With so many changes with the family law reforms, it sounds really positive and fair. The fathers rights groups seemed to have some clout and not much was said about what the children were experiencing. So I dug a little deeper and discovered what they were really doing - forcing domestic violence victims, rape victims and child abuse victims to see their offender unsupervised and uncompromised. For these people, there is no escape and no justice. Homicides went on the increase by 14 percent in 2005 and the public familycides of the dam dad and Karen Bells great loss. I discovered that the family court never really dealt with child abuse cases but were happy to enforce them. I found out that if you get raped by a stranger and become pregnant he can file to stop the abortion and have unquestioned access to the child. There is even a part of the law where he can stop the doctors from examining if the child is raped because its "too distressing". Best Interests?

Dear anon.....I think what you stumbled onto is the mirky world of....

"Democratic Politics" where... to quote from the Bible....

"every man did what was right in his own eyes
for there was no king in Israel at that time" Judges 21:25

If you actually read that chapter. (the verse is the last of the book)
you will see where 'right in his own eyes' actually led. I'ts one of the saddest chapters of the Bible, but it reports real history.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=21&version=31

Political/social pressure groups can achieve just about any goal if they make enough noise.. why not try it some time:)

Anonymum:"forcing domestic violence victims, rape victims and child abuse victims to see their offender unsupervised and uncompromised."

Frankly, I disagree completely with your statement. My experience is that a mere unproven allegation was sufficient to prevent me from seeing my children for many months, with many visits to Court without a trial date being set.

I've seen other friends in similar situations, when an unscrupulous mother chooses to misuse the law to her own ends.

Anonymum:". I discovered that the family court never really dealt with child abuse cases"

Which is as it should be. A child abuse case is a criminal matter and belongs in the Criminal Court. If the DPP declines to prosecute, the FCA/FMC have no business taking the matter under consideration.

I have shared care of my children after a long and very painful struggle. My children are better off for that arrangement.

Anonymum, what you believe about the motives and actions of the fathers groups will be influenced by other beliefs.

As a single dad who was involved in one of the groups for a period your impressions on shared care are not ones I share. The risk of contact with an abuser is an issue but it's an existing issue. If nothing else shared care gives kids regular contact with the other parent who may notice the signs of abuse.

The stats on substantiated child abuse and neglect don't show a consistant gender difference in abusers. Kids in single parent households are at far greater risk than in other types of households, kids in female led single parent households may be slightly more at risk than those in single parent male lead households (but I don't think that there are enough kids in the latter to give a meaningful result).

Have a read of http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.pdf

If you want to blame someone for kids being placed in the care of abusers don't blame those wanting fathers to have a meaningful role in their childrens lives, blame those who have cried wolf over protecting children for their own purposes.

R0bert

Anonymum:"forcing domestic violence victims, rape victims and child abuse victims to see their offender unsupervised and uncompromised."

Antiseptic: "Frankly, I disagree completely with your statement. My experience is that a mere unproven allegation was sufficient to prevent me from seeing my children for many months, with many visits to Court without a trial date being set."

Antiseptic, even proven child abuse cases, the father gets to see the child, I know this because I have heard the accounts of now adult children that have experienced judicial child abuse and I have sighted evidence of this occurring. Whilst you have strong feelings about not being able to see your child, these feelings also support child abusers and perpetrators not to be investigated - is this what you really want? Your children grow up some day and you wont be physically able to protect them without the intervention of authority, what are you going to do if it happens to them?

Hi anonymum

I had a look on your website and to be honest and risking sounding negative, the info seems biased and I was disappointed.

Fathers are generally people who are loved by our children as much as mothers.

It hurts me deeply when I see men vilify or criticise mothers and women, so I imagine that men must feel the same hurt.

It's all too easy to collect one type of articles to fit a particular agenda. Male movement sites are guilty of doing the same about women, and it's hurtful and cruel.

I believe that share care is better for children if both parents are willing and can come to an agreement, and parental happiness reflects on the children as well.

If one of the parents is abusive, then indeed there should be no unsupervised visits. If that happens it is wrong- pointing that out is a good thing to do.

I struggle with understanding family law and issues; there are so many angles that have to be considered and it's so sensitive. I find it hard to find a balance I'm happy with.

I just can't see any benefit in having all these male movement sites that vilify females or female sites that vilify males.
Most parents want the best for their children, it would be better if these sites would offer constructive advice about what to do with the children, how to act in favour of children etc.

If I was in a situation of getting a divorce with young children I'd love them to spend time with their dad (providing he was not abusive) no matter how much I hated him.
I would want that for my children because I love them.

They deserve the best and two parents are better than one, although there are MANY single or sole parents who do a great job, too.

Hi Celvia,
Anonymums is not "my" website but for a collective of mothers who endured human rights abuses at the wrath of the fathers lobby groups with no support, nothing. If you read on the about page, you will see "We encourage fathers roles in our childrens lives, but not at the cost of their detriment.."

Here is a personal account:
http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/2003-abuse/abuse.pdf
Here is part of the history from an ex fathers rights supporter:
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/FRtactic.html
Here is the history of fathers rights groups:
http://www.kidsindistress.org.au/files/Kids-in-Distress-the-politics-of-father-rights-activists.php
Here is the laws that support child abuse and coercion against the most vulnerable:
http://anonymums.blogspot.com/2008/10/child-abuse-supportive-laws.html
I would also recommend reading the family court website judgements and search "abuse" violence" Read about Parental Alienation Syndrome. The syndrome that persuaded judges, experts and fueled fathers lobby groups into "abuse - excuse". Search matters of the heart on youtube and hear the account of a child therapist losing her children because of PAS. There needs to be fathers rights that are not violence supportive and child abuse supportive. Fathers rights was at the cost of domestic violence victims rights and children's rights to be safe and free from torture. These groups go out to deliberately undermine laws that protect them. They complained about intervention orders, but the whole time they could have got access through the family courts. It was only when they had ruffled up the feathers of the courts, that they lost access. The courts know this and can do something but choose not too because they make too much money. If one in three women experience violence - How many perpetrators are there? How much money can be made in supporting them?

Anonymum, if you spent a lot less time on your hate sites and actually looked at what most of the fathers groups are seeking rather than at what their opponents say about them you might have some understanding about whats actually happening. Your views about the most of fathers groups are no more balanced than those of the anti-feminist brigade and their distortions of feminism. Both have failings and individuals who go to far but to focus on them rather than where most are coming from is dishonest and damaging.

The fathers groups have no interest in helping actual abusers get access to kids, they do have serious concerns about those who've used false claims of abuse to try and secure better financial outcomes for themselves. They do have concerns about those who continue to trot out the boogy man of male abuse of children and remain utterly quite about the stats on female abuse of children as though it's not there. People abuse children, not just men, not just women. All to often those under stress in other ways.

R0bert

Robert, I have seen enough of the fathers lobby groups agenda to have a good reason to expose the truth about this terrorist like organization. Your right lets hear it from their words shall we?
http://www.mensrights.com.au/index.php?article_id=14
In Richard Gardners own words:
''What I am against is the excessively moralistic and punitive reaction that many members of our society have toward pedophiles ... (going) far beyond what I consider to be the gravity of the crime.''

Dr. Richard Gardner, author
Parental Alienation Syndrome
Vicarious Deprogramming Procedure

A collection of fathers rights groups in their own words:
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/
This is called the family law web guide, it appears gender friendly, but you need to dig a little deeper to find it. They are careful and warn members that "google can search here" when fathers lobby groups real agenda starts coming out.
This was under "child abuse" as some sort of "prize" supporting parental alienation syndrome aka "How to cover up child abuse".

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/library/library/General/47fda5b8eacd7.rtf
The website page also contains other anti protective resources:
http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/search/isysconcept/Child%20Abuse/
Simon Hunt from the family law action group:
"‘FAMILY VIOLENCE' Be they genuine or contrived, Family Violence allegations and AVOs must not be allowed to compromise a child’s relationship with either parent "
http://www.australia2020.gov.au/submissions/viewTopic.cfm?id=7253&count=1
"parent/child alienation, a very serious form of child abuse" Note: No mention or concerns of physical child abuse.
"a large proportion of male suicides being associated with family law-related problems." Note: He writes this to promote child contact as the cure for mental illness. A complete disregard for the child and clearly promotes the use of emotional blackmail.
Barry Williams Lone Fathers association

Some common actions by fathers in family courts:

1. Asking the mother if they can have children over for an extra day or so, then going to the court and claiming that the mother is not competent to take care of the children and in so doing getting full custody of the kids.

2. Using a racket known as Parental Alienation Syndrome to claim that a child reporting abuse by the father is being manipulated to do so by the mother, resulting in abusive father getting full custody of the child.

3. Claiming that because the mother is working or is educated, she is not being the primary carer, resulting in children being given into custody of the father.

4. Suing the woman whom they have raped to prevent an abortion and to get custody of the child.

5. Murdering the children in order to get back at the mother for leaving.

6. Portraying as hysterical (and hence not competent to take care of kids) any woman who exhibits natural emotions in respect to her children when they are being sexually abused, brutalized, given to custody of abusive parent, threatened with being taken away from her, or subjected to court-ordered abuse.

7. Portraying themselves as victims when they are perpetrators and lying to everyone about the mother, leading people to believe falsely that the problem is with the mother and not with them. The people who believe their facade make no error that the woman had not made in choosing them. Only, unlike the woman, they have not had to face disastrous consequences for having made that error.

8. Alienating the children against the mother, manipulating them to believe all kinds of rubbish about her and not only undermining their relationship with the mother but also trapping them in a world of lies.

Wow! I want some of whatever it is that you're on

This thread is very distateful.

Fathers are as vital in children's lives as mothers. Neither are more or less important.

Shared parenting is the best idea that the family court has come up with so far. It begins to dismantle the whole notion of sole custody, which for some parents is really mainly about who gets the bulk of the money that goes with children. Either receiving or paying it.

If there is a case of child abuse it is first and foremost a matter for the criminal court. If there is a case of child abuse then the prepetrator will be dealt with by that court.

As Celivia did, I looked at all the parts of your web-site. You take on the name, to me you are the spokeperson/owner. Your token bit about encouraging fathers roles in children's lives, though not male, I find insulting in it's dismissiveness.

In regards to the family court, the thing that I would strongly advocate for is that children be represented seperately and independently from either parent. If parents need to resort to the courts to resolve their issues then unfortunately the temptation for some to use their children as pawns to 'win' from the hated other half is too great.

Anansi and Romany thank you both for your input. I'm very encouraged by your stance.

At this stage I think I'll butt out of this thread unless it takes a constructive turn, I could all to easily get caught up in a silly argument which benefits nobody.

R0bert

Woops a correction to my last post - I meant to be thanking Anansi and Celivia, I was thinking of Romany's comments on another thread and didn't go back and check. Sorry about that Celivia.

R0bert

Thank you, RObert, and well said, Anansi.

I decided not to post on this thread anymore either.

It's not worth my time and effort to endlessly argue with people who only post here with a one-and-only biased nonsensical agenda, without a posting history, but with the purpose to vilify or criticise a whole group of people (men in this case, but there was also a pack of anti-vaxers a while ago who also only posted with one really dodo agenda in mind- to prevent parents to vaccinate their kids.)

Cheers!

I agree to saying that this has indeed become distasteful but not in the context implied. My views are pro father but not when it hurts children. My views in respect to fathers lobby groups are that they damage both fatherhood and motherhood when they ignore what is going on for the children. If child abuse occurs during access visits from the father, going to the criminal court can be perceived and intervened as "vexatious" despite the evidence at hand. The propaganda that "all mothers and children lie" has not just put barriers into accessing criminal courts and other courts but built walls in getting to investigating children's matters. The tricks and corruption that lies behind concealing these things is also part of that wall. Its not uncommon for children to "recant" their accounts because they are scared into doing whether it be the family reporter, the child representative or the abusive parent. Superficially, people tend to measure equality in the time that children spend, but the equality in who has the most power over the children and their parents lives is the father. IF domestic violence is present(which Diana Bryant has boasted it being the core business of the court), then survivors are at the mercy of the abuser.
Fathers rights groups can support fathers that do not have violence supportive attitudes, but choose to support what is more financially beneficial - Domestic violence perpetrators as they are very good at economic abuse.

I think it is also very nasty to vilify a member because they don't agree with your statements or support something different. This is a great example of how these fathers lobby groups ganged up on domestic violence shelters and child protection workers. When I began this topic I wanted to hear from two sides - not just one. I have invited others from other groups as there is a strong need to have people with different views. If you support fathers lobby groups thats fine, don't bar other people or insult the discussion itself because you want to dominate a point of view its not diplomatic nor is it progressive.

In regards to the comments about this thread being distasteful, I am very happy indeed that this is the case. The reality of domestic brutality, child sexual abuse, and racketeering in the family court system, is more distasteful as well as far more injurious, and deserves to be brought out into the open so that people can see what actually is going on and cannot hide any longer behind party lines or deceptions.

My wife used to support shared care, and stood against feminism, until she found out the reality of how domestic violence perpetrators control those who have believed them enough to let them in their lives. The people who believe the domestic violence perpetrators - both individual perpetrators and the collusion of perpetrators, the falsely named Fathers Lobby, in reality the domestic violence perpetrators' lobby - make no mistake that the woman who believed the abuser did not make. It's just that, unlike the women who fell into their traps, these people have not had to face horrible consequences for having made that error.

When women speak out in favor of the domestic violence perpetrators lobby, it is their and their future daughters that they are destroying.

And a man who would deny his daughter a right to a future in order that he has advantage in court over his wife, having placed his short-term interest above the long-term needs of his children and his country, is an unworthy father and an unworthy citizen and has no business claiming to speak for fathers, for family, for men, or for Australia.

As a father myself, and one who is not abusive, I resent having these kinds of scum claiming to speak for me. And I hope more men - and women - see through their line and work to create a meaningfully truthful and beautiful future for their children.

I would like to extend my thanks to Anonymum and Father for Women's Rights for writing about these issues and defending the truth.

Of course some fathers are loving and want the best for their children. It the 'others' that are of most concern, the predators who hate not love. These 'fathers' are actively encouraged by the court system to persue and abuse their children with absolute impunity.

There is discussion on this forum: article: Child abuse in the family Court by Sunita Shaunak 29 July 2008. You need to look in the past quarter.

The children, such as my four year old who has endured and most likely will continue to endure abuse, need all the courageous people out there to speak up for them. Mothers such as myself are forced into silence or lose our child/children to the abuser.

Believe me: there is no system of redress for these children. NO legal system to protect them.

Anonymum, if you are really serious about a genuine discussion to help kids then please stop your highly biased attacks on the fathers groups. That will lead either to the thread being ignored by those who don't have an ax to grind or a nasty point scoring exercise with you throwing mud on fathers groups and others throwing mud back at the mothers groups. Both groups have their strengths and their weaknesses. Your posts and the posts of some of your associates so far have shown an inability to take a fair and reasoned stance.

I've no interest in buying into a battle over who has done more wrong, single dads or single mums. It's a no win game that does nothing to help kids or protect them from abuse.

I saw how one side of the discussion on the "Child abuse in the Family Court" thread was shut down by those entrenched in the mothers good, fathers bad mindset. If you are planning a repeat of that have fun, if you really do care about kids and their protection you might have to be willing to see thats it's not always so black and white, thats it's not always dad's who have abused the system for their own ends.

Over to you.

R0bert

Robert, with all due respect, I am not attacking anybody but simply stating the truth needs to be acknowledged.

If anybody thinks that mothers have been making discussion one-sided in their favour, then that person has not been paying attention. Family law sites, among others, have been swamped with abusive emails from men who want to monopolize the discussion in their favour, and the same has happened on a larger scale in the society itself, including in the family courts.

We do not see women dressing up in black and picketing, harassing and assaulting women who've left wife-beaters, humiliating them in front of their communities. We do not see mothers' rights activists gathering in terrorist networks and using militant strategies to intimidate, harass and oppress women into staying with men who brutalize and abuse them and their children. We do not see women pushing for use in family court of corrupt rackets such as the Parental Alienation Syndrome to silence the children who report brutality and sexual abuse, or manufacturing false statistics to claim ridiculously that 90% of mothers are abusive and fathers are not. Nor do we see women claim, as many men have stated to me, that some wives deserve to be killed; that women should be second-class citizens; that women are born b*tches and should be bred out of that attitude; that women are "bags" and "kitchen b*tches"; or that a man who is good to his wife is a pushover.

In short, the wrong here is deeper than even I had expected that it would be - and I've seen extreme corruption. And Australian men as much as Australian women and children would benefit from seeing these things for what they are. Only then can any kind of a fair-minded solution be realized and have a chance of doing public good.

OK one more thing,

Anonymum you said, "...simply stating the truth needs to be acknowledged."
It's only the truth as seen from one side though that you are presenting.
There is not only one truth from one side, both sides have truths.

Anyway, this is about the same claim as the proselytising Christian fundamentalist make.
They don't like it when all other religions state that THEIR view is the truth (the only truth) and needs to be acknowledged.

Anyway, my purpose is not to just criticise your view because you're possibly making some valid points that have a merit of their own but without them having to be too genderised.

I haven't really participated in too many mud-slanging at the opposite sex debates, it kind of drains me, because what is the point?
Child abuse and neglect happens from all sides, mothers, fathers, baby sitters, priests, bigger brothers (perhaps sisters).
I think it's better to address child abuse as a whole issue rather than blaming the bad fathers only.

Good luck with this discussion though, I might look back to see what's happening in a few days.

Justice For Kids, thank-you your support. I know its traumatic dealing with this type of ignorance. The disgusting comments that were left for Karen Bell who lost her three children because they all thought that she was lying about domestic violence and the police did nothing. Comments like, " She should have done something" is ridiculous. Its not that easy sleeping with the enemy as Julia Robert's had portrayed and yet 20 years later the public still has not got the picture that domestic violence victims and child abuse victims do enter that court room not knowing what to expect and met with the most extreme amount of adversity when they try to raise concerns about the safety of children. The dam dad who killed his own children to get back at his ex was just another example, not to mention the amount of homicides that aren't reported in the media.

Celvia, If your friend Robert had told you that pigs fly, I am sure that you would argue that passionately too and state that there are "different truths". I would prefer if you are going to participate without experience or knowledge that you at least take some time out and read some of the cases. I don't mind being challenged, but its a waste of everybody's time you are making statements based on assumptions.

Anonymum

A number of us including R0bert and Cevilia have just finished a long and protracted debate on Violence against Women. We have actually reached a level of communication I would not have thought possible, but it took a long time and much acrimony.

Before casting judgment on anyone, please consider reading through the discussion - particularly the last few pages. I am aware of the truth of your experiences, but there are many hurt people and the best way to care for our loved ones is in a united effort. Part of the problem with custody cases is the traditional view of gender roles held by many men and women within Family Services . This has to change.

Here is the Link:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153

You might also want to check the Users List to gain an idea of the agendas of various posters here. Like Celivia, I find DV discussions especially fraught as I have had first hand experience and know how vindictive a controlling partner can be.

Regards

Fractelle, you are unintentionally being patronising..."...there is a lot of hurt people out there". So lets all talk nicely because it's all the same. Pedophiles are mothers too? Perhaps you would like to quote some court judgements where the mother has beaten her husband, has criminal records for sexual assualt, and is molesting her children and lo and behold she gets full residency because the father is an alienator?

Good grief.

Justice, i am glad to hear your views on this. Child abuse in the family courts is outrageous, but what is even more atrocious is that people are actually supporting such a notion. Its because of two things:
1. Complete ignorance - People who are willing to believe anything that "sounds" good.
2. People who have a need to camouflage their atrocities in the name of "fatherhood" which drags every other dad in the mud and causes great harm to women and children.
I am glad to hear of fathers speaking out against it as well as the adult children that suffered.

From someone who has never been through this (thank goodness) I am hearing two things:

- The system allows child abusers access to their children without any legal redress; and
- The system denies access to loving fathers who have a right to shared parenting and to be part of their chilren's lives.

What a complicated issue and made more so by false accusations which make the legitimate cases harder to pursue.

What is the answer? Unless we go down the path of polygraphs, it really is a case of one person's word against another and what a horrible situation for children who are being abused.

What puzzles me is how men and woman can have children and then 10 or 15 years later report the other partner as a molester or abuser. How can so many women (and men) make such bad choices or do their partners suddenly become monsters? If they were monsters from the outset why are they not reported to the authorities or left.

I realise this is an ugly topic and I am repulsed by child or spouse abuse of any sort but am genuinely puzzled at whether these 'monsters' are always monsters and people choose to ignore them or whether bitterness leads to many false accusations. All child molesters should be dealt with severely but so should those making false accusations. I suspect that the latter often get away with it.

Theres a guy that lives in my street, that suggested that I should create a "dummy ex wife" so I could get paid like he does just for saying, "I haven't seen my kids for years".

Anonymum et al,
For clarity, I’m not denying that the cases you present are true. It’s tragic when child abusers are allowed unsupervised access to their children, but it's also tragic when a parent is denied access because of a false allegation of child abuse.

It’s not what you say but what you don’t say that makes yours a biased viewpoint. You don’t present the whole picture.

I have no doubt that Parental Alienation ‘Syndrome’ is used by abusive fathers as a means to gain access to their children.
But the purpose of ‘PAS’ was NOT meant to give abusive fathers access to their children, but it would benefit the falsely accused ones.
And I don’t doubt that some false accusations do happen in child custody cases.

Having said that, I don’t really like using the term ‘PAS’ (Parental Alienation Syndrome) because
”PAS is an atrocious theory with no science to back it up” –Harvard University.

I DO, however, recognise that children can become alienated from one of their parents; but the unscientific, non-medical term PAS should have no place in the judicial system or any professional organisation.

Even when children become alienated it doesn’t necessarily mean that any of the parents is guilty of causing it.

I believe that:
* Fathers and mothers are equally guilty of child abuse (except child sexual abuse, which is dominated by fathers).

* Fathers and mothers are equally guilty of making false accusations/allegations. False allegations of child abuse are rare. But ANY allegation can be either true of false and needs to be thoroughly investigated. Mothers can make false allegations that the father has abused the child, but the father can also falsely accuse the mother of making a false allegation. And vice versa. Father’s rights groups can play as dirty as some feminist groups.

* Fathers and mothers are equally guilty of alienating their children from the other parent.

I’m willing to change my mind about the above, but I’d have to see evidence, e.g. reliable statistics to back up your statements.

continued

I also believe that:
* Parents are not the only ones in children’s’ environments that are guilty of all of the above. For example, I know of one mother who is being dragged through the mud whenever her children visit her ex parents-in-law in an effort to alienate the children from her.

* Sometimes children feel naturally hostile towards one of the parents because they feel that the other parent is a victim.
For example, a friend’s husband took off with another woman. Before leaving the family, he had a great relationship with both his son and daughter. There had been traumatic marital problems, he just fell in love with someone else, and wanted to leave.

My friend and her ex split without too much drama. They decided on shared parenting so the father resided in their neughbourhood.
Shared parenting worked very well for their son, but the daughter refused to visit her father; she was 14, and angry at her father for leaving her mother, who had done no wrong.
My friend tried to change her daughter’s mind; she wanted her to maintain a relationship with her dad. She even took her to a counselor to see if that would help to fix the relationship with her dad.

It didn’t work- 5 years later; the daughter still rejects her dad.
There was a period that her father falsely accused his ex of alienating the daughter.
He changed his mind about that after a visit to the daughter’s counselor.

This is the time I wish there was an edit button option after posting a comment, accessible for the first 5-10 minutes or so after posting.

The part of the sentence in my last post that read contained an error,
"There had been traumatic marital problems,... "

Correction:
"There had been NO traumatic marital problems,..."

Courtesy of ABC Background Briefing:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2007/1847340.htm

While in the US, Dr Oates led a study looking at 550 cases of alleged sexual abuse. The purpose of the study was to assess the frequency of false allegations of sexual abuse made by children.

His team found that there was enough evidence to substantiate that sexual abuse did exist in 43% of cases. In 23% there wasn't enough evidence to be sure and the cases couldn't go to court. And the team found that in about 30% of cases, there was no evidence either way. The question then is how many of the cases were shown definitely to be false?

Dr Kim Oates.

Kim Oates: We only found 2-1/2%. 2-1/2% were false allegations, and then when we looked at those, 1% of the allegations that a parent had coached a child, so just 1%, and 1-1/2% were false allegations by children. So children do make false allegations occasionally, but very rarely, and that's in contrast to the view out there that children make these stories up a lot. Now when we looked at the children, they tended to be older children, young teenagers. One was emotionally disturbed, one did it to get even with a father because of some anger; another one did it to impress a classmate. So it's pretty unusual to have false allegations and unusual by very young children.

Justice for Kids

If you are going you are going to quote me at least be accurate and do not distort my words.

I wrote: "but there are many hurt people and the best way to care for our loved ones is in a united effort."

How is this not "talking nicely" and "patronising"?

I know this is a huge issue with domestic violence and abuse of children? I also know how some men can manipulate the system to continue their abuse (now who's being patronising?). There are a number female posters here who have much to offer in terms of experience and assistance. However, it seems very difficult to enter into a discussion with you as you appear to want to argue rather than discuss.

Fractelle,
I agree with justice for kids and note that you didn't answer her question about what you are supporting. You are supporting equality in a superficial eye. True equality acknowledges the circumstances of imbalance. Yes I to am a bit disgusted of those posters who try and equalize pedophile and completely ignore the real problems that are going on. An interesting thing about human rights abuses is that people don't really care unless its happened to them or there is some incentive for them. It would be sad to see any of these members suddenly discover a family member enduring such an atrocity and crash and burn with all of those ignorant beliefs. The family court allow a lot of publications that support the "no contact" for no real reason, but seldom do they allow publications about child abuse. Why? Because there would be a public outrage and no one would support the "no investigation" "Pro contact - no matter what" and in the end the family court will lose their money because these cases would be taken out of their hands completely.

Anonymum, please realise that there are a few self professed feminists posting on this thread who jointly have quite a bit of personal experience with physical injuries resulting from domestic violence, or a term I've recently come across and I think I prefer, Intimate Partner Violence.

To me it is also rather amusing for you to think that Fractelle and Robert are such friends that Fractelle would support anything Robert says. You obviously have not read many threads!

I do not doubt that perpetrators of abuse would endeavour to continue their need for dominance over their partner and/or family and that they would continue to try and manipulate the legal system.

The issue is that when people come before the court it is always a case of 'he says..., he did...', she says...., she did...'. One party is lying, but I'm afraid I cannot believe that this is dominated by men. I personally know of one woman who did terrible things to her son and very convincingly lied to the court. Proof was very hard. Because children are not independently represented and children are not independently assessed by any psychologist.

I maintain, as I've said before: if any couple need to avail themselves of the court in relation to their children, NOT their assets, the asumption needs to be made that there are some serious problems, that both parties have a vested interest in presenting a particular personally favourable viewpoint.

Our court system is adversarial in nature. It is NOT about determining the truth. It is about one party winning and the other losing.

My opinion has always been that this a singularly poor way of determining the best interests of children. One parent 'loses', but the children always lose.

Issues of child abuse, by either parent will only come to light by INDEPENDENT determination from the CHILD'S perspective.

If we must use the legal system then at least lets put everything in place that will make the child the winner.

Again the whole point of child safety is completely lost in the pro contact culture and the superficial concept of equality.
Ignorance is a predators dream and a child's nightmare.

Anonymum, what do you suggest the Family Court can do about alleged abuse if there is no evidence? It seems to me that your whole argument is based on "I'm the mum, therefore I can't be wrong", which is not a strong basis for a legal matter.

As one who has been the victim of false allegations in the context of a custody dispute, I have first-hand experience of the draconian measures that are applied to the father simply for the asking by the mother. My experience leads me to the conclusion that if you are unable to make even the minimal case necessary to have a DVO applied, then you are not likely to be telling us a true story, or at least that the story you are presenting is not complete.

As you refuse to provide any evidence of your claim that abuse is widespread and that the Family Court somehow profits by condoning it, I can only conclude that your imagination is very active. No doubt the Courts you have dealt with have reached a similar conclusion.

Antiseptic,
Your statement reflects the problems and the deceit behind violence supportive attitudes.
I am writing about evidential child abuse being ignored, yet you try to swing the argument back to false allegations. Its very revealing.
I think we have all heard the same lines over and over again of the concocted story that false allegations are made by every mother. Anonymums know that this is a group strategy to conceal child abuse on a systematic level, we know the criminals behind these groups and have evidence of their charges, we will continue to expose this as it is indeed a public interest. There is nothing that you can say that will manipulate the truth, as I know exactly how psychopaths work.

Anonymum, I can state with absolute certainty that false allegations of violence can and do happen and that the process is quite draconian for the one accused. It therefore seems likely that the same could be said of other forms of abuse allegation, particularly claims of abuse of children. The fact that there is no court willing to entertain your own allegations speaks volumes.

I asked you a question in my last post, which you didn't answer. What do you propose the Family Court should do in the absence of evidence? I'll add another, since you say there is some evidence: what standard of evidence should apply? Is hearsay sufficient? If so, what is your reasoning and what safeguards against false allegation do you propose? Should penalties be applied to those found to have made false allegations?

Lots of questions there, I know, but they and many others need to be considered if you are seeking any kind of legislative changes. Is that your goal?

The court was not willing to entertain the concerns of "dam dads" ex wife, the police were not willing to entertain Karen Bells concerns. In US where this propaganda began, there is footage of the consequences of dismissing child abuse. Claudine Dombrowski showed the public, how she was shot whilst pregnant and how the family court sent her child to the abuser too. People can only swallow so many lies about why dads don't see their kids, but the truth will shine through - no matter how many bodies are hidden from the public eye. Like the holecaust, the bodies will be found and the perpetrators will face justice.

Anonymum, there are many examples of people of both genders killing their children, which has little to do with the "abuse" of children. The Farquarson children's mother was of the view that their father was an excellent dad and refused to believe he could have done what he was found to have been responsible for. Karen Bell left her home to escape violence, but happily left her children with a man who she considered an excellent father. Both, as it turned out were proven wrong, but these were not systemic failures, they were sudden, terrible tragedies that probably would have happened regardless of intervention. Most men don't do this and mnor do most women.

Are you going to do me the courtesy of answering my questions? I've responded as well as I know how to your points. If you want to simply rant, then I won't bother responding at all.

Glamorizing cold blooded murderers? What next? Perhaps the the justification of the fathers suicidal tendencies are more important than the child's life?
If I were to agree with those statements, I would have to be in an extremely disturbed mindset.

Righto then. I hope you manage to make some peace with your demons.

What a shame that this discussion amounts to nothing. It could've been an interesting debate because we already have something in common; we all what is best for children of divorced parents.

Antiseptic, your argument about these killer dads is valid but I doubt that Anonymum and her sidekicks are interested in a balanced debate.
All they are interested in is propagandising.

What a shame that they are not even willing to consider that there are two sides to the issue and are not interested in a fair and balanced debate.

Some of the fathers' groups sites such as Dads on the Air seem quite reasonable.
They are right to say that the Australian Family Law system should not prevent fathers who want to look after their children from doing so.

Evidence is important as pointed out by myself and others.

Celiva, please don't describe me a 'sidekick' and a 'propagandist'. When I, as a mother, have been silenced and prevented from protecting my child. Indeed, been legally forced to allow his abuse to continue I think I am entitled to protest in the only 'forum' available to me.

If you would be kind enough to read www.kidsindistress.org.au you will find my and my son's story in amongst all the research and 'evidence' papers you may like to read.

If you read deeply enough you will discover that the Family Court does not investigate child abuse claims. State will not investigate child abuse claims.

The Australian Family Court will not protect frightened women and children and is responsible for the enforcement of the abuse of children. There isn't "two sides to the issue", the Family Law Council wrote a report in 2002 and described this situation.

To claim 'lack of evidence' is to be complicit with those who believe that what children and women say is a lie. The Legal system acts on the belief that women and children are liars. The graphic things my child said about the abuse are worthless, unless a three year old can tell police. If this child was able to tell the police, it would most likely been explained as fantasy or 'coaching' by me.

Lack of evidence is the foundation of the legal system, but the evidence it requires is almost impossible to obtain. Therefore children are forced into unsafe situations and by this we 'propagandists' mean molested, beaten, and basically I like to use the term 'psychologically compromised'. But it isn't a gender issue.

Though Antiseptic and I have clashed quite strongly on many occasions I have to say I'm with him on this one.

As Celivia pointed out, this could be a good discussion.

What I'm confused about is, is the opinion of Antymums and supporters that the Family Law Court is somehow a criminal court. It is not. It is to arrange access and contact between children and their parents. It is also not true that children do not have any say.

If there is a crime committed, and child abuse falls squarely into that field, than the perpetrator needs to be dealt with through the criminal courts.

Child abuse is a dreadful scourge in our society. The perpetrators are mothers, fathers, grand-parents, foster parents, aunts and uncles to mention, but a few.

Justice for kids (JFK)
Firstly, I don’t dispute that the family court doesn’t always thoroughly investigating child abuse claims because it’s not sufficiently equipped to do this and of course that’s tragic. I do genuinely feel sorry for the children and parents who are in such circumstances.
I would like to see some effort made to clear up any dysfunctionality. It must, however, be very difficult to work out who is telling the truth and who is lying or exaggerating when there's lack of evidence.

If you look at what Antiseptic said:
“My experience is that a mere unproven allegation was sufficient to prevent me from seeing my children for many months, with many visits to Court without a trial date being set.”
doesn’t that show you that courts do seriously consider allegations? The court doesn’t have a 6th sense and cannot instantly know whether an allegation is true or false.

I’m not really sure what you and others like Anonymum want the court to do when no evidence of allegations of child abuse can be found.

I must admit that I am quite confused about the family court and have had no personal experience with it. Thank you Anansi for highlighting the Family Law Court’s function.
So, JFK et al, I assume that you have taken the matter to the criminal court?

Secondly, I also don’t dispute the fact that the vast majority of child sex abuse is perpetrated by males.
But if you look at research presented on sites such as Australian Institute of Family Studies,
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html
you’ll be able to combine facts to gain a more objective view.
For example, when we look at child abuse by men, biological fathers are not the main perpetrators of child abuse; the worst offenders happen to be defacto boyfriends or stepfathers.

Also, I have not found any evidence to suggest that single, divorced fathers are more likely to abuse their children than married fathers

Celvia, : "...I don't dispute the family court doesn't always thoroughly investigate..." The Family Court has NO power to investigate allegations, that's the problem. The parent usually has to present 'evidence' to substantiate. The court treats harshly: protective parent who takes child for any type of abuse confirmation eg.counselling etc. All abuse is hard to prove, even more so when evidence is actively disregarded.

This forum is to short to detail but please read kids in distress site for academic reports etc, especially submissions to Government and Family Law Council report. If you require it, I can quote.

Point two: Antiseptic is a member of Dads on Air, he is not without his own agenda. Antiseptic's statement: "...unproven allegation was sufficient to prevent me seeing my children for many months". Unless he can elaborate, the FCA of Australia does not stop contact but puts in place temporary supervision - usually family members.

Even parents with convictions for sexual assault often, but not always, still see children, as it is considered to be good for the children. In the rare instances "unacceptable risk" is found by FCA, children still see the perp. but supervised.

Last pt 3: you ask if I have taken matter to criminal court: NO, I wish. Do you think a child under five can sit alone with police (mother must leave room) and detail sexual abuse? Even if this child could only 5% chance of successful conviction. This isn't a figure I've made up but researched. It is currently quoted in media as well.

You note that children are more at risk with de facto men and you make comparisons, I don't really understand the significance of this to the specific issue we are discussing.

I do not support abuse of children by anyone, why would I?. When anyone goes to the FCA as a last resort to protect their children they should recieve support, proper investigation and protection of children who have reported abuse - regardless of who the perp. is, be it mothers, de facto or father. That's not an unreasonable expectation.

Justice for kids:"the FCA of Australia does not stop contact"

It wasn't the FCA, it was the Qld magistrates court. The FCA agreed to supervised contact at a contact centre, which took more then 4 months to get organised, largely because of the obstructionism of the people running the contact centre and I had only one use of the centre.

The very fact that such a shameful and shaming process was put in place without any justification of the allegations being heard in Court and with no evidence presented, other than the mother's affidavit is pretty good evidence to me that allegations are taken very seriously, with little concern for the rights or feelings of the one accused. I don't believe that it is routine to give genuine abusers free access to children they are accused of abusing. Some exceptions no doubt exist.

Justice for kids:"Antiseptic is a member of Dads on Air"

And? I'm a member of the Whirlpool Broadband forums, the Woodwork forums and several other forums as well. I believe I have made my position quite explicit here on OLO. What relevance does my posting to DOTA have to the discussion? Go and read what I've posted there, you'll find it's very similar to what I've posted here on relevant occasions.

Hello Antiseptic, I am sorry but I don't have time to read the 448 postings you have made on Dads on Air.

I have read one of your previous posts at the online forum (Child abuse in the family court, Thurs 31 July) where you wrote:" I spent 7 months and several thousand dollars to even get a hearing when my ex-wife claimed violence in that I raised my voice and sworn..." The court ordered supervised contact for that? Gosh they are a tough lot.

The court did not stop contact with your children, but you claim they did because the contact centre stuffed you around?

In a coincidence my 'ex' complained about lack of contact and he too said the contact centre was 'too busy' and blamed me for blocking him.

In reality it was because he couldn't be bothered contacting the centre for about four months. When he attended the interview he told them he had done everything to see his child. I was surprised by this as he had never contacted me. I told the supervisor this and she rolled her eyes, hears it all the time.

There is also a bit of prob. with words.. the court says unproven means false. To the rest of us, unproven means unproven. False allegations are not really false but unproven to the courts satisfaction which is at the 'high end of the criminal spectrum' ie almost impossible.

If I whacked you around the head, leaving bruises or molested you at five years old. Then denied I did any such thing. Would you care to detail how you would prove it? Remember... if you say anything well of course your mummy coached you.

Justice for kids:"I am sorry but I don't have time to read the 448 postings you have made on Dads on Air."

That's a shame. With all modesty, I have to say that those posts on DOTA show very clearly the impact on an ordinary person of unsubstantiated allegations, which might make them a little confroting for those who try to argue primacy of maternal claim.

Perhaps you might like to educate yourself properly before your next appearance?

Antiseptic: you are not credible in your statements about your personal treatment by the court.

You spend a lot of time and energy opposing those who are legitimate concerns about the FCA so much so you are prepared to distort your experiences.

I have already said no 1.false allegation are rare, no 2 false allegation means - unproven. Therefore in your case the 'false allegations' you claim were made are simply unproven. If your 'false allegations' are that, then, sorry, but it is hardly a tragedy of epic proportions.

If, as a result of the FCA sceptical approach to disclosures results in one child being molested or beaten or killed ...then this is a true tragedy. This tragedy seems to occur from my readings of judgements on a very regular basis.

The following is an example of how the court puts a relationship with the father above safety. The double standard on 'alienation' is also apparent.

From
http://australiandivorce.blogspot.com/search/label/Shared%20Parenting

Here is an excerpt.

"Monday, 18 August 2008

Federal Magistrates Court: alienating father leads to shared care
In the recent Federal Magistrates Court case of Delaney and Delaney, it took Federal Magistrate Walters over a year to deliver judgment in relation to a 12 year old boy (now 13) called M. At the conclusion of the trial his Honour decided to put in place a week about arrangement, despite clear evidence of the violent nature of the husband, including on one occasion attempting to choke the wife with electrical chord, and the finding that the husband had engaged in alienation of M from the mother.

His Honour also found, as to the credit of the husband:

He was... one of the least impressive witnesses that I have ever heard (whether as counsel or during my years on the bench). Unfortunately, much of his evidence was inconsistent and non-responsive. His demeanour in the witness box radiated insincerity, and fluctuated between what I can only describe as a state of passive aggression (on the one hand) and a quite disconcerting form of obsequiousness (on the other). I find myself unable to give weight to almost anything that he told me. He gave the impression that he has nothing but contempt for the wife, and he clearly has no respect for her, as a person or as the mother of his child. I am satisfied that he is a controlling and manipulative person, who was unwilling to be open and direct with the court....."

Obviously a fine specimen of humanity, and would you like your child ordered to be in his company on a week about arrangement?

Justice for kids, i quote from the same blog you did:"His Honour found that, with one exception, the arrangement for shared care had for the previous year appeared to be working, and therefore ought to continue. "

IOW, the previous history of alleged violence and the poor character of the parents notwithstanding, the arrangement was working. Is it your contention that such functional arrangements should be overturned? On what basis?

Antispetic, as you quoted "His Honour found, that with ONE EXCEPTION"

Who knows what that tiny little "one exception" would be.

If you devalue the attempted murder of this child's mother to the same extent that this magistrate did, then of course you wouldn't see a problem with spending time with this delightful fellow.

It is apparent to most normal people that this father is full of hatred and that he is UNSAFE. I would infer from his behaviour that he is not motivated by love to see his child. He is motivated by malice.

His behaviour is that of a crimminal and the only reason he is not in jail is most likely due to 'lack of evidence'. Would you like your children with this man...come on, who are you kidding?

If any daddy is better than none (which many adult children of abusers will contradict), if you do not draw the line at attempted murder, you don't draw the line anywhere at all and children are murdered despite very obvious warning signs. Attempted murder, disturbed character/personality in court is a warning sign perhaps??

My apologies...found the full judgment the blog I first visited did not include, what to me is a very important aspect..the child wants to stay with his father.

This case was not typical of the kinds of judgements that are of concern: where the child expresses fear of father and this is disregarded.

So although this child may be with an unsafe, dominating, controlling person: at the age of thirteen he is entitled to make this choice. It would be difficult for the court to force this thirteen year old child to stay full-time with his mother against his wishes.

Sorry to muddy the waters!

Justice for kids:"Sorry to muddy the waters!"

Thanks for your candour, Jfk, but with respect, it's your initial response that concerns me. To your credit, you read further and found more information, but it is all too easy to jump to the conclusion you did initially. It is precisely for that reason that Courts cannot allow themselves to be swayed by the sort of character assessments of which his Honour made observation in his judgement and which so inflamed you.

If they are, the risk of a miscarriage of justice is high.

The strength of your emotional response is pretty typical, I suspect, and hence it is all the more necessary for Courts to be alert to its influence.

Further to this discussion, a report has just been released on a study into shared care arrangements. A brief report is to be found here: http://www.theage.com.au/national/children-suffer-if-parents-do-not-share-care-equally-20081105-5ijn.html

I note that one of the principal findings is that both parents and children in equally-shared-care arrangements report better outcomes and improved feelings of well-being. It is when a great disparity exists between time in the care of one or the other parent that children and parents alike suffer.

I quote from the article:"Parents who had an equal share of care were probably more likely to get along better and to have an egalitarian approach to parenting."

"Associate Professor Bruce Smyth, from the Australian National University's department of demography and social research, said fathers were becoming more involved in their children's lives. But when both parents spent significant but unequal periods of time with the children, it could be problematic.

"Unequal care looks to be a proxy for conflict," he said. "In some cases, unequal shared care may represent an unhappy compromise.""

Can I assume from the lack of response to my last post that the various people who've been so vocal on the subject have nothing further to add to the findings of the excellent report cited?

In a nutshell, the worst outcome is for one parent to have some, but not much, time with the children. Equally-shared care should be the norm.

Antiseptic, I'd like to know how the wellbeing of the parents varies across the different scenario's. My impression is that shared care should be a lot easier on parents (as long as one is not working to make it not work).

They pointed out that all do better with equal shared care than at lower levels of shared care but I wonder how parental wellbeing compares with sole parenting. I suspect better but have not seen research about that.

R0bert

R0bert, I've not seen such research either, but I'd also suspect that shared parenting is better for parents. My reasoning is that if nothing else, it gives a chance for the parents to have a regular break from parenting, which can be quite arduous, as I'm sure you'd be only too aware. As well, it reduces the costs when compared to sole parenting, although not by half. It creates happier children, too, which can only mean happier parents.

If suitable changeover arrangements are in place, there is no need for parental conflict to be an issue either, provided both parents are committed to making the stuation workable. It seems to me that the greatest impediment is a parent committed to derailing the process. In my own experience, that can be aggravated by outside forces, such as solicitors, CSA, Centrelink and sometimes relatives or friends.

Antiseptic, I suspect that finding the balance between respect for boundaries and working at shared values in parenting are tougher issue's than the changeover. Both parents need to accept that they don't determine the rules for the other home but that they need to work with the other parent as far as possible in supporting some common values of parenting. That can be the tough bit. There are no simple rules on just where that balance sits, it can require parents to put aside stuff that they cherish to make it work.

The times we've had difficult changeovers are well in the past and and were short term. Once mum was out of sight the tears stopped and play commenced. I've seen similar in another family I'm close to. Sometimes when the dad drops his daughter off at the mums the daughter can sometimes be quite histerical as he is leaving but within minutes it's settled.

R0bert

R0bert, I couldn't agree with you more. My point with the changeover was that if the parents don't come into contact, there is less likelihood of any nasty exchanges which could escalate into bigger problems in terms of the things you mention.

Antiseptic, I'd not be confident in the suitability of shared parenting if the level of antagonism was such that changeovers could not be conducted peacefully most of the time. Especially so if that continued over a sustained period.

There is no easy answers to that, I don't like the situation as it was where a parent could sabotage the process but not be held accountable for doing so nor do I see how the authorities can fairly determine who is provoking conflict (unless it is really blatant). Mostly adults who witness changeovers will be involved with one of parents and are not independant.

We've had our periods where changeovers were dreaded. From my perspective because my ex seemed to think that they were a good opportunity to re-raise issues she wanted to push (she may have a different perspective). Over time thats stopped and they are generally peaceful. Sometimes they involve a cuppa or maybe even a shared meal.

I think it could be harmful to children to have two adults raising them who could not communicate well enough to exchange important information and who lacked the maturity to put aside personally differences enough to meet their childs interests.

Ability and willingness to put your childrens interests ahead of personal grievances should be considered when determining parenting ability in contested residency cases.

R0bert