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