patricia...you used law to support 'risk of violence' should over-ride child right to meaningful relationship with genetic parent...

now 'National-Coalition-of Mothers-Against-Child-Abuse'(wheres the father) imparts a nice, good purpose behind this coalition...though I could not find your website to get more information...

now as law student you well aware why law had to be changed in 2006...mothers ruled...and fatherchild suffered(this the real 'perversion')...basic premise was the mother better parent from being 'major' carer of young child...this since recognized as wrong at law as its childs meaningful bond with their parent that matters...not time spent...but almost every mother in family court went to break and control fatherchild care,relationship and time...go read case laws...so firstly lets learn from past and make sure it never repeats...agree...and yes you are a women and so I dont expect an 'unbiased' stand to issue from you...

now 'failure' in 'allegation of violence' cases in the past was that even if the 'alleging' party was found to have manufactured 'evidence', trained young child to claim false abuse under threat/duress...usually the mother...court did not apply the appropriate weight to injury and so accountability and punishment did not follow...see...so any parent will happily take a 'chance' to falsely allege as little to loose personally but all to gain...

until family court starts rolling out severe sanctions on perpetrators of false allegations...what you seek will not happen...ie even 'red flags' without convincing evidence from party who has all to gain from becoming dominant parent...will likely have vested interests to exaggerate/lie/manipulate to gain dominant power in court by raising allegation of violence...

of course next issue is if/which parent is 'disrupting to destroying and traumatizing' a young child for total control...and that requires statue_professional_team of medical specialists observing_assessing_testing child over weeks to months...something we need to get going soon as possible...

with these two...then we can be more sure we have arrived closer to the truth than ever before...and better decisions and outcomes possible...

Sam
by the way...in terms of numbers...the bigger abuse and trauma is one parent trying to break childs relationship with other...whats your position...

Most of this article is couched in gender neutral language (except for the bit on who perpetrates DV) but I'm still left with the impression that it's targetting fathers having access to children when the mother has concerns. I suspect that Sam got the same impression.

Maybe it's just us but I suspect not.

From The Abused Child Trust website http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/facts.htm#3

"Who perpetrates child abuse?

94% of abused children in Queensland are harmed by someone they know and trust. 85% of abused children in Queensland are harmed by their natural parent.

Family types involved in substantiated abuse and neglect

27% two parent (natural families)
23% two parent (other families)
37% single female parent families
5% single male parent families
"

In regard to child deaths they seem to keep rearranging the site breaking my stored links but a dig around the reports from the NSW Child Death Review Team provides info on who kills children http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/kids/resources/publications/childdeathreview.cfm

I agree that genetics should not be the overriding concern in protecting children from genuine risk. The winner takes it all aspects of family law and child support encourage false reports and hinder identification of genuine cases of risk.

R0bert

Sam,

I agree with your paragraph below, if I have understood your shorthand correctly:

".and that requires statue_professional_team of medical specialists observing_assessing_testing child over weeks to months...something we need to get going soon as possible..."

It is incredible that one report from one person who meets the family members for one hour of their entire life can determine the outcome of a court case. This is completely unnacceptable and the term of observation should be many months as Sam suggests. Then the interactions of mothers and fathers with children, and any abuse occurring would be revealed and reported correctly for what it is, and parents given an opportunity to accept counselling towards change so that they stop harming their child/ren.

"by the way...in terms of numbers...the bigger abuse and trauma is one parent trying to break childs relationship with other..."

Sam, essentially you have repeated throughout your post that all mothers set out to stop all fathers having a meaningful relationship with their kids and all mothers make false allegations in order to win custody and all mothers do win custody all of the time; is this last phrase some kind of challenge to make you change your mind? No-one with any sense is going to take that on as the evidence doesn't support it anyway and if you can't see that, then nothing is going to change your view. What concerns me is that you are so focussed on what is wrong with women, with blaming and vilifying that you can no longer see what children actually need. Jumping on a bandwagon with a bunch of gender hating, chest thumpers spreading disinformation does not make children's lives better. It makes more mothers and fathers reasons to fight each other instead of the system which is exposing our kids to unnacceptable and preventable abuse.

Protective mothers and fathers waking up and realising that the system is the issue, not any particular gender, then aiming their energy at addressing that and changing that system are the people who are going to make children's lives better. Please wake up soon.

Addressing your concerns Robert, as outlined in this quote:

"The winner takes it all aspects of family law and child support encourage false reports and hinder identification of genuine cases of risk."

Sadly, recent AFC decisions involved removal of children from the protective parent who reported abuse and residence given to the abusive parent. The protective parents were both mothers and fathers. The AFC are aligned with the view that any allegation is automatically false and malicious and therefore they punish the parent trying to protect the child from physical harm regardless of that parents gender and it is this issue which mothers and father could work together to remedy. Instead, children are condemned to living with neglect and abuse as a result of imcompetent decision making processes.

Currently, solicitors advise that parents not raise issues of the neglect or they will lose residence, so why would a parent speak out? Perhaps some parents really are afraid for their childs welfare and mistakenly think that the Family Court has their child's safety as its highest priority. Not so. A growing number of mothers and fathers have been punished for trying to protect their children, and a growing number of medical practitioners are aghast that their evidence was dismissed.

Nothing could be worse than having your child one weekend a fortnight bruised and disclosing what the other parent's/spouse did and begging not to be sent back but being too terrified to bring it to the courts attention because you have been warned that your access will be reduced. The current threat is a no contact order for 6 months, regardless of how much your child wants to see you. In what way is this good for children?

This is the same system of law which allows Dennis Ferguson to walk free, to receive instant public housing, police protection and $1000 per day of funding to assist him. regardless of your gender, the system requires an overhaul to connect with and act on reality.

Children deserve better.

Why is it that whever these issues are raised it immediately descends into a `Gender Wars’ battle when the only considerations are the father’s rights and mother’s rights?.Such battles are marked by anger and bitterness which is so common in Family Courts when such matters are being considered.

Family Courts and parents should all be considering these issues from the children’s perspectives and what the children’s rights and needs are and this should be their paramount consideration.

Primarily should be the children’s rights to be able to fully and freely express their wishes and feelings and for these to be given full weighting by Courts and not to have their views distorted and misrepresented by Court-appointed officials. Most children are adept at knowing what is in their `Best Interests’ and do not always need these to be interpreted by adults who are not even known to them and who they may only have seen for a quick `chat’.

Secondly are children’s rights to be protected from abuse and their need to have a secure and safe environment in which to develop. In many of the cases which reach the Family Courts it appears that allegations by children that they have been abused are not thoroughly and competently investigated and this then causes the major issue of dispute between warring parents. Since Australia adopted the Convention on children's rights little attempt appears to have been made to implement those rights in laws or in the Courts of Australia and it is the children who suffer when Courts make ill-advised judgements in an adversarial process where winning is the only importance to self-centred parents who consider their own rights to be of sole importance.

Even worse is the continuing attitudes of some parents that their children are their possessions. It is these attitudes from embittered parents which predominate these kinds of debates when discussion should be centred around the wishes and feelings of the children and how their custody and care should be measurably and demonstrably `In their Best Interests’ and not a fanciful speculation or dogmatic opinion of an unconnected adult.

There is of course a more serious form of child abuse than parental alienation,to say otherwise, when children die at the hand of either parent is ridiculous.

Sadly, children have died on court ordered access. Where,there is a history of violence this is no less a community shame than when children die that are known to child protection authorities.

Law professionals are simply not trained to make assessments on these matters without advise. I dare say some of the barriers comes from a certain arrogance by the profession. There needs to be a system of mandatory reporting and therefore thorough assessment (in the home context) by appropriately trained mental health and social work professionals.

Sam, if there is no threat to the childs physical safety. But emotional abuse is present, in the form of splitting from the other parent by either. That too will come to light in assessment.

Assuming the concerns of either parent is splitting without investigation is dangerously naive.

ChildAdvocate, I've not come across the trend you describe but can imagine it as the swing of the pendulum. The ability to weed out false allegations without hindering the ability to raise genuine issues is always a difficult problem, one for which I've not seen solutions which I consider effective.

As for medical practitioners being concerned about how evidence is dismissed my own experience with doctors letters used during family law procedings and the difficulty in getting any action taken over false claims leaves me with little faith in the independance of some doctors.

I'm hoping that this does nbot become a gender war. The inclusion of the statement about genderisation of DV in the article is an opening salvo in such a war but maybe by reminding ourselves that the issues apply to both genders we can stick to the topic.

R0bert

In furtherance of my previous comments, I would suggest that this discussion should address the following questions:

1. How can decision-making in Courts be improved where the care and contact arrangements with children are being considered in the case of embittered and warring parties?.

2. How can children be effectively engaged in the decision-making processes to better inform decisions regarding their `Best Interests’ and in accordance with their human rights.?

3. How can allegations by children that they have been abused prior to, and/or after the parental separation be thoroughly and competently investigated to ensure they are effectively protected and provided with a safe and secure enviroment?.

This issue is far too important to children everywhere to be left to the ruminations and selfish assertions of embittered and dogmatic gender warriors.

Children have always been seen as property and exploitable in many ways
Those with riches and power, “win” the assets, the property. In the Family Court the same dynamics apply. If a parent has no money to fight for their belief that the child would be better of with them, they ultimately lose.

The family court now extends the concept of children as property by ensuring that they are to be “shared” or be lost totally to one party altogether, failing miserably in its examination of the effect of ‘sharing’ between parents, one of whom is abusive. The division of inanimate property has no need to examine the benefit or otherwise to the property of ownership.

Society knows all too well that abusive parents exist. Violence against spouse and children is often carried out because the victims are not seen as having ‘rights’, they are inanimate objects to be used and abused, as one can trash their own property.
(continued in next post)

post continued:
Looking at recent events: Robert Farquharson was angry over the loss of property – his car He killed his children, as a redress for that loss. Gary Bell’s history was that he was very possessive of his children, his possessions, his ‘property’. He said he could not leave his children if he went to jail for a violent assault on his wife, over whom he also appears to have felt he had proprietal ‘rights’ to the extent that beat her on so many occasions. So, rather than let her have what was “his”, he destroyed them.

The solution is that children must not be treated as property. As that continues to be the norm, if not in word, but clearly in deed, they continue to have only the facade of protection and safety. Millions of dollars are spent investigating offences against inanimate property, while our most valuable possessions, our children have only a flimsy façade against abuse, neglect and despair.

Firstly one needs to see where 'common practice' is at...and where childadvocate, dott and others who 'beat the drums' of 'abusive parent' cause alarm bells everywhere...

take dv violence...yes genuine cases(in numbers few and far inbetween)...was point head of 'womens' movement to produce rash of 'studies' to eventually produce numbers like 1 in 2 'women' experience 'abuse'...causing draconian laws, 'superdv courts'...where all it needed was for a 'women' to make a phonecall to police...few minutes work...which caused the state to remove father from children, family home and excluded...Abstatistics then had to set up proper peer reviewed studies that removed subjective questionaire slant like 'did you ever feel threatened by a male...' to a more objective one to get to closer to real dv statistics and which from memory some 2% of population with male/female similar proportion...

now by statistics it was 'women' with people working in womens interest who acted to cause this at parliamentary level/laws...and now by numbers the sheer proportion of these dv cases became 'abusive' levels that lead to reversal of court approach to more traditional evidence establishing method...so yes few cases slip out with severe harm/death of innocents...but majority of involved parties protected...which good outcome...than in to remove 'all' risk great numbers of select population(males/fatherschildren) suffered unjustly...while select population(mothers) benefited greatly in the 'after' ie csa/familycourt/money/total control etc...

so you better wake up...accept the facts...which women in great numbers started abusing process for self-benefit...and this in not gender war...if men did same I would have written 'men'...so by 'act' society has lot to fear harm from 'organized womens movement' in the future...truly a awe inspiring brutal force...

so my point is this was the fact...now we are reversing back to a just system...and we must always keep in mind how system got imbalanced in the first place...

and this piece on 'abuse'(general term) quoting one-off cases to apply to all cases...alfully like past feminist driven abuses...so dont focus on 'women' aspect but logically follow how it got imbalanced and use it to set mechanisms prevent such 'perversion' to justice process in future...

hope you agree...

Sam

It seems to me that 'Sam' and the like is the reason this article was written. I cannot help but reply to your deliberate though somewhat incoherent provocations.

A summary of my 'recent' experience of FCA (over two years).

'Father' of our child never lived with me. Broke into my home and killed my pet when I was nine months pregnant.

He became involved with another woman before the birth of 'our' baby.

I learnt he had a history of drug use and stalking. Mimimum contact with his child at own choosing - 30 hours over two years. When I tried to move interstate he organised a Recovery Order.

This meant the Federal Police were mandated by FCA to locate and forcibly remove a two year old child from the childs mother (me). The police would then 'return' a two year old to a stranger and he could do whatever he liked to the child.

Later: Legal Aid says: do not bring up issues of safety we will not fund you.

Then FCA gave unsupervised time. First unsupervised time he hit two year old around the head - bruise on temple. I was advised by legals not to mention to court.

A few months later child clearly discloses ongoing sexual assualt by father to me. Again legals advise not to mention to court.

Father deliberatly works 'cash in hand', lies to Tax Dept. claims Centrelink benefits, pays $6 per week.

Lies shamelessly to Court and Judge.

I am basically homeless, Court is aware I am poor. FCA requires me to fund all contact - travel with child, three and a half hours interstate so father can spend time with him.

Solicitor tells me, court is 'full of men' like him.

Little children, like mine, have people like Sam to thank for the "reversal back to a just system".

Sam, Why do you have so much invested in attacking those who seek to speak up for children?

justice-for-kids...bad name choice...anyway...there is so much wrong in what you wrote...first ask you a question...

what do you want...have child in your full control, full childsupport plus more, exclusion of father...

or life where you settle for less than 'all' and in return have a more sustainable, and happier life with meaningful relationships...

if want first...then 'sistas-gang' way to go...where primary goal of group is working together to achieve 'total' security by placing the mother in full control...of course they want their pound of flesh for it(tool)...a bit vague but think you know what I mean...

if want later...then need to become a 'person' in the sense you have a well developed sense of yourself, confident within your body space, and skills and knowledge not just with people, but seek out knowledge of the world, science, environment etc and have your own assessments on which you relate with other people when you share common space...

so a little test...know what to do to get a man to see you sexually?-guess so...do you know the end product of nuclear process and its problems, or parts of your brain that deals with your state and range of emotion so have better understanding of why you react the way you do, or importantance to achieve lasting peace in middle east...

if you dont know the answers confidently...then you live in a small world where you and your possessions only matter(including children and money)...and which so little to have a meaningful relationship with anyone let alone your children...or be able to find lasting compromises with the father to get to workable care of the children...

Yes, courts can order total control to one mother...that produced a self-sustaining destructive industry...a better way needed...and so can you aim to improve yourself first...you more likely assess situations with less fear or insecurity...but actual facts...which courts understand...then if there is really abuse happening or want to increase the money...then you more likely be able to achieve with you yourself being a big part of the solution...not 'him' bad...give me more...routine thats not going too far these days...

Sam

Sam, can I suggest a reread of JFK's post. Her attacks on you are in my view unfair but likewise your post seem's to ignore the points she makes. There are men out there such as she describes, I doubt that they are as numerous as some would like us to believe but they do exist.

It would be easy to suggest that women should not hook up with guys like that in the first place but then most of the men campaigning for a fair go all round have made a poor choice in partners at some point or we would not be so aware of the issues.

I do get very cynical about those who claim to be all about the kids welfare. Mostly their view of the childs needs seem to line up with their own wants with the option of trashing someone elses rights and needs. I don't believe that the government should treat one persons needs as being more important than anothers, if I as an individual choose to place someone elses needs above my own thats a legitimate choice I should be able to make, when the government does so it's tyrany.

R0bert

Currently children's rights and needs are not a primary consideration by Family Courts or their officials as the Family Law Act is concerned with parental rights and needs i.e. who will have custody/residency of the common property (the children), and who will have equal/shared time with the common property. This is how the Act is worded. To frame a law in this way and for this law to be interpreted and implemented in accordance with such a badly written Act, is a violation and breach of human rights of children. It is long overdue that Parliament took a completely fresh look at this legislation and brought into line with their international obligations and duties to children and end the sham commitment to children's rights as set out by the U.N. and the empty rhetoric about acting "in the child's best interests".

robert...look little deeper...

I have read her post...and almost every point raises most of the 'red flag' to court assessment...which raises issue of 'coaching' usually by 'sista-gang' and which now raises the 'dark-green-flag' to court...and court now has duty to consider/explore effect of this factor to presentation of case and getting to the truth...once you read large number of case laws you start seeing this repetitive pattern...

to the truth of what jfk says...its impossible without father responding to her post at the least...or reading whole court document...but essence of post is not seeking 'justice' but 'support'...as in believe my version and then see what this nasty court has done...highly self-focused approach...

and to fathers who do wrong...absolutely exist...and agree not in numbers women/csa make it out to be...but the past system so skewered to womens interest and enforced by government power...father slaves in separation to serve the mothers lifestyle with money while no child...that men acted to counter in different ways, which jfk elaborates...the small but worst presentation was fathers killing their children so they dont experience the destructive harm from the empowered mother to break the child and fatherchild relationship that was a certainty(I expect cases of mothers doing same if situation reversed)...I will give few court cases but I havnt recovered from reading this some years ago...still have nightmares...

when 'real' parentchild relationship, usually hidden within wall of the home...put in court in clear light...warts and all...which requires professional-assessment government body highly supervised against bias and all other 'perversions' that occurred in such similar past bodies like child-protection...without the vested interests of the parents intervening...court is better placed to decide how to improve the relationship with parent, and when it becomes certain parent refuses/incapable/oppressive_self_interest to achieving meaningful parentchild relationship...removed from relationship...which diminishes desperate acts...hope all that makes sense...

Sam
jfk biggest mistake was moving interstate with child without court permission...clear sign she held no value for fatherchild relationship...

Final words on this as do not want to get 'hooked' into pointless arguement.

Sam, (Sad Angry Man) your 'tactics'- discredit and devalue the message and messenger - by attacking credibilty, fragmenting what I say, abstracting and intellectualising and being dismissive and offensive are all techniques to 'shout me down' and 'silence' me...(or am I talking about the FCA?)

In doing so you attempt to minimise Patricia's message: children are sufferring through court enforced abuse.

Sam, you are reinforcing what she has said. 'Red Flags' are ignored and children are being hurt - badly...forever etc. The voices of the powerless are distorted to meet current agenda - let's deal with 'abuse' by pretending it is a wicked plot by mothers and children to 'control' men.

Don't say the words: 'bad man' or 'abuse' or 'victims' or we'll take your children off you.

These are good, effective tactics and have worked well since at least 1995 as evidenced by court judgments since then.

Any decent person (also 'fellow' or 'man') would stand up if children were being hurt and want to ask why?, how?, lets talk to the children etc...how can this be prevented?

Why has the Family Law Council 2002 raised this issue with the government and been ignored?

'People' like Joe Tucci, Patricia Merkim, Thea Brown and the like are heroes, they stand up for children and basically get spat on by some 'people' for their trouble. All strength to them.

My little child who is currently being deliberatly used as a 'thing' by a sad, angry, person with a Y chromosome, would like it if this 'meaningful' relationship could be stopped. With the huge amount of research and knowledge available, it would be better if abuse was prevented in the first place. Why hasn't it been?

Sam,you reduce yourself as a human being by refusing to acknowledge simple truth and only you know why you are driven to do so. As a society and community we have to ask why the FCA has also turned it's back on abused children and the truth.

JFK says the following "your 'tactics'- discredit and devalue the message and messenger - by attacking credibilty, fragmenting what I say, abstracting and intellectualising and being dismissive and offensive are all techniques to 'shout me down' and 'silence' me.."

Then says of Sam
- Sam, (Sad Angry Man)
- Sam,you reduce yourself as a human being

Simply Sam has a different experience of Family Law and child protection than JFK. That no more makes Sam a Sad Angry Man than it makes JFK a Judgemental Fem-nazi Kook or any other acronym that might be good for putting an opponent down. JFK uses the very tactics against Sam that she apparently dislikes, by her own words techniques to shout him down and silence him.

I've not had close contact with the family law system for a few years so things may have changed dramatically, it used to be that assumptions based on the "Y chromosome" were one of the most significant factor in child residency arrangements rather than actual ability as a parent, actual time spent caring for said child or ability to provide for that child. It used to be that an unsupported allegation against a father was enough to cause them major problems whereas a mother had little to fear from the worst parenting history.

Our kids need protection from abusive parents, we won't get that from those who think the issue is about the gender of the parent nor while we knowingly tollerate those who abuse protection mechanisms for personal benefit.

R0bert

I note a few good tries to make children's well-being and protection from violence and abuse central to the discussion, and a lot of diversive, narrow, self-promoting crap - as far as children's safety is concerned.

The fact is, people have a choice to understand the issues or stick to their tired old mantras ' bad women - especially mothers/ bad men/ especially violent ones but there aren't very many of them. You have a choice to open your brains to the possibility that you just might have the capacity to contribute to the discussion and help make it safer for kids, people and this country. Yep, I put kids first - does that make me suss? Yep. I think the Family Court sux in many of its inalienable abusive behaviours. Lets start with 'damaged children damage people'. What will your legacy be? More of them?

The human rights of children to safety are well down on the agenda of the family law system. There is no investigative unit which will (a) track down family hospitalisations, police attendances, restraining orders, criminal histories and then (b) make decisions to protect children from people who use violence and abuse in family and other relationships. At present abuse and violence get renamed as 'entrenched conflict' and victims are told they are lying or enmeshed in the past. When children die the lawmakers moan 'how could we know?' You can tell that believing victims would be an outrageous proposition - all the loonies that have posted their misogynist vitriol re this article would be offended for a start.

Be careful in your support of this....as this is where the feminists are trying to go with this. Behind every article is this agenda:

- Current system fails to "Protect Children"

ergo, Children must be Saved, from Evil parents

-Philosophy: Children are the property of the State not the parent

-Take more children away from their parents with more "flexible" rules at the discretion of State-trained "Protectors"

Congratulations, we are closer to extreme Socialism/Communism, all thanks to these feminist agendas that are given a free pass in our society.

Mog, you are absolutely correct, and there's so much more negative info to add to the current abusive reality of Family and children's courts.

Steel, when you say be careful it's all a feminist plot - isnt that a contradiction in your own skewed mantra?

As for your equation 'current system fails children' ergo 'save children from evil parents' - I can't quite see what's wrong with that, unless you agree that evil parents are OK. Are you an evil parent? Did you have evil parents? or did an evil parent take your property away. Or do you 'just knowaman' who was badly treated?

Philosphy - children are owned by state? Only if truly evil parents are caught. (You say parent - but you mean father, since mothers might be feminists). Children as property - oh yes, that's FRA.

Protect children? you don't care about protecting children. You just want to blame someone, so why not the feminists, those damned people who thought women had value as human beings, not just as men's property and always subservient to, men. That's why you react so childishly to any post by anyone who supports anything female (except subservient women, and you despise those)

Funny how all the rabid leaders of societal models appear to be men - yet it is feminist agenda that's to blame. Oh der! as my son would say!

Regardless of the intention of a child-protection ethos, it basically boils down to open slather for false accusations. If all risk to the child has to be eliminated, and resources don't allow the detailed, immediate investigation (which they never will), all one will need to do to get full custody will be to get in first with the alegations of abuse.

It's easier to take the moral high ground and say you are 'protecting the children' if you know damn well that you are likely to benefit from the resultant system. But mens groups trying to protect the rights of fathers (and the childs right to know their father) are now somehow selfishly not putting the children first?

Lets just formalise it and say mothers are more important and less likely to be violent than fathers, and by default give the kids to the mother. The children can see the father if the mother writes an explicit disclaimer stating the father is not a risk to the child.

That's what putting the children first really means isn't it?

The comments of the male contributors to this discussion simply confirm that their position is that males must dominate and that male rights to possess women and the children of their union are their sole concern. Such males tend to be frightened of women and therefore must try to dominate women by whatever means possible, whether by bullying or violence.

I did not at any point in my previous comments state which parent may be the abuser of children because either parent may be. Nor is this a `feminist’ plot – why, because I am not female (which will no doubt attract disparaging comments regarding my masculinity and/or loyalty to my gender), and do not support ‘plots’ by either gender.

My concern is that too many children are being caused significant harm and even death, because of flaws and inadequacies in the Family Law Act and the Courts which are implementing that Act because its primary concerns are with the rights of the feuding adults and not with the needs and rights of the children

Cotter, I see you out of necessity had to bring gender into it and then attack based on something I never said. This reaction only proves my point about the sexism inherent in feminism and it's teachings.

Perhaps you are not aware of it and in that case you can be forgiven as feminism uses propaganda effectively.

Cotter>"Protect children? you don't care about protecting children."

No comment necessary.

Cotter>"You just want to blame someone, so why not the feminists......by anyone who supports anything female (except subservient women, and you despise those)"

What a wierd, albeit not entirely unexpected, reaction... this is a great example of the indoctrination I'm talking about...nonsensical hate and destructive beliefs.

Here you also mistake the feminist roots with current agendas.

-=-=-=

ChazP

I can't see anyone who fits into this dishonest assertion about male posters.

ChazP>"Nor is this a `feminist’ plot – why, because I am not female"

What's your point? No one claimed that only women can be feminists. That's like saying, "Nor is this a 'terrorist' plot - why, because I am a White male with New Zealand citizenship"

...

ChazP>"and do not support ‘plots’ by either gender."

You are but one of dozens who do, with your ignorance.

ChazP

'The comments of the male contributors to this discussion simply confirm that their position is that males must dominate and that male rights to possess women and the children of their union are their sole concern.'

Please outline these comments. I think you'll find nobody holds the position you claim they do. I really think you need to have a look at your prejudices, and stop putting words in people's mouths.

Good on you fellows who managed to completely bully anyone who had a contrary view to yours. (Intelligent, child-focussed responses respected). It might help silence anyone who dares critique the systems and actions that leave children vulnerable to dominance and harm by parents - because they just can't be bothered carrying on a conversation with ignoramus. Or is that ignorami?. But denial wont stop the abuse, the violence. When are you fellows going to start doing that? Focus on the safety and future of children? Usual suspect, why do you instruct ChazP to outline what he has already said. So you can negatively attack again? Dominant. Bossy. Always right. Verbal abuse.

And Steel. 'What a wierd, albeit not entirely unexpected, reaction... this is a great example of the indoctrination I'm talking about...nonsensical hate and destructive beliefs'. What a silly response - So really, you are now trying to claim you love and admire women - except feminists who have opinions of course? Seems to me ChazP is righter than you know. Scared of females with opportunity. Whoops sorry, there goes that feminist rhetoric again!! Fancy giving women a fair go!!

"Good on you fellows who managed to completely bully anyone who had a contrary view to yours" - Cotter are you serious? Does your reading of the preceding posts actaully give you that view?

I've been back over the posts and I don't see any complete bullying. I see some insults and attacks coming from both sides of the debate. I don't see any threats. I see early in the debate false claims made about what Sam had said (the claim that his post claimed that Sam was attacking all mothers rather than some.

I see an early reference to "the ruminations and selfish assertions of embittered and dogmatic gender warriors" seemingly aimed at those who do think that part of the problem is the acceptance of false allegations as a tactic.

I see Sam respond to claims by dott with a suggestion that she wake up and accept facts.

I see the statement "It seems to me that 'Sam' and the like is the reason this article was written. I cannot help but reply to your deliberate though somewhat incoherent provocations."
and
"Sam, Why do you have so much invested in attacking those who seek to speak up for children?" when Sam does not seem to have done any significant attacking of other posters but has stated his views on causes.

I see Sam suggest that Justice For Kids alias is a bad name choice and make some other comments which I thought were unfair and pointed out at the time. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7623#118975 - no serious attack by Sam though.

Sam responds to me pointing out how many of the red flag tactics are in JFK's story, again no great attack but pointing out his view of the issues. At most the red flags comment and the comment about moving interstate might seen as attacks.

JFK then calls Sam names (the first directed personal insult of the thread that I've noticed). JFK then tells Sam "Sam,you reduce yourself as a human " because he does not see things the way she does.

TBC

R0bert

PART 2 OF 2
I then respond pointing out the hypocracy in JFK using the very tactics she criticises and stating some of my own experience.

Cotter then describes posts which don't conform to her or his view as "and a lot of diversive, narrow, self-promoting crap "

mog then says "all the loonies that have posted their misogynist vitriol re this article " apparently attacking those who don't see things her or his way.

Cotter tells Mog that they "are absolutely correct"

Usual Suspect points out the problems with claiming that it's about the children when you stand to benefit yourselves.

ChazP then says "The comments of the male contributors to this discussion simply confirm that their position is that males must dominate and that male rights to possess women and the children of their union are their sole concern. Such males tend to be frightened of women and therefore must try to dominate women by whatever means possible, whether by bullying or violence."

Steel responds for the most part politely - at worst is the comment "You are but one of dozens who do, with your ignorance."

Usual Suspect then asks ChazP to back up the claims made about male posters.

Cotter then jumps in with claims "completely bully anyone who had a contrary view to yours" and "Dominant. Bossy. Always right. Verbal abuse." and "Seems to me ChazP is righter than you know. Scared of females with opportunity. "

Have I missed a whole bunch of posts or something. It seems to me that most of the bullying, name calling and character assanation has not come from "the male contributors to this discussion".

This is an opinion forum, rebutting ideas, putting a contrary viewpoint etc is quite legitimate and for the most part thats what Sam, steel, Usual Suspect and myself have been doing.

Robert

Cotter - I would suggest not getting involved in these attempts to distract and sabotage the discussion and not wasting your time, energies, and clear intellect on such responding to such negativity. Patricia Merkin has made some important points and related experiences of the flaws in the Family Law Act and its implementation. One of her most important points is that "it (the Courts) consistently grants access and residency to violent parents. Unless the victim can present overwhelmingly convincing evidence that a parent has engaged in the most obvious forms of domestic violence, the violence is minimised or ignored entirely and the biological connection to the abusive parent is prioritised." In effect Ms Merkin is confirming my own experiences and those of many others that Courts are completely ignoring the human rights of children to be protected from abuse and exploitations. In many of such cases the views of the children are not given full account and consideration. How `meaningful' can that be for a child?.

Thanks ChazP for you wise reminder to return to the actual issue. Yes, the real problem is getting cogent evidence to support a claim that a child's health and well-being is at risk or is being compromised because of behaviours that would never be tolerated from a stranger. The term 'victim' becomes a matter of allegation and denial as it is, of itself, usually insufficient evidence to have any valid claim, or even counselling records of what the child has said admitted, usually because of alleged bias to the protective parent. Schools, doctors, others wont get involved. How do we achieve a system which listens to the child, observes the child, and understands the developmental processes of child's brain. If only everyone recognised the crucial obligation of us all to work in ways that give each child their best chance. That at best they are on loan to us.

Cotter ~ I think a start could be made by promoting that the child's safety and protection from abuse and exploitation must be paramount in any legal proceedings and that the child's direct testimony to the Court is vitally important in this decision-making process, so that misrepresentations and misinterpretations of the child's wishes and feelings by Family Reporters is minimised. Secondly, a very clear definition of a `meaningful relationship' between a child and parent must be clearly established and not be merely an assumption. A parent should be able to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that they have enjoyed a continuous loving, caring, and supportive relationship with the child throughout the child's lifetime and to have understood and given primacy to the child's needs and development.

ChazP writes 'A parent should be able to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that they have enjoyed a continuous loving, caring, and supportive relationship with the child throughout the child's lifetime and to have understood and given primacy to the child's needs and development.' But what is actually happening in Family Courts is men who have fathered a child but never parented, left, been violent and/or completely neglected or rejected their obligations to the child are being rewarded for reentering the scene, at their leisure. Given legal aid to fight for the right to be part of the child's life, where if they really wanted to be decent fathers, they'd stop being aggressive, do something to assist them to be the best parent they can be NOW, apologise for any damage they've caused and get on with it.

Obviously some good dads have left their child's life for reasonable reasons, and may need to fight to overcome barriers, but I really find the promotion of father's rights no matter how damaging they have been, and are being to children, abhorrent and criminal. Yes, some women shouldn't have their children, but why must we destroy decent mothers in our haste to pacify fathers?
While ever good men refuse to speak out about the reality of violence and abuse against women, you allow the dreaded feminist agenda to hold on tightly. I often speak about violence (against anyone), so don't bother whining 'what about the men'.

DV is something committed against people who often do not know they are victims, by people who do not see what they do as criminal. However, it does damage the children, and people committed to a fair and safer society would demand that safety be a base prerequisite for any access.

Niether of you two have defended your comments, despite the large holes and unsubstantiated statements in them exposed by other posters (including myself).

You have shown that the strongest and most prejudiced individuals are often (even predominantly) disguised in 'intellectual' 'debates' and present themselves with the trappings of intellectualism or educated learnings.

It is people like you ChazP and Cotter who are precisely why laymen and lesser educated types mistrust 'academia' and expert, honest opinions/arguments. You taint it greatly with your dishonesty and ideology.

We all want a better deal for children. constant blaming won't change a thing.

The current culture is to leave everything to DOCS and the police. This is the problem. DOCS and police are really one and the same - agents of social control, welfare and law, that parents are wary of if not openly hostile to; these agencies are not equiped to render daily assistance to needy families.

We need a culture change. Family crisis is better managed in the first instance by neighbours and friends. When a family is in trouble it gives out signals and those around know what these are, from an untidy house to noisy disturbances. When these symptoms occur we need a culture that reacts rather than the present one that ignores them.

When a neighbour or other contact with a dysfunctional family get wind of a problem its time to get someone round to give assistance - not to lay blame, not to prosecute, but to get in and give a hand. Stressed families unravel. they need non-judgemental support. Being alone in a crisis is hell. When kids are mum and dads only contact things can and do go horribly wrong.

Things to try:

How about notifications to Council in the first instance. How about Council's sending someone around to assess - maybe helping tidy the place up, get the housework done, give mum and dad a break, get the kids into activities, get mum and dad into activities.
We can all use help sometimes and as a culture we are lacking in accepting it and lacking in offering it.

All neighbours can offer something to each other. Councils can do much more in stimulating street and neighbourhood schemes to get people together, to share with each other, to break down this culture of aloness so prevalent in this country. other countries have these schemes.

Children need to be treated as equals in the family and their wishes respected and acted upon. When they say they want out or want to be with a particular parent those wishes need acting on.

"We all want a better deal for children. constant blaming won't change a thing."

No we don't. They have a great deal already. It should be up to the parents and only the parents. You would have neighbours spying on one another and removing children....unbelievable.

Cotter,

' Usual suspect, why do you instruct ChazP to outline what he has already said. So you can negatively attack again? '

No. It's because I am confused as to what comments here have led Chaz to believe 'their position is that males must dominate and that male rights to possess women and the children of their union are their sole concern'

As for 'Dominant. Bossy. Always right. Verbal abuse.'

Dominant? I see a much less dominant tone in my posts than yours.

Bossy? I asked and said please!

Always right? Hey I'm just expressing an opinion on an opinion forum.

Verbal abuse? Come again! Where.

Robert.

'Have I missed a whole bunch of posts or something. It seems to me that most of the bullying, name calling and character assanation has not come from "the male contributors to this discussion".
'
No you haven't. And the silence about it all from cotter now is deafening.

It seems if you don't like what someone says, you can put words in their mouth and tell them they are into dominating women. Then when they refute the words you put in thier mouth, and ask for some clarification/justification, you call them ignorant and accuse them of intending to attack someone.

Then once called up on all this crap, just ignore it, and say you're above them and their silly fighting and attempting to distract and sabotage the discussion.

Nice work ChazP and Cotter!!

Barfenzie - you wrote, "Children need to be treated as equals in the family and their wishes respected and acted upon. When they say they want out or want to be with a particular parent those wishes need acting on.".
This is the kernel of the current problems in Courts where custody and contact are in dispute. Their voices are not being heard and their rights to be heard are being abused by Court officials and the Courts. Nor are their disclosures of abuse being seriously considered and acted on. Hence dangerous parents are being given custody or contact with children and in consequence children are suffering more harm and even death.
Usual Suspect - if you consider this discussion is `All this crap' and you are unable to make a considered and constructive contribution (which has been notably absent in any of your contributions so far), then there is a simple remedy, don't participate.

Chaz,

' if you consider this discussion is `All this crap' '
No, I consider your stupid games as 'All this crap'.

'and you are unable to make a considered and constructive contribution '

What, like...

'males must dominate and that male rights to possess women and the children of their union are their sole concern'

Get over yourself please.

Usual Suspect, I agree with the points in your earlier post but think the pouint has been made. If I've got it wrong those who disagree are free to detail my omissions.

The idea that a childs wishes should be paramount is concerning. Wonderful if the courts had the skilled and independent resources available to be sure that the child has not been manipulated by the other parent. I don't have that level of confidence.

My view is that it would increase the use of PAS as well lead to contributing to spoiling and bribing kids. The parent who tried to be responsible, who used discipline and avoid spoiling the child might find that the child would rather have the new playstation, the ready access to junk food and a lack of consequences for actions. As they grow they may come to realise that those things were not in their best interests but few adults let alone childen do well in the short term with delayed gratification.

That would be a risk to both mums and dads, finding themselves in a bidding war with the other parent to maintain a meaningful role in their childs life at the same time undermining that role. Do we take kids away from functional and intact families because the child thinks they can get a better deal with a friends parents? Kids voices should be heard but tempered with the reality that they are not ready of making adult decisions or carrying adult responsibilities.

My preference would be to use the same mechanisms for protecting children regardless of the relationship status of the parents. If there is reason to remove a child from a parent it should apply to all children facing that issue. Child protection system do appear to be deeply flawed but that's not a reason to run a second even more flawed child protection process, rather we should focus on fixing child protection for all kids.

R0bert

Barfenzie said '
Children need to be treated as equals ..wishes respected and acted upon.. those wishes need acting on.'

R0bert says 'The idea that a childs wishes should be paramount is concerning'. Paramouncy isn't the issue. It might mean clarifying, communicating, resolving, - but not ignoring, or regarded as coerced. Don't rely on courts - they serve no one but those who make money from them. Surely there is a body of professionals who can focus on the children's concerns. I can't focus on children choosing to live with friends when many children are being damaged.

Family Report writers is another abuse - who gets a fair go there? Certainly not the children. Do you think they are going to disclose to this stranger, knowing that the other parent will read whatever they say?

PAS has been exposed as a fake sysndrome, fact sheets removed from FC site. Parental alienation does occur, by idiot people who dont care about the harm they do to the children.

ChazP informs us the child protection system is not properly named, it leaves vulnerable children at risk, especially when the risk is seen to be mitigated if the child is placed into the other parent's care. Not at risk = no investigation. Then Family Court orders access cos there is no investigation. Child possibly at risk? who cares? only the child and the protective parent.

When I referred to verbal abuse, I referred to the refusal to engage with the issue, the distractions and disimulation that clouds clear communication, a common verbal/non-verbal technique of the abuser. Rather than deal with the problem, the target becomes the words you use, (rather than trying to understand what the other is saying) one's ineptitude with words, and where the argument is lost using power over, in the avoidance, making someone reframe. It isn't just name calling. I guess a better term would be 'email disimulation or manipulation of content' - who knows?

What I said:
“I think a start could be made by promoting that the child's safety and protection from abuse and exploitation must be paramount in any legal proceedings and that the child's direct testimony to the Court is vitally important in this decision-making process,….”

What I was reported as saying :
“The idea that a childs wishes should be paramount is concerning.”

`If you can bear to hear the Truth you have spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,……… Rudyard Kipling.

Aaah well.

yes, paramouncy of childrens needs, claims, fears and experiences must apply to legal processes, but that isn't the same thing as 'giving into childish whims'.

I wish the conversation could stay with safety for children, and how to make it so

Cotter, "I referred to the refusal to engage with the issue, the distractions and disimulation that clouds clear communication" - for many of those of us who have been through the mill the issues we raise are central to the issue. The widespread indifference to the use of false allegations is in my view a very likely contributer to legitimate allegations being ignored. An unjust system which continues to tell fathers that their lives are of no value will add to the anger and sense of helplessness that many men feel during this process. It would be a miracle if that did not turn into harmful behaviour in some instances. We are engaging with the issue, we just don't see it the same way as you do. The allegation of bullying was wrong and should be retracted.

I agree that the childrens wishes should be considered, treated with respect etc but we also need to consider the childs ability to make informed choices. We may be saying the same thing here with different words, the quote from Barfenzie you referenced seems to be saying something different. We don't lump adult responsabilities because their development is still taking place.

I didn't get to the report writer stage, to much harm was bing done to all of us by the lead up process and the very real PAS that was going on. I'm quite certain that it's not fake, I've seen it first hand. I gave in to unreasonable and damaging demands as the lesser of evils.

I agree child protection does not work well. We do need some serious work on that issue but I don't accept that reasons which would not be acceptable to take kids away from parents in intact families should be sufficient after separation. We should have one child protection system which works, not multiple disfunctional ones.

R0bert