The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Shared Parenting Best Interests?

Shared Parenting Best Interests?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
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
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 27 October 2008 7:59:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Justice for kids, Saturday, 1 November 2008 11:42:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 1 November 2008 12:33:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Justice for kids, Saturday, 1 November 2008 1:57:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 1 November 2008 3:49:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Justice for kids, Saturday, 1 November 2008 5:37:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy