic viewpoint exists.

As for a "white male landed elitism", I have a small business that I started from scratch about 6 years ago when the CSA forced me out of regular employment. I have a couple of casual employees. I don't own any property at all, thanks to the prolonged post-divorce legal shenanigans that legal aid funded.
I spent all of my savings and then had to represent myself, while my ex never had to spend a cent. After nearly 7 years I'm almost back to where I was then, while my ex has been living in a 3 bedroom Housing Commission property on an income always just below the threshold.

I have never put my hand out for a freebie. How many taxpayer dollars have you taken, Patricia? Oh, that's right, you're "entitled" - how silly of me to forget.

Personally, I reckon Feminism as you do it is nothing but a scam designed to perpetuate the idea that women need never be responsible for their own lives. you go grrrrl...

<A U.S. document called “National Crime Victimization Survey. Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates” (April 1997, NCJ-164381) shows how, if scientific methodology does not produce required results, the methodology will be changed to include suggestive and leading questions. That, of course, will increase the number of respondents who have a personal axe to grind, or who do not comprehend the ulterior motives, or who wish to embellish their experiences.>

http://web.archive.org/web/20050308195640/www.nojustice.info/CollectingInformationforPropagandaisnotResearch.htm

Of course ChapZ, Liz and others will fight tooth and nail and continue to grind their axes.

Oh I forgot.

Merry Christmas everyone and have a happy New Year.

That means everyone is included, even if I disagree with you.

We are unique’s suggestions are mere appeasement. Its rather like concentration camp inmates appealing to Hitler or the Kurds appealing to Saddam Hussein for clemency. Sociopaths treat such responses as further signs of weakness and increase their abuse and violence and control. You cannot appease sociopaths!.
Septic Ant – your lack of ability to analyse and interpret research has already been exposed and has no credibility and your Patriarchist bigotry is well-renowned, even to the point of notoriety. So any response to your comments would give them credibility they do not deserve. So just keep yourself busy playing in your shed.
JamesH - If research findings are such rubbish as you claim, then why do Father’s Rights groups rely so heavily on them in their propaganda?. For example they have promoted the `research’ of Richard Gardner as the definitive position on `Parental Alienation Syndrome’ despite it being strongly rejected by the relevant professional community as completely lacking in scientific methodology, completely lacking in academic rigour, and to indicate a prejudicial view in favour of paedophilia and child sexual abuse.
Your comment that, “Such research findings have been used a propaganda tools, and as in sophistry, appeals to the emotions” applies very correctly to the FR Groups adherence to Gardner’s conjectures.
You might also care to explain how former Chief Justice Alistair Nicholson and former Justice Richard Chisholm agree with the research findings into domestic violence and child abuse, or are they just a part of the RadFem activists you fear and loathe so much, from your Patriarchist bigotry viewpoints.
The only axe I have to grind JamesH is the safety and protection of children in Family Law proceedings as do Nicholson and Chisholm, and yes I will continue to fight tooth and nail to achieve that goal. If it involves trying to educate the ineducable who blather in such threads as this, then that is a cross I shall continue to have to bear

ChazP:"We are unique’s suggestions are mere appeasement"

Riiight...

ChazP:"your lack of ability to analyse and interpret research has already been exposed "

Actually, my ability to analyse and interpret research is all too embarrassingly good. Never mind, you can keep scab-picking and we'll all get on with discussing things like adults.

Sounds like a reasonable division of labour to me.

BTW, whatever made you think that "I know you are but what am I?" was a reasonable basis for an argument? Is the rain giving you cabin fever?

ChazP:"You might also care to explain how former Chief Justice Alistair Nicholson and former Justice Richard Chisholm agree with the research findings into domestic violence and child abuse"

Nicholson is a "lion of the left" as John stapleton described him. He knew and knows upon which side his bread his buttered. Likewise, Chisholm was appointed because he knew the result that was required and he produced it.
Moreover, Chisholm was adhering over-enthusiastically to the "precautionary principle" in the absence of adequate data. The data has since been collected and it points to shared care as the most desirable.

Thanks for letting me clear that up for you.

Chaz:”The only axe I have to grind JamesH is the safety and protection of children in Family Law proceedings as do Nicholson and Chisholm, and yes I will continue to fight tooth and nail to achieve that goal. If it involves trying to educate the ineducable who blather in such threads as this, then that is a cross I shall continue to have to bear.”

Where are you on the safety and protection of any children Chaz?

Whose children and where are these children… in theory you mean?

Anti – hot and dry here.

Hope everyone had an awesome Christmas day!

ChazP: continue to spiel your statistical quotes along with theories regarding sociopaths, it undoubtedly is assisting other Australians regarding that subject.

Do not shoot the messenger who is NOT the Judge, CSA, DOCS, or any other law enforcement agency that dictated Adam must spend 50% of his time in shared custody residing with his father.

Adam is living with his father and the suggestions and strategies on offer [as previously stated] are for the 'interim' period, to assist Adam's safety, health, happiness and wellbeing. Many more strategies would be forthcoming, from experience and work practice, however the family refused my offers of contacting me personally, quite understandable given the circumstances involving Cotter's grandson.

Best wishes with your sociopathic postings relating to the Family Law Act Chaz; entirely different from individuals exhibiting traits of a mysoginistic nature and background

Cotter, it is my advise in response to your comment relating to Adam's father attempting to run his mother and self off the road, to ensure that either of the following occurs in future;

(a) Inform Adam's mother to pull over to the side of the road if followed at any time, switch on her car alarm [with or without Adam present]and hold up a digital camera to photograph Adam's father's vehicle. Drive off with the vehicle locked.

(b) Drive to the police station and report the incident and request the first or second warning. Notify DOCS. Do not involve Adam as a witness at any stage. Do not take Adam to the police station. Do not talk about the incident with family members in front of Adam. This makes it easier for Adam when being quizzed by his father when he stays with his father.

In summary, if physical violence was inflicted upon Adam's mother in front of Adam during the marriage/partnership in later years on numerous occasions, it is most likely that Adam's father will transfer the physical and emotional abuse to Adam regularly. Ie Adam's father has acknowledged that he has lost his power over Adam's mother, does not care that the world knows of the physical abuse he inflicted, he feels that his world has ended by the loss of control, therefore he may ultimately revenge Adam's mother using using Adam.

On the other hand, if the physical violence was inflicted upon Adam's mother in another room or setting away from Adam on most occasions, his father may decide to build on his relationship with his son, demonstrating what a great father he is to Adam, to work colleagues, friends and families.

Something indicates that this case has not been down the court road via charges at all: as a result of Adam's mother engulfed in fear, believing every threat from Adam's father?

Please let me know urgently if I am correct.

we are unique:"Something indicates that this case has not been down the court road via charges at all: as a result of Adam's mother engulfed in fear, believing every threat from Adam's father?"

The complaint is that she did go down the Court road and nobody believed her.

That is unbelievable.

We are uniqe:"Best wishes with your sociopathic postings relating to the Family Law Act Chaz;"

Yes, I wish Chaz all the best with her sociopathic postings too. I'm sure we all do...

Sociopathology has been studied throughout history since at least the early 19th century.
Diagnostic manuals which have been used by psychologists and psychiatrists through the years, the antisocial personality disorder refers to an individual "in which there is a history of continuous and chronic antisocial behaviour in which the rights of others are violated". The World Health Organization labelled this disorder in the ICD10 as dissocial personality disorder. These terms group the psychopath and sociopath into a single personality disorder that can be tested and measured.
It is characterized by an individual's disregard for social rules, norms, and cultural codes, as well as impulsive behavior, and indifference to the rights and feelings of others.
Sociopaths are very egocentric individuals that lack a sense of personal responsibility and morality. They may be impulsive, manipulative, reckless, quarrelsome, and consistent liars. Sociopaths are usually unable to sustain relationships and have a total lack of remorse for their actions. The sociopath may also be very prone to aggressive, hostile, and sometimes violent behaviour. This aggression may or may not lead to criminal behaviour and often takes the form of domestic violence.
One of the primary causes of sociopathic behaviour is believed to be neurological abnormalities mainly in the frontal lobe of the brain. This area of the brain is responsible for "self-control, planning, judgment, the balance of individual versus social needs, and many other essential functions underlying effective social intercourse".
One thing never varies: all sociopaths share three common characteristics. They are all very egocentric individuals with no empathy for others, and they are incapable of feeling remorse or guilt. Many sociopaths appear to be very normal, calm, and educated on the exterior, but on the interior, they are incapable of experiencing any form of emotional content. They rarely come in contact with the law, but when they do, they are often able to talk themselves out of trouble using their verbal skills. Despite this verbal eloquence, the words often have no real emotional meaning for the sociopath.
But then these `Poor Dads' are just blokes provoked into anger, aren't they boys.

ChapZ says that she is really concern about the safety of children in relation to the family court and the only solution she proposes is that fathers who are accused of abuse should be DENIED having a relationship with those children.

Now if people were really concerned about the 'safety of children' would it not be more advisable to examine all the factors that may contribute to putting children at risk.

Mind you her concern would seem to only to extend to children who may or may not be at risk of abuse by their father. Children who are at risk of abuse by their mothers or her partners do not matter, because it doesn't serve her purpose.

As to Richard Garners "Parental Alienation Syndrome" it would seem to be another aspect of Maternal Gatekeeping, and from the reading I have done, her assertion that his theory has been rejected by the American Psychological Association is not true.

"An APA 1996 Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family noted the lack of data to support so-called "parental alienation syndrome", and raised concern about the term's use. However, we have no official position on the purported syndrome."
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2008/01/pas-syndrome.aspx

Lack of data can mean that data has not been collected or that nobody is doing any research. Politically this is hot topic, so it is doubtful that research would be conducted, just in case the findings would support Garner.

There are now after thirty odd years of divorce, perhaps a large number of young adults to would make some interesting research findings, if the correct questions are asked, but then when researchers make findings that do not support feminists, they do experience things like death threats, or threats to their employment or family.

So much introspection can't be healthy for you, chaz.

You should be down at the beach being confronted by the objectification of women in bikinis or something equally serious by now, surely?

Septic Ant – I guess that bit about sociopaths touched a nerve again. Have fun playing with your new Xmas toys in your shed. But beware of all those bikini-clad, hairy-legged RadFems who are out to get you.
JamesH – so you support Gardner’s predilections for paedophilia then as apparently do several Family Court Judges by the evidence of their decision-making, and how PAS can be used by paedophiles and child sex abusers to secure access to children, as has occurred in several cases in Australian Courts. “Well the children (two small girls) can lock their bedroom door on a night to protect themselves from him”, as suggested by one learned Family Court Judge – DUH!.
I would suggest that there is far more evidence available of Self-Alienation Parental Syndrome. Of parents who abuse their children physically, emotionally, mentally, and sexually or are indifferent to their needs and have no interest in their children’s needs, until of course they are required to meet their financial responsibilities towards them or they want to cause pain and suffering to their former partners for rejecting them. But of course then they claim that their former partners have `alienated’ the child against them, or `coached’ or indoctrinated’ the child – well they would, wouldn’t they, when they cannot take responsibility for their own actions.
In fact Self-Alienation Parental Syndrome is commonly observable in any supermarket, shopping mall, and street any day of the week yet doesn’t seem to have permeated into Family Courts .
Death threats and other intimidatory tactics to their opponents are of course a commonly used used by supporters of Father’s Rights groups, as is widely known by events in the past when lawyers and Judges were threatened and in recent times when advocates for children and mothers and journalists have been similarly threatened for daring to support mothers who have fled interstate or abroad with their children to try to protect them from violence and abuse which Family Courts have inadquately investigated.

I do not believe parental alienation works – commonly exists. That kind of manipulation of a child would have to be done by a professional. I don’t give the average women going through a separation that much credit for focus.

I do see it is a powerful tool that could be used and is being used in court. But it will broaden to the point of any couple separating will be seen to be doing it consciously or not.

It sounds good, it seems believable to begin with and “alienation” sounds like a good word to use in a custody dispute.

I can see why male rights and females rights supporters would swoop on it and want to claim it for their own use.

All I can say over and over is that this is not how children process information, turning a child against another parent is near impossible. PAS ignores the children and is all about alienating court against a parent.

No idea why it is being thrown in with the Maternal Gatekeeping thing. That is another little word weapon (awesome medieval sound to it) that once a target is chosen it could be directed at any woman to twist any circumstances, intentions or situations.

The opposite side of the Maternal Gatekeeping coin is Paternal Subjection? If we have a real Gatekeeping and a real male reduced to servitude in the home then aren’t we looking at the same situation that happens in the home where male domestic violence is exhibited? We admit some women manipulate the man into being violent and that some women manipulate the men into being dominated.

But when do we look up close at the men? It seems you got nasty ones and wimpy ones and women are to blame for all of them?

It all reminds me of what police and doctors would use to force someone into a psyche ward to get them out of the way. These new phrase wont help families sort problems but create new ones.

<JamesH – so you support Gardner’s predilections for paedophilia then as apparently do several Family Court Judges by the evidence of their decision-making, and how PAS can be used by paedophiles and child sex Posted by ChazP, Sunday, 26 December 2010 8:20:42 AM>

ChapZ you are a extremely nasty person, to make such a claim.

I like the American Psychological do not have a firm position as to whether Parental Alienation exists, but with posts like yours, I tend to lean more to the fact that it does exist.

I would like to see more research on the subject and one untapped group would be adults who were children when their parents separated. It would be interesting to see what their attitudes are towards their parents are now and what they were in the past.

Cotter, other strategies for your daughter to strengthen herself in this temporary situation [she is half way there already] are the following;

. If your daughter is not working, a suggestion is for her to take up some part time or full time work demonstrating to Adam's father that she is getting on with her life and taking charge of it.
. Encourage your daughter to take up a self defence course, a martial arts course or yoga for self discipline, peace and strength. Ditto for your grandson regarding a martial arts course. Strengthens the mind, body and soul. A driver training course for assertiveness is excellent for confidence on the road also.
. Eliminating fear, turning each situation around by herself, [turning the tables] one step at a time, is successfully achieved, by empowering herself one step at a time via various activities.
. Standing up to a bully head on [ie on her own vehicle to vehicle] as one example, will give your daughter strength and sustainability to turn her back permanently on the previous abuse and her lifestyle to change her life positively to enjoy a future.
. Joining a gym, swimming or bike riding for the physical side is exremely important to benefit her mind also. Stick to the bike paths or around lakes or public places initially, staying off roads as much as possible.
. Lastly, a power of positive thinking course or seminars are worth attending in addition to some books. Am not referring to religious books, just some positive self help books [many women turned their lives, and therefore, their childrens lives around while reading positive material] over the years. It further strengthens them as individuals regardless of gender.

Shake off the fear, stake an affirmative claim for life and its enjoyment, the rest will follow and your daughter's life will change positively, followed by positive changes in Adam's life.

"These terms group the psychopath and sociopath into a single personality disorder that can be tested and measured".

WHO should not have grouped the different diseases into the ICD10 as dissocial personality disorder for a number of validated reasons ChazP, the primary being that if they were related, lived and experienced life with any of their case studies for many years, the Psychologists would know the differences and not waste time, resources and taxpayer funds to later test and measure people with these completely different diseases.

Completely inaccurate forms of diagnosis and treatment, confusing both diseases, allowing for mistakes in misdiagnosing and maltreating patients tested and measured under the one label.

WHO knows that these mental conditions do not produce black and white symptoms and that symptoms vary from individual to individual in the same way that schizophrenia differs from Bi-Polar.

All too easy lumping and labelling people under a nice, little, tidy mental illness is it not?

Time for a reality check.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/child-neglect-cited-as-equal-to-physical-or-sex-abuse-20101226-197xe.html

"CHILD neglect can be just as harmful to children's cognitive development as physical and sexual abuse, a new study shows.

But child protection authorities do not treat neglect with the same urgency as other forms of child maltreatment."

Of course, that may have something to do with the cloud of misinformation put about by people like Elspeth McInnes, Michael Flood, Dale Bagshaw and Patricia Merkin for their own purposes, which have more to do with pocket-lining than the protection of children.

They should be ashamed, but that doesn't seem to be an emotion that has much currency in the Single-Mother's Club.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-3479v1

"Child Abuse and Neglect and Cognitive Function at 14 Years of Age: Findings From a Birth Cohort"

"Objective To examine the association between child maltreatment (abuse and neglect) and long-term cognitive outcomes within a prospective birth cohort."

"Conclusions Both child abuse and child neglect are independently associated with impaired cognition and academic functioning in adolescence. These findings suggest that both abuse and neglect have independent and important adverse effects on a child's cognitive development."

The data all show that the greatest risk of neglect is if a child is in a single-mother household. Over 90% of substantiated cases of neglect and over 70% of cases of physical abuse occur in the mother's care.

And some more on the same topic

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/DomesticViolence/23748

"The 7,223 participating mothers were interviewed at their first antenatal visit, then shortly after delivery, and again when the children reached five years.

Slightly more than half of the children were available for evaluation at 14 years, when they completed the Wide Range Achievement Test and Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices examination.

For their analysis, the researchers obtained reports of maltreatment from the Queensland Department of Families, Youth, and Community Care.

They found that 10.9% of the cohort had at some point been the subject of a formal report of abuse or neglect, with 7% having been substantiated.

More than 60% of abused or neglected children -- a disproportionately high number, according to the authors -- had been lost to follow-up and failed to complete either of the tests.

"In this cohort, the subjects who were lost to follow-up were consistently of more adverse socioeconomic background than those who were tested at the age of 14 and at the same time were more likely to have been reported as cases of abuse or neglect," the researchers observed.

Among the 3,796 children who underwent the testing at age 14, 7.9% had been reported to the agency.

A total of 6.8% had been reported for suspected abuse and 4% for suspected neglect. Three quarters of those reported for suspected neglect had also been reported for abuse, according to the researchers.

Their findings of adverse cognitive consequences for both abuse and neglect "support the notion that child neglect has developmental effects that are independently at least as deleterious as abuse, which has important implications for the allocation of resources into additional research into, and prevention of, child neglect," they wrote."

happy, this is an example of "credible" research. you won't find it mentioned at the Bagshaw factory, I'm sure.

We R Uneek - I do most humbly apologise. I had forgotten that you are so much more knowledgeable on these matters than the APA and WHO and their studies and knowledge do not begin to approach the level which you have acquired.
"....sociopaths can exist in many different forms and to many different degrees. They can also be found in all races, cultures, and socioeconomic levels. The sociopath could be the intelligent and very successful businessman that goes home each night and abuses his family. He could be the temperamental man that visits the bar regularly and who often gets into brawls. The sociopath could be the prison inmate who was just released last month, and who is already back in prison or the hateful man that lives on the block that no one seems to be able to get along with. He could be that career-climbing businessman or politician that doesn't care who they destroy in the process. It could even be that man that can't seem to get enough of adrenaline-pumping adventures like bungee jumping, skydiving, and motorcycle racing. Or, he could be that quiet, polite man that no one ever suspected was a serial killer."
T which I'd add they also haunt regularly internet forums inflicting their inflated and skewed self-opinions on others.

"they also haunt regularly internet forums inflicting their inflated and skewed self-opinions on others"

They could be the sort of person who would post a description of sociopaths where every example was male, no gender neutrality, no female examples.

R0bert

Experience is quite different from 'knowledge' ChazP.

Lived it, breathed it, worked it. Have you? What is your story in life ChazP apart from copying and pasting sociopathic material on OLO that Australians are quite able to research themselves on the net of their own accord without being forced down their throats like some religious mantra.

WHO have conducted some great studies, carry out excellent work, particularly during pandemics epidemics and so forth. I have worked with some staff members a few years ago again on one health issue.

Decisions made on health diseases and treatment are constantly updated after trials and after implementation. Await the updates, it occurs in the Australian health industry frequently. I daresay you will be quoting changes on the same material you are copying and pasting previously relating to mental health conditions.

ChazP:"I daresay you will be quoting changes on the same material you are copying and pasting previously relating to mental health conditions."

Only if the changes say "all men are bastards, so there". Some forms of sociopathy are simply not amenable to rational treatment.

It might be the eostrogen factor Anti ;)

A while ago there was a woman, who was taking IVF drugs, who admitted (that doesn't happen very often) that whilst she was taking these medications, she honestly thought that she was the only one who was right and the rest of the world was wrong.

My apologies to We are unique, my last post obviously quoted her, not ChazP.

JamesH:"she honestly thought that she was the only one who was right and the rest of the world was wrong."

That used to happen about once a month in my family home...

Well it seems that while JamesH and Anti persistently and strongly urge us all to take into account men's biology, a women's biology is nothing more than a target of mockery. Like male sexuality a women's biology cannot be diminished to broad generalisations to suit one's personal agenda.

Care to think how you might respond if any female OLOer dared to mock a man's sexuality or biology? No doubt you will think of something to make that acceptable as is the usual modus operandi.

Misogyny and misandry are both equally unhelpful - these discussions won't have much basis in commonsense and fair play no matter how valid some of your arguments regarding double standards or biased systems. Just remember biases affect both genders depending on the situation. Unless we tackle these issues 'together' there is a risk nothing will change and the old hatreds and misconceptions will just continue to be perpetuated.

Pelican:"a women's biology is nothing more than a target of mockery."

Personally, I don't think it's remotely funny to have to deal with a women who turns into a hormone-soaked nightmare once a month, as used to happen with my ex and shows every sign of developing in my daughter. My comment wasn't mockery, it was a lighthearted eposition of the reality that many people face. Men face it every bit as much as women, but you want to make us shut up about it because it's "women's business".

The law itself recognises the female hormonal cycle can cause mental derangement at certain times. It also recognises that females in general are less able to exercise self-control and so the defence of diminished responsibility is largely a female one, for crimes ranging from the most trivial to the most extreme. Women themselves want the law to pretend that they're incapable of taking responsibility for their own bodies while intoxicated, but it doesn't treat men that way.

You can't talk about gender differences without dealing in biology, no matter how much the "social constructionalists" looking for an easy buck want to pretend it doesn't matter.

Pelican:"Care to think how you might respond if any female OLOer dared to mock a man's sexuality or biology? "

I don't have to guess. Females, both on OLO and elsewhere are constantly mocking male biology, especially sexual biology and the male trait of failing to notice details that are of vital interest to the females in his life, such as the new dress or lipstick colour. Remember the "pinky" campaign"? Where was the "bucket" campaign? What about the subject of this thread - the author does nothing BUT attack males, especially their fitness as parents. Do you really think a joke about the emotionality of pre-menstual women is such a big deal? It's because you know I'm right, isn't it?

Pelican:"Misogyny and misandry are both equally unhelpful - "

Oh yes, but isn't it funny that you only got exercised when you thought your "essential femaleness" or whatever you call it, was being insulted?

I'll just modify that last post. I should have said that all my exes, with one notable exception, have seen little reason to modify their expression of the hormones that flood their body once a month.

When I met the ex she was on thr pill and the hormonal mood swings were suppressed as a result. When she stopped, she fell pregnant within a few months and I put the mood swings down to the after-effects of the pill. She lost that baby, but stayed off the pill. I put the mood swings down to depression at the loss of the pregnancy. she fell pregnant again a few months later and all was well again.

She was fine while breast-feeding, no mood swings, but qa month or two later, back they came. I put it down to some form of reaction to stopping the breast-feeding, but they continued for the next year or two until she fell pregnant again. All sweetness and light again, until a month or two after ceasing breast feeding and then it just never got any better until she went back on the pill, although that seemed to be less effective as a mood-stabiliser after the pregnancies.

She would now be menopausal, which may explain the poor judgement in taking the kids from school to go to "counselling". The hormonal flux is quite significant during that time, I understand.

I've only had one relationship where this aspect of female psychobiology was not an issue and the giel in question had had a hysterectomy quite young (at 13)due to cancer. She was a really lovely girl, I wish I'd had the good sense to stay with her, but my own biology as a young man drove me elsewhere.

Such is life.

Hormonal changes don't just affect women, more is being studied in relation to male hormones and a similar menopausal effect.

I have no problem in defending femaleness as you phrase it but please point out any comment of mine that has ever degraded male biology or sexuality. I have often defended men against a tirade of one-sided comments by some feminists and, while not perfect, try to keep an egalitarian an even-handed perspective. You should try it sometime.

Comments like "hormone soaked" drip too easily from your keyboard and your own personal experiences don't necessarily reflect the larger population. Women like men are individuals first, and variations in response to hormonal changes are common. Woman don't come in a stock standard one-size fits all model. Generalisations that suit your poor world view of women do not make it fact.

Some self awareness would not go astray.

Pelican:"I have often defended men against a tirade of one-sided comments by some feminists and, while not perfect, try to keep an egalitarian an even-handed perspective."

Oh I agree, which is why I find it so interesting when you find yourself knee-jerking to a comment like James's or mine. Why do you find discussions of the biological differences between genders so confronting to you personally?

Pelican:"Comments like "hormone soaked" drip too easily from your keyboard"

Actually, "hormone-soaked nightmare" was my ex's self-description. She was very aware of the problem but it was beyond her ability to do much about it.

And please, don't try the "we are all individuals" stuff. Men have testicles and penises, women have ovaries and vaginas. These are not trivial differences and trying to pretend otherwise is not being "even-handed", it's denying reality.

Yes, there is a vast range of expressions of "femaleness" and "maleness", but males are not prone to a monthly cycle and "male menopause" is a simply a slow reduction in the level of testosterone, not a relatively sudden change that means he can no longer reproduce and is no longer subject to those monthly cycles.

The idea that the biological differences between the genders are not important is simply bizarre and flies in the face of reality.

On the subject of PMS, I'll bet that everyone here has a horror story to recount. No exceptions, male or female. That makes it a pervasive issue, not an individual aberration.

In some women, it is almost like living with a short-cycle bipolar sufferer - one never knows exaclty when the swing will come, but you know it's coming.

Forget monthly! How luxurious! Try 12 months non-stop Antiseptic and I have not been murdered yet......

Anti:”… with one notable exception, have seen little reason to modify their expression of the hormones that flood their body once a month.”

I thought it was male hormones that caused irrational and aggressive behavior and that they were pumped out pretty constantly throughout life in men? Ooo… and I have seen what aggressive behaviors testosterone shots cause in females... talk about loony.

I’m lacking a uterus (I know, probably too much information there) but still have ovaries that are flooding my body once a month with whatever and notice that without any visible sign of a hormone change taking place there is no pattern to anything and my moods are reactive to situations which I am guessing is pretty normal for most people.

I had heard of the after pregnancy hormones causing amnesia and all that…weird stuff hormones but the PMT thing… I either don’t believe it or suspect it affects only a tiny percentage of females. If hormones really did alter us mentally then those mums that kill kids would ALL rightly get off based on which part of a 28 day cycle they were in?

Anti your ex could have done something about it – she chose not to is all.

So we should acknowledge these biological differences but the law isn’t allowed/able to?

Glad you are still with us we-are-unique. :)

We are unique - "Experience is quite different from 'knowledge' ChazP".
You are quite right We are unique. And the main ways of gaining excperience are 'Sitting next to Nellie', so you learn all of Nellie's bad habits and inappropriate work methods. Secondly, it is learning by Trial and Error. And who suffers for your errors?. Do you in fact know when you have erred?. Surgeons can bury their mistakes but when you mess up other people's lives by your incompetence, they have to live with it for the rest of their lives, while you just move on to the next one. How many people's lives have you messed up We are Unique, with your `experienced' methodology?. `Experience' is only a statement of chronological activity - it has no meaning or value unless it can be shown that learnning and change has emerged from gathering such experience - sadly, We are Unique that is not evident in your statements.
Simply learning by experience is dismissing the great value to be gained in learning from the knowledge and learning experiences of others.
Your claim to speak for all Australians shows the level of your conceit We are Unique. There are some Australians however, such as yourself, who don't bother to learn from others, simply because "Its all about experience".
I'd suggest your mantra is "Go Nellie and who cares whose lives I mess up!".

Thank you most kindly Jewely LOL - addressed my gyneacological problemo last week (Halleluia) after awaiting a pelvic ultrasound.

Thank you to Anti for raising these issues.

I discovered that many pre-menopausal women are having the 'Mirena' inserted [oestrogen coated plastic little IUD] or going on the Pill with breaks in between for health/safety if bleeding profusely.

Am only adding this info for people [women and partners knowledge]that may fit the criteria now that Anti has raised the cycles.

Happy New Year to all - life is short - enjoy your breaks!

Chaz, at the end of the day adults and parents make their own decisions via their own experiences.

Cotter, her daughter and Jacksun will make their own decisions regardless of any opinions or strategies offered on any forum.

Positive strategies offered for strengthening a 'mother' will hardly wreck lives, and by the way, I have participated on OLO for 12 months and do not skip on my merry way after offering positive strategies regarding serious situations.

I follow through with my interactions when possible, unless there is a person who deliberately takes up most of the threads with the sole purpose of degrading another, born out of their own insecurities or holding a grudge.

Happy New Year.

Jewely:"I thought it was male hormones that caused irrational and aggressive behavior and that they were pumped out pretty constantly throughout life in men? "

http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/testost/story.htm
http://www.project-aware.org/Resource/articlearchives/testosterone.shtml

Not really. The ABC link has a reasonable discussion about biological determinism, though obviously not as erudite as those on OLO...

Jewely:"Anti your ex could have done something about it – she chose not to is all."

Actually, we both "chose not to" because we wanted kids. She may have been able to control her bitchiness better, I don't know, but she claimed she couldn't and was always remorseful afterward. When she was taking the pill she was a different person altogether and it was that person I married, not the "hormone-soaked nightmare"

She's also become much more reasonable just of late. Since the end of the school year she's been quite approachable and we've managed to come to something of an accommodation, I think. I'm prepared to be convinced of that, anyway. Perhaps she's got some form of HRT happening?

we are unique, I'm sorry to hear that your own journey through the shoals of life hasn't been completely smooth sailing of late. You come across here as a very sensible person, so it's hard to reconcile that with your "12 months non-stop". You must have excellent self-control. I hope that all goes well with your treatment and that things stabilise rapidly.

It's nice to have a conversation about gender issues that isn't "us against them". Let's hope it can be the start of a new trend.

I don't find it personally confronting Antiseptic as you well know.

What I find distasteful is when the biological or sexual differences are commented on with such malice especially when the comments are from people who react quite vehemently in reaction to comments made about males.

It is hypocrisy I find confronting not my biology.

But I suspect the point I am making is falling on deaf ears.

Anti:”Actually, we both "chose not to" because we wanted kids.”

Crazy stuff from both of you then Mr Anti. I had a weird argument with my sister recently about having children (which she can’t) and how she claims I don’t understand because I had some already. What I couldn’t convince her of was the fact that I am unable to have any with the man I love now so I think I do understand. Surely if your partner (genetics) wasn’t any issue you’d just go adopt?

Well that was my argument - although I would not have chosen to have more regardless and if I could reverse time I would not have had any to begin with.

Anti:” She's also become much more reasonable just of late.”

She’s up to something Anti…. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. I haven’t read your links yet cause… well I’m a bit sozzled right now. :)

Happy New Year we-are-unique! And to the rest of the OLO crew!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a0z9ZcSwPQ

Thank you Anti.

Happy New Year Jewely, Anti, Pelican and all on OLO including Graham and Staff.

Pelican:"What I find distasteful is when the biological or sexual differences are commented on with such malice"

The "malice" is all in your own mind, not in my intent. I'm sorry if you're offended by the discussion, but it is about an important aspect of human biology that has significant impacts upon the psychology of many women and upon the relationships they form, which makes it a factor that should be considered when discussing the best way to achieve good outcomes for kids.

If it is important to recognise that men are physically stronger, or that men are often more aggressive due to testosterone's influence, it is equally as important to recognise the impacts of the sex hormones on women, surely?

Must we discuss only the "positive" aspects of femaleness?

Jewely:"Crazy stuff from both of you then Mr Anti"

Yeah, but that's the price you pay for wanting kids. If she'd simply stayed on the pill, we may even be still married, although I doubt it since we are really very different people.

And yes, genetics are an important consideration, as is the biological drive to make them. Adoption would only ever have been a last resort for me.

Jewely:"She’s up to something Anti"

LOL, I don't think so. It's more that she's used every possible free avenue to cause trouble, so now if she wants to do so it'll have to be done using her own money and that just ain't never gonna happen.

Thanks to all for the New Year's wishes and my very best to everyone.

I finished repainting my boat yesterday, so today I'll be fitting her out with a view to getting on the water by Monday. Happy New Year indeed (but not for the fishes if I've got anything to do with it...)

Elizabeth Farrelly in the Fairfax press has another take on the effects of oestrogen

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/new-culprits-in-kings-cross-are-musicians-and-oestrogen-20101229-19a5x.html

She says:"But when you look at those girls, with their high heels and their six-pack premixes, there's an evident mis-match between the confidence-reducing effects of oestrogen (which is why male-female seduction generally involves heaped-on compliments, and why labial surgery is booming) and modern expectations that girls behave as casual sexual predators; that they behave, in fact, like boys.

Is this the role of alcohol, to enable sexual behaviours that girls would otherwise eschew? A well-known US study at Michigan State University found that 74 per cent of sexually active female students would not have had sex if they had not been drinking at the time. Women in male-dominated professions are also known to drink more than in traditionally female areas.

And although recent cases of female bashing and car-jackings have been much publicised, studies also show that whereas in men alcohol increases thoughts of power, in women it intensifies ideation of intimacy. Which only restates what we all already know. Off-their-face girls don't generally do violence. They do sex. Join the dots."

I'm glad she's a woman: when I proposed just this on OLO a few months back the howls of outrage from the girls club were a joy to behold...

I wonder if I can get this thought right.

In todays Heraldsun is a story about a man who is innocent yet went to gaol.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/i-was-innocent-but-went-to-jail/story-e6frf7kx-1225980137461

Now people like ChapZ want us to believe that 1 in 3 women will experience DV, and that women never lie, and rape is a greatly unreport crime.

Now Jewely in her post about condoms said that after she read the Danish definitions of sexual assault and rape, that she didn't realise how often she had been sexually assaulted.

Yet when it comes to men saying that they had been falsely accused, they must be liars, and that is better that 99 innocent men get gaoled so that the 1 guilty one can be caught and punished.

So ChapZ wants us to believe female accusations, without reservation and to refuse to believe any claims made by males.

I'm still tossing around a few ideas, on trying to get the picture right.

Robert - "some people have done well being raised by fathers without the involvement of mothers but that does not create an excuse to cut mothers out of childrens lives". - I have never suggested that fathers should be cut out of children's lives, so don't make such crude distrortions to suit your own agenda and purposes. What I have constantly and cosnistently mainatained is that there are an inordinate number of cases coming before the Family Courts in which there is clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence and the inherent abuse of children, and which is largely perpetrated by natural fathers. Due to the current provisions of the 2006 Family Law Act and its interpetations by certain judges, those perpetrators are being given contact with and even residency of their children whereby the abuse of the children continues, sometimes resulting in the deaths of those children. Obviously the Father's RIGHTS advocates try to minimise such occurrences or deny them, as the FL was written to suit their goals (although they are now fiercely critical of it but oppose the proposed changes). They also claim that more abuse is perpetrated by mothers and `live-in lovers' (who they also happen to be and thereby inflicting their abuse on more families). They thereby miss the point that whoever is the perpetrator should not be granted access of any kind to children where there is a continuing risk of abuse of those children.

When love leaves the room

It's fruit will often be left

Spoiling and rotten

We are unique " at the end of the day adults and parents make their own decisions via their own experiences". And that is very sad, that people don't learn from the condensed experiences others (literature)and when their experiences have been bad, they continue to make bad decisions because they make those decisions through the narrow prisms of their own experiences, as you so often do.
" I follow through with my interactions when possible, unless there is a person who deliberately takes up most of the threads with the sole purpose of degrading another, born out of their own insecurities or holding a grudge". Oh I know you get continuing schadenfreudian delight in continuing in your meddling in other people's lives, not knowing or caring about the harm you have caused or continue to cause to others with your home-spun `wisdoms' from your own `experiences' and more than a little the Agony Aunt columns of Girlie magazines.
It is not about `insecurities' or 'grudges' its about protecting people from the oft ill-considered and ill-informed meanderings of meddlers.

ChazP:"Due to the current provisions of the 2006 Family Law Act and its interpetations by certain judges, those perpetrators are being given contact with and even residency of their children whereby the abuse of the children continues, sometimes resulting in the deaths of those children. "

And far more often the children are given to mothers who neglect them or abuse them, or allow their latest boyfriend to do the same, sometimes resulting in the death of those children.

Thanks for giving me the chance to clear that up for you, Chaz.

ChazP:"Obviously the Father's RIGHTS advocates try to minimise such occurrences or deny them, as the FL was written to suit their goals (although they are now fiercely critical of it but oppose the proposed changes)."

Obviously the Mother's RIGHTS advocates try to minimse or deny such occurrences, since, although the FLA was written to suit their goals they are determined to have any hint of fairness to fathers and their children written out oof it.

Thanks again Chaz, for letting me clear that up for you.

ChazP:"They thereby miss the point that whoever is the perpetrator should not be granted access of any kind to children where there is a continuing risk of abuse of those children."

So you're in favour of negelctful and abusive mothers being completely severed from their children's lives, despite the demonstrated importance to the child of the parent/child bond?

Lovely...

Shouldn't you be off down at the beach making sure none of the toddlers are wearing bikinis?

I think I said this before, if people like ChapZ are really interested in improving the welfare of 'all' children then the focus would not be just of bad fathers or allegedly bad fathers, but would be inclusive of when children are harmed by their mothers as well.

<But idealising children and wrapping them in cotton wool is a detrimental strategy. It deprives them of opportunities to contribute and fails to prepare them for the trials that await them. The challenge for adults in the 21st century will be to find ways to include children in decision-making, rather than consign them to a zone of protected, precious irrelevance.>
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/childhood-is-no-innocent-fixation/story-e6frg6zo-1225980659479

Thoughtful article.

Nice work ChazP and Cotter!!
Posted by Usual Suspect, Thursday, 24 July 2008 10:05:21 AM

I see that both yourself and Cotter have met and interacted well over previous years ChazP, one could almost declare you are a 'team'!!

...and attempted to set a few people up in the process of furthering your hidden agendas.

I suggest ChazP you take yourselves away from the Court Rooms and feminist group movements, mix with children and mothers nationally as I do professionally and personally.

My suggestion to you ChazP : Be constructive, Lobby the government for amendments to the Family Law Acts instead of running around in circles targetting people who have lived the lives with the oppressors you continually for years have fruitlessly described.

Get over yourself [and the copying of info available to Australians at their fingertips], as someone stated to you back in 2008.

Christmas and New Year of course brings out the worst in some corrupted poor-in-spirit souls furthering their 'own' revengeful filled personal agendas...

That's what worries me about the concept of shared parenting. Nothing could be better for children than to have two parents who decide the children's welfare is more important that their own - which is a desirable concept pre deciding/choosing to have children.

But what of the far too many cases of entrenched violence that preceeds divorce, not just happens after seperation. On finances,

can't we work out a system that says how much it costs an adult to live, how much it costs for a child and multiples. Why is it that the men's groups are only quoted reacting from the hip pocket, rather than working constructively to teach boys to be good and fair men and good parents who can rise above personal pain in their interests, learning to budget etc.

Why do the children's econmic needs take second place to angry dads' costing and fear some of his money might help her, the woman he once loved, to care for their children?

Regards Cotter
Posted by Cotter, Friday, 17 June 2005 3:37:59 PM

Working on sociopath, mysoginist and family law act issues since 2005 Cotter, ChazP and Jacksun.

Nevertheless, none of you have managed to lobby and insist government make changes or amendments to lower the age of decisionmaking for Australian children with separating parents?

However you all shoot down in flames and(pass the buck blaming other Australians)for their genuine, good hearted and wise contributions regarding false scenarios you post, to further your anti sociopath causes born out of revenge against ex-partners. Either be constructive or seek years overdue psychological assistance all of you. Shocking to hold grudges against your sociopath exes years later.

I notice that Jacksun [your relative] was posting primarily on the same issues along with yourself and ChazP under another name years ago. The three of you regularly supporting one another.

Either be constructive and lobby government, or make appointments to visit a psychologist or psychiatrist all of you.

Shocking to hold grudges against your "sociopathic exes" 5-10 years later.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/mother-wins-custody-battle-after-terrifying-children-about-father-20110103-19dwr.html

<Her paranoia ''invaded the children's day-to-day lives''.

The children grew to fear their father might kidnap them after their mother kept them at home to prevent their abduction from school.>

Yep only in Australia can a mother be rewarded for abusive behaviour, she committed domextic violence, yet winds up with sole custody of the children.

There will be two extremely damaged young adults in future because of this woman.

We are unque, the cotters and ChazPs are highly representative of some of those in the murkier end of the Family Law swamp - the bit that's infested by leeches and mosquitos where nobody sensible wants to go. They've been digging in there for decades, making themselves as nice a nest as they can, living off the rotten remains of failed relationships.

Any effort to cut back some of the undergrowth will bring clouds of such parasites, protesting loudly that their lifestyle is being threatened. Pay them no mind, just remember the aerogard.

James, that woman is in Brisbane. I wonder if she's another friend of cotter's? It sounds like that would be right up her alley.

The judge's remarks do give the lie to the claim by Mother's Rights advocates that the court is biased toward fathers and indeed, the Court's claim to be a place of justice:

"Justice Austin was aware the man would be disappointed but said the court's priority was not achieving a just result for the parents, but serving the children's best interests."

I still think his Honour got it wrong and I hope the father doesn't give up here but appeals to the full bench. Rewarding bad behaviour is a particularly dangerous justiciary principle.

The mother is obviously not right in the head - what will his honour do when the kids end up missing out on an education, or have to be taken from the mpother because her mental illness makes her incapable of caring for them? Perhaps his honour should look into the research on the effects of child neglect and abuse that was published recently?

Unique

Why is it dirty for father's groups to complain about money? A range of political groups are interested in the income of their members. None are robbed blind in the same way as child support payers. I also believe that money is a major motivation in these heated debates about custody with their underhanded tactics.

benk, I believe WAU was quoting cotter or one of the other Mother's Rights drones.

well said 'septic. Thats twice in the last few days! Chazp and cotter and that woman from Queensland do infact represent the murkier end of Family Law - the cases and kids who were in danger prior to separation, and after, who are often being screwed on the altar of bigotry in the family court. They are NOT against shared parenting per se, just make sure it's safe first for those 5% of cases where its a problem. Psychologically, mentally, physically, sexually and dare I say it, financially. And any attempt by any of them to clear the waters of some of the murk being sprayed around here gets too many of you back on the 'but she dun me wrong' what about me track.

Why does we are unique, (like - isn't everyone?) chop and change between occassional (basic strategy), tedious homily and downright vitriol, who (what's a nice way of saying...brown nosing) ganging up with the MR women-haters here is apparently Ok but calling Chasp and Cotter and me 'a team' as if any association of similar ideas must be torn apart.

God, WAN, next you'll be calling us a political party, doing all that lobbying, 'n stuff. (age of right to speak was part of the 2006 submission) It's great you've been around for a whole year now, and I can see your newness bothers you. I cant decide whether you are Sue price or john Aster with spellcheck. As for psychos and sociopaths, do they change for the better? I dont have pet psycho in my personal past, but I'm pretty sure now they dont just go away after separation.

Bye now kiddies.

Oh 'septic, if you see toddlers on a beach in bikinis on very hot days, with their daddies, can you suggest they get might get them sun-safe cover-ups, hats and sunblock. it's one of those safety things

It is dirty for father’s groups to complain about money because they use dirty tactics, i.e. they lie about the real situation eg. “None are robbed blind in the same way as child support payers.” Lying is a dirty tactic.
Father’s groups also make sheer mendacious claims that blame their victims eg. “money is a major motivation in these heated debates about custody with their underhanded tactics.” Blaming the victim is a typical manouver and was well demonstrated by the Nazis and their mentality that blamed the Jews wholesale for the German ills.

If father’s groups were truly concerned about fatherless children their target for change would NOT be the Family Law Act and child support.
It is after all "child" + "support".

Now, sit back and watch the personal attacks.

Happy

Why don't you believe that child support payments ae excessive?

Are mothers victims of anything in particular, or is victimhood just something that all women ae entitled to?

Jacksun: you requested assistance 'help' was the term you used a fortnight ago in relation to your sister and I offered strategies to both yourself and Cotter [your mother]?

I posted consecutively on three occasions.

Thereafter I was attacked by ChazP who differed with my opinion, which is fine, although labelling using degradation as ChazP has done over many years previously with dozens of people, in her attempt to keep people quiet or annoy them into not re-posting [oldest strategy in the book],to further her own hidden personal agenda, made me a little annoyed [at her selfishness].

After all, if ChazP and Cotter were sufficiently serious about their objectives to change or amend the Family Law Act over the past 5 years, one would think they would have accomplished this to date instead of copying and linking repetitive 'Sociopath' material on every family law related thread on OLO over a 5 year period.

I spent a considerable amount of time responding to you Jacksun for the benefit of your nephew and family when I could have been focussing on other personal things.

If you were genuinely seeking assistance, a thank you from most people in your situation would have been forthcoming.

All the best nevertheless to your nephew and family 'Jacksun'.

Research conducted by Lenore Weitzman and published in her book the Divorce Revolution co-insided with Federal Labors push to end child poverty.

Her research had enormous influence on child support laws in the US and because we tend to follow US trends, one can assume that this research also influence Federal Labor policy at the time.

Typically her research findings appealed strongly to feminist urban myths and as such was not challanged, and she kept others from reviewing her findings for a long time.

http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

<In particular, the book's claim that in the year after divorce women's standard of living decreased by a whopping 73 percent while men enjoyed an increase of 43 percent caught the attention of pundits, legislators, and judges. This statistic has become one of the philosophical bases for deciding child custody and property division in divorce cases. It has also altered public perceptions of men, women, and divorce. It was cited hundreds of times in news stories, scholarly studies, and law review articles last year, and was regarded so clearly as holy writ that President Clinton cited it too in his budget proposal this year as part of his attack on deadbeat dads.

The only problem with this statistic, in fact, is that it turns out to be wrong. >

<When they looked at the status of men, however, Stroup and Pollock uncovered surprising information. "Keeping in mind the suggestion of Weitzman and others of economic gain by males with divorce," they wrote, "the results are sharply contrary to expectations." Instead of the 42 percent increase reported by Weitzman or the more common 10 percent figure, the data indicated an average 10 percent decrease in income, with professional men experiencing a decline of 8 percent and less-educated workers a drop of 19 percent. Stroup and Pollock wrote that Weitzman's "sharp generalization of a 42 percent rise in living standards for males certainly does not hold for our sample." More importantly, their findings presented an implicit challenge to the studies which reported lower figures than Weitzman but still agreed with the conventional wisdom that men benefit from divorce.>

So basically a quarter of a century later, the urban myth still lives on.

Why is not child support tax deductable?

In fact child support is a tax, that is levied against men by the the federal government.

Jacksun:"Chazp and cotter and that woman from Queensland do infact represent the murkier end of Family Law - the cases and kids who were in danger prior to separation, and after,"

So you approve of the actions of the woamn in Qld, who convinced her children, for reasons of her own, with no evidence whatever, that their father was a monster who was going to do terrible things to them. You approve of the woman who the judge called "despicable.

I'm glad we got that sorted out.

As for your fictitious nephew, the greatest hope a child like that has is that someone like cotter or Chazp isn't allowed anywhere near him and his neurotic mother is supervised at every step.

happy:"It is dirty for father’s groups to complain about money because they use dirty tactics, i.e. they lie about the real situation "

As a child support payer on $40,000 gross I was expected to fork out nearly 1/3 of my after tax money on child support, leaving me with the choice of paying rent or buying food. As a self-employer person in a business that had roughly 50% of its trunover in costs, I was expected by the CA to hand over 30% of my gross turnover, which would have sent me bankrupt.

As a paying parent who was paying regularly and above the CSA formula from the start, I've had the CSa "double dip" for 3 months of payments because they backdates the start date and then refused to acknowledge the money that had been paid, even when presented with receipts. I was accused of "trying to bully your ex into signing recaipts, we know what your type are like".

In the meantine, Patricia, children are being given to single mothers who only want them for the child support or as a form of revenge against their father and they are being neglected and abused in huge numbers. You and those like you who "tell lies for feminism" are responsible for that abuse, Patricia. I do hope you're proud.

One of the impossible ideologies is that following divorce or separation that children must not experience a fall in the standard of living.

So by default the custodial parent must also not experience a fall in the standard of living.

There are three options.

1) the custodial parent goes out to work
2) the government increases support
3) the non-custodial wage earner supports the ex and the children, just like the wage earner did when they were still married.

So basically women can divorce men, but men can never divorce women. Which is basically a bottomless money pit.

If the welfare of the children were the driving principle, why then not leave them with the income earner?

One thing came to my attention recently, female married a fella who already owned his own home, has a couple of kids, separate, divorce, property settlement, of course she winds up with the house.

After property settlement, kids go to stay with dad in his rented accomodation for a weekend, mum disappears, putting the house on the market.

Kids winded up living with dad in rented accommodation. Mum has moved onto another sucker.

Anti

Who are the people who lobby politicians on behalf of non-custodial paents? Are there particular organisations or political paties?

'septic - self employed. Yes, well anyone who's ever owned a business knows there's turnover, black, costs, living expenses usually squeezed in there, all deducted before tax. Surely you can't be so narrow? as to assume all self-employed people are as apparently 'straight' as you are! They expected you to pay, but obviously? you didn't.
We also now know that you'd rather 99 actual child abusers go about their business without interference, in case one 'innocent' goes free.

WAN - stop whining because your passive/agressive/'motherhood' style wasn't adulated. In fact, you were thanked even though your grasp of our situation seems very limited and sometimes really ridiculous. eg

You're in the car with your child. Suddenly Daddy's on your tail, in his ute, tailgating, pulling alongside, shaking his fist. Do you pull off in a safe place and lock the doors and call for help? Hope someone will come along? You try to keep going til you get somewhere safe. Nerves heightened, fear, the child is screaming. So your solution is to pull off the road, get out the phone and take a photo? A photo will not capture what happened.

Robert - you want independent confirmation of crimes that are almost always committed in secrecy. I don't know how to get that. But just as men want to be heard and believed, so do women and children. Unfortunately the systems used to investigate are understaffed and must fit into the CJS model.

Benk, I do not know of any specific non-custodial groups lobbying. If the non-custodial outcome has happened unfairly, as far as I know the people may try to get help from one of the groups which are mainly run on gender lines - then will no doubt be accused of being gendered, feminist, or MR. The fate of the children gets lost along the way.

and on child support, why is the purpose of child support - supporting your kids, never of interest - it's always about 'the money'? Not saying CS is always fair, but its not fair for many kids and women too.

cotter:"anyone who's ever owned a business knows there's turnover, black, costs, living expenses usually squeezed in there, all deducted before tax."

Huh? How am I supposed yo claim living expenses or "black costs" (whatever that is) out of a business contracting to Telstra or out of my current timber business? Do please enlighten us as to the miracles of accounting that might allow that to take place, won't you?

cotter:"We also now know that you'd rather 99 actual child abusers go about their business without interference, in case one 'innocent' goes free."

Oh dear. Unlike you, I think that anybody accused of such things has a right to be treated fairly. Unlike you, I'm not an hysteric who has raised a new generation of hysterics. Unlike you, I don;t make things up to try to get sympathy for a case that doesn;t exist. Unlike you, I don;t support mothers who deliberately create false fear of a loving father in their children.

Unlike you, I am rational.

The rest of your lurid fantasies are a problem for you and the psychologist you obviously desperately need.

Cotter nobody in the right mind would like to see 99 child abusers go about their 'business', but then would someone in their right mind find it acceptable that 99 innocent men are punished on the presumption that they might just get one abuser.

There is a case currently in the news where a man was murdered because of a 'presumption'.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-discount-claims-murdered-man-had-abused-children-20110105-19gax.html

<Her paranoia ''invaded the children's day-to-day lives''.

The children grew to fear their father might kidnap them after their mother kept them at home to prevent their abduction from school.>
http://www.smh.com.au/national/mother-wins-custody-battle-after-terrifying-children-about-father-20110103-19dwr.html

This woman is guilty of domestic violence, yet she still get sole custody of the children and the father is not allowed to see his children or have a relationship with them.

How can you justify that Cotter, ChapZ et al.

Benk, the main lobbying groups for non-custodial parents, include the Shared Parenting council of Australia, the Lone Fathers Association and a couple of the groups involved with trying to pick up the pieces, like Dads in Distress. There are also a couple of other groups around shared parenting, including Fathers for Equality, which is probably the most well-run.

Unlike the Mother's Rights gropus which are enormously well-funded by Government and have a whole Department to call their own, the groups mentioned above receive little funding. LFAA was given a grant a few years back to be the "peak body" for separated fathers, and they've done some good work. Barry Williams is very sincere and well-organised and has gathered a lot of good people around him.

The SPCA runs a tight ship as well and features many women members, including both mothers and the female relatives of men who have been deprived of their children by the actions of "despicable" (according to the judge) women like cotter's daughter and her friend. I don't believe they receive any govt funding at all.

Dads in Distress have had a long struggle for funding, despite being set up specifically to help suicidal fathers who've been left destitute and without their children by the Family Law and child support system. they received a little money last year, I believe, but were on the edge of closure. they have branches around the country and are largely volunteer.

Fathers for Equality are specifically a lobbying organisation and they don't receive any funding at all to my knowledge.

septic, So, not an embittered old used-car salesman? There's a comma after the noun 'black' - black economy? Personal phonecalls on business phone, special deal from Telstra, nice business car, postage, buying trips away? etc. Things that would not have been available to your lucky ex, unless she was a partner and got her share when she kicked you to the curb in an unwarranted fit of hormonal rage.

Please don't call me 'dear'. It makes my flesh creep.

How many times do you need to hear my practice includes men, women and children? Ignoring it, pretending I'm working for the lying women is selective at best donchafink?

JamesH, Murder is always a terrible crime. Unfortunately the CJS will allow each of the accused many rights (no matter who did what) and the trial - (possibly in separated cases) may not at all be focussed on getting to the truth of what happened to that man - more on the protection of those accused. The victim will be sullied, the jury - if there is one is already being told via the media that he might have been a paedophile, that will no doubt be repeated at trial. That's a common tactic. This murdered man and his family and friends are those scum that septic hates - now part of the victim industry. Hope you can see why his rants quite miss the point. I think there needs to be more balance - and a search for the truth, not the games that go on now.

Re that FL case with Stuart Austin, please know that judges rarely read affidavits, dismiss evidence often defying logic, and the transcripts of cases on Austlii are often 'cleansed'. After years of observing cases in courts, and reading judgements that are different from what went on, watching the media restrictins etc logic, truth and fairness are often hard to find.

The media says the man got a bad deal. Based on that version, if he appeals he would have a good chance of overturning the decision. Appeals are pretty expensive.

cotter:"Personal phonecalls on business phone"

Actually, I have a capped plan, so it doesn't matter what calls I make. Of course, before that I was raking in the savings - my average phone bill was about $400 and at least $10 of that was personal...

cotter:"special deal from Telstra,"

That must be the $400 a month "special deal" that included the "special privilege" of being charged 3 or 4 timed for the one call, which was replaced by the capped mobile plan from Optus that costs %60. Gee, it's good to be a bloated plutocrat with all that bargaining power...

cotter:"nice business car,"

Do you mean my old van? Nah, that can't be it, you must mean my old truck, since tyou couldn't possibly call the old 4 WD "nice".

All of them, except the van which is now gone, were made in the 80s. the ex drives a 1995 Honda - justas well she doesn't know what she's missing out on, eh?

cotter:"postage"

I haven't sent a personal letter in at least 10 years. You might be surprised to learn that some people manage to coomunicate via other means.

cotter:"buying trips away"

erm...what do you reckon I'd be "buying"? I do like the idea, well done, but I can't for the life of me work out how to get such a thing into play. Perhaps you could enlighten us all, after you explain the miracle of accounting that you mentioned in your last.

cotter:"Please don't call me 'dear'."

Oh don't worry, no one is going to think you're anything but cheap, although not much of a bargain at any price.

cotter:"How many times do you need to hear my practice includes men, women and children?"

I don't care how many times you repeat your fantasies - they're still fantasies. Nasty, misandric fantasies from a nasty, damaged woman who has managed to raise nasty, damaged children. What an achievement.

cotter:"judges rarely read affidavits"

Hahaha. I suppose they're usually too busy taking bribes from well-heeled self-employed fathers. You're really very funny.

cotter:"dismiss evidence often defying logic, and the transcripts of cases on Austlii are often 'cleansed'."

I do believe you're straying perilously close to contempt of the Court. Please do go on... oh hang on, you have.

cotter:"reading judgements that are different from what went on"

If you have evidence that the Court Reporting Service is systematically falsifying Court records, have you brought this evidence to the authorities? Having thought another couple of nanoseconds I reckon you're still full of it.

I know, you can tell us again about some fictitious child that features in your most lurid anti-male fantasies. I bet there isn't a transcript...

"Cotter, proudly making things up since 2005".

You must be proud.

cotter:" the jury - if there is one is already being told via the media that he might have been a paedophile, that will no doubt be repeated at trial. "

This is what is known as "evidence as to motive". It is intended to establish that a "mens rea" existed at the time of the killing. Mens rea means a "real intent" to commit the crime, rather than it being an accident or an unforeseen outcome of a lesser attack.

Think of it this way - because you habitually live in a state of neurotic fear of every man you encounter, there is no rson to believe that all or any of these men wish you to feel afraid or have done anything to make you feel afraid. The "mens rea" to make you afraid is absent - you're a victim of your own neurosis.

Really then septic, by your own behaviour and admission you are a bit of a loser in business too, as well as in relationships, ignorant of what really goes on in courts, as opposed to what you assume ought to go on. Go you mysogenistic, ignorant (because you just dont know and assume you are right) narrow minded, unprincipled, abusive narcissist! (identifying your traits yourself allows this armchair analysis from those exposed to your putrid vitriol).

You think judges read all those lying affidavits? Lala land buddy.

A complaint about transcripts being changed goes to both the judicial commission (because the judges are the ones who authorise and sign off on them)and the Attorney General at the state level (because they have authority over courts administration.

You should listen to some tapes of court hearings and compare them to the written transcripts and then apologise. (just after Hell freezes over hey!)

Jacksun:"you are a bit of a loser in business "

LOL. how many businesses have you started with no capital, dear?

As it happens, though, I'd much rather have stayed in my career, but the CSA made it impossible, so you're partially right. Never mind, I'm sure that'll never happen again.

Jacksun:"ignorant of what really goes on in courts"

Oh, of course, I was only a spectator in those 6 court matters brought by the ex. I must be dreaming that I self-represented successfully. And I most certainly didn't learn anything at all about the Law...

As I said to cotter, if you have evidence that fraud is taking place, put it before the authorities. I'm sure they'll give your claims all the attention they deserve.

Now, off you toddle and ask Mum what to say next. I'm sure you don't want to make her angry...

'septic - Are you perhaps confusing mens rea with motive? A maxim rich in tradition and well known to law students is actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea or "a person cannot be convicted and punished in a proceeding of a criminal nature unless it can be shown that he had a guilty mind".

You apparently base your comprehensive up-to-date practical legal knowledge on your own case in Family Law, from some time ago. I have no doubt you learned heaps. It's a shame humans don't know it all going into relationships instead of too late. The judge/magistrate may indeed have read more of your affidavits as you were self-representing, and hopefully you were extended the courtesy of the court. Sometimes a judicial officer will go out of their way to assist a SRL, sometimes they make it as hard as they can.

in one case mum was the SRL, and the judge warned her before her cross of the father 'Be very careful lest i decide you are an unfriendly parent'.

I didn't mean judges dont read any affidavits, but they do not read anywhere near them all according two judge's associate colleagues of mine. (Or I could be lying about having colleagues according to you)

I also have to disagree that lodging a legitimate complaint against any part of the legal system's practices is going to get corrective action. Fraud & perjury are criminal offences, police do not investigate what goes on in courts generally. Look at outcomes from complaints to the Judicial Commisssion and the legal services commissioner in their annual reports. The abiity of the law to protect itself is profound - it is the main thing I am forced to admire about the adversarial system.

If one tries to get political assistance to remedy a wrong, you soon find the separation of powers excludes politicians - be it premier, prime minister or other from 'interventing in a court process - or fixing it in hindsight, and of course victims have no right of legal counsel or appeal.

Man who loses war

Continues battle with women

His children suffer

person with little to say
strives to find
new ways to say it

well, just stop it and stop talking about it because you are boring

cotter:"Are you perhaps confusing mens rea with motive?"

Me(a couple of posts previously):"This is what is known as "evidence as to motive". It is intended to establish that a "mens rea" existed at the time of the killing."

So, no, I'm not confusing the two and it appears you've just discovered that mens rea is an important aspect of any criminal trial, such as would be required to prosecute your claims. Well done, we may be starting to make some progress.

cotter:"You apparently base your comprehensive up-to-date practical legal knowledge on your own case in Family Law, from some time ago."

That got me interested and so I began researching. At present, I suspect I know about as much about the Family Law as any layperson does and more than many lawyers. Certainly a great deal more than any of the Mother's Rights advocates I've seen posting here.

cotter:"in one case mum was the SRL, and the judge warned her before her cross of the father 'Be very careful lest i decide you are an unfriendly parent'. "

I don't believe you. If the judge was to do such a thing it would be prejudicial and would be grounds for an appeal and possibly for dismissal of the judge and a new trial. In fact, I don't believe you that this woman was allowed to cross-examine the other parent. Judges are extremely reluctant to allow SRLs to cross-examine, for obvious reasons. Apart from anything else, a SRL rarely has the skills to do so effectively and so it wastes the Court's time.

cotter:"The abiity of the law to protect itself is profound "

I agree to an extent, but the same applies to other professions as well. When I first commenced self-representing, I made a complaint to the Law Society about the behaviour of my former lawyer and that of the other party's lawyer, which lead to the people involved being censured by the Society. If the case is good, the society will act. It won't undertake investigations to find evidence, however.

Antiseptic: re Cotter: I don't believe you. If the judge was to do such a thing it would be prejudicial and would be grounds for an appeal and possibly for dismissal of the judge and a new trial. In fact, I don't believe you that this woman was allowed to cross-examine the other parent. Judges are extremely reluctant to allow SRLs to cross-examine, for obvious reasons. Apart from anything else, a SRL rarely has the skills to do so effectively and so it wastes the Court's time.

Instead of challenging your ever-present disbelief, if the Family Court web is wrong? perhaps you better enlighten them, then tell us when you have it fixed.

Final hearing
A final hearing is usually conducted in the following way:

Applicant’s evidence – you (or your lawyer) outlines your case. The respondent may cross-examine you or your witnesses. You may then re-examine your witnesses.

Respondent’s evidence – you (or your lawyer) outlines your case. The applicant may cross-examination you or your witnesses. You may then re-examine your witnesses.

Isn't prejudice and poor behaviour what everyone is highlighting? Isn't that what betrays the less well informed moreso than the law itself? Men and women are each trying to say - howver ineptly -that the system can discriminate, ignore facts, evidence etc. And many children are suffering because of it, especially so where actual violence and actual abuse is a feature of their lives and the system fails to protect them.

Jacksun, if a SRL is to be allowed to cross-examine they must first convince the Judge that their line of questioning will be useful and relevant and that they will act in accordance with the rules. If the Judge isn't convinced he may advise the SRL to seek further advice or he may simply refuse permission.

It is especially rare for an SRL to be allowed to cross-examine when there have been allegations of the type you have made about your fictitious "nephew". More usually, expert testimony is called and independent expert examination is undertaken.

Still, it's good that you're starting to understand that process is important.

Everyone lies

In this endless argument

Except the sad men

<Everyone lies> Not really

<In this endless argument> That depends

Except the sad men
Posted by Shintaro, Saturday, 8 January 2011 12:28:48 PM

So what happened to make these men sad?

Maybe it was life experiences dealing with false feminist ideology.

Had an interesting discussion with a woman from another culture the other day and she pointed out how she the western anglo saxon culture seemed to be so miserable.

She correctly pointed out that people were only concerned with their narcassitic selves.

She said that women's magazines should be banned because of the misery they cause.

the point then is not that an SRL cannot cross examine, in fact an SLR can indeed cross examine, perhaps provided the judge is satisfied they know and will follow the rules. In the actual case (whether you believe it or not),the judge restricted her cross with the warning about friendly parent, even though he had done no such thing to restrict the SR father. Each judge/magistrate/JR has the command of their court, and can be as different in what they expect as chalk and cheese, and change according to the case before them.

Making cracks about my nephew might make you seem powerful in your mind, but it's just irrelevent to us, since you seem only interested in poor men hard-luck stories, no matter how trivial they may seem by comparison, they are life to the people involved.

Jacksun:"an SLR can indeed cross examine, perhaps provided the judge is satisfied they know and will follow the rules"

Yes, that is correct. It is not common, but it can occur. Normally a Judge would prefer to rely on affidavits and the examination of the parties by expert third parties.

The following may be instructive
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/family_ct/2001/348.html

" 1. A judge should ensure as far as is possible that procedural fairness is afforded to all parties whether represented or appearing in person in order to ensure a fair trial;

2. A judge should inform the litigant in person of the manner in which the trial is to proceed, the order of calling witnesses and the right which he or she has to cross examine the witnesses;

3. A judge should explain to the litigant in person any procedures relevant to the litigation;

4. A judge should generally assist the litigant in person by taking basic information from witnesses called, such as name, address and occupation;

5. If a change in the normal procedure is requested by the other parties such as the calling of witnesses out of turn the judge may, if he/she considers that there is any serious possibility of such a change causing any injustice to a litigant in person, explain to the unrepresented party the effect and perhaps the undesirability of the interposition of witnesses and his or her right to object to that course;

6. A judge may provide general advice to a litigant in person that he or she has the right to object to inadmissible evidence, and to inquire whether he or she so objects. A judge is not obliged to provide advice on each occasion that particular questions or documents arise;

7. If a question is asked, or evidence is sought to be tendered in respect of which the litigant in person has a possible claim of privilege, to inform the litigant of his or her rights;

[cont]

8. A judge should attempt to clarify the substance of the submissions of the litigant in person, especially in cases where, because of garrulous or misconceived advocacy, the substantive issues are either ignored, given little attention or obfuscated. (Neil v Nott (1994) 121 ALR 148 at 150);

9. Where the interests of justice and the circumstances of the case require it, a judge may:
• draw attention to the law applied by the Court in determining issues before it;
• question witnesses;
• identify applications or submissions which ought to be put to the Court;
• suggest procedural steps that may be taken by a party;
• clarify the particulars of the orders sought by a litigant in person or the bases for such orders.
The above list is not intended to be exhaustive and there may well be other interventions that a judge may properly make without giving rise to an apprehension of bias."

Jacksun:"even though he had done no such thing to restrict the SR father. "

That's not what your mother said. She said:"in one case mum was the SRL, and the judge warned her before her cross of the father 'Be very careful lest i decide you are an unfriendly parent'. ". She didn't mention anything about the father being an SRL, just the mother, so I think you're doing your favourite thing and telling lies.

Besides, even if you were unusually telling the truth there would be nothing wrong in the judge's actions according to Johnson Vs Johnson.

As always, hysteria and victimology doesn't make for good analysis.

What you, Anti, really meant to simply say then, was 'sorry, yes, i wasn't full enough in my dripping disbelief about SLr cross examining. I was wrong. You were right, they can do it, according to strict guidelines and assistance from the judge.

I accept your hidden apology and am so releived to be able to go back to believing what i saw with my own eyes, rather than what you said. (In court with non-existent sister that day, waiting for her case, FM court).

I also understand even more about your need to be dominant and right, and even when you are not, you still must demean in losing. Mum could indeed have used the worlds 'one of the two SLR's instead of focussing only on that SLR's ordeal. Perhaps some judges behave quite differenly to the Rules, and where there are two SLR's perhaps the behaviour varies again.

You, Antiseptic, are an example of exactly the sort of person causing the exasperation and eventual just walking away that drives many to divorce. And in this way, 'I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee and it is done.

Jacksun before you divorce anti, maybe you two should try some relationhsip counselling. ;0, ;)

Jacksun:"Perhaps some judges behave quite differenly to the Rules,"

And perhaps there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, but I'd not be betting that way.

Now, off you toddle, I'm sire you've got lots more stuff to make up.

<FORGET about becoming prime minister. New research shows most women secretly want to be a princess instead.

According to two British studies, women are looking to "marry up" like never before, and are seeking high-earning hubbies so they can stay home and be full-time mums.>

There are complaints that fathers, do not pay enough money to support the children and the ex spouse, yet on the other hand fathers need to be able somehow to support themselves as well.

Then the single mother groups claim that single fathers groups and child access is about money.

It is apparent that there are hidden agendas and motivations and subterfuge on the part of single mother groups.

At a guess these women see men as being supplicants.

<Mum kills the kids and torches the house>
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/family-row-may-have-caused-murder-suicide-in-heidelberg-heights/story-e6frf7kx-1225985248428

Now this is an extraordinary event, just like Darcy Freeman situation.

Feminist groups use situations where tragic events like Darcy Freeman, as part of their propaganda a bit like how our politicans behaved with the children overboard affair.

Emotive manipulation and any intellectual questioning is quickly suppressed.

What contributed to this tragedy is so far unknown. But it would be easy to push the agenda that mothers are not safe for children on the back of this tragedy.

Such however such tactic is underhanded and dishonest most would agree.