Sorry - correction. The last sentence was a question. Why don't Menz sites make use of their capacity to rally men together and do parenting courses for youth and similar projects ? They could do things that are constructive and contributing.

Btw: Hypothetical: What would happen if the courts made a blanket decision that all fathers take custody of the children ?

(It was like that historically and up until the 1960s, in which case a lot of kiddies ended up in foundling homes, orphanages, living with grandmothers; house bound maiden (emphasis on 'maid') aunts and step mothers. It was one of the ways of forcing women to stay; because if she left she'd be denied contact with her children and in any case few women had the earning capacity to support children, though some had no choice and managed somehow.)

However, how would things be different in today's society? There is a shortage of willing grandmother/babysitters and maiden aunts aren't as available. Not a lot of women are keen on taking on another's children and I suspect a parent who dumped their children in an orphanage wouldn't be too well regarded. So what would all the men do with all the children ?

Men: How would you do it ?

I had a good dad. Far too tough by today's standards, but a man to be respected. Rules were rules, and woe betide any of us who got into trouble at school or elsewhere. My parents thought my education was important, BECAUSE dad's sister, a teacher, had had a violent husband - a Changi POW - and she was the breadwinner. I was raised under the traditional role, where mothers looked after the kids, couldn't leave anyway because there was no where to go. Both of them (and us) were highly active in local activities, eg Dad was in the St John's ambulance for 45 years. I was one of the lucky ones. I foolishly thought the world was made up of men and women like my parents. There are still a majority of parents who thankfully can do whats right. They inspire me to do my work with others not so lucky.

Fast forward to today. Families and communities are disintegrating, roles all mixed up. Opportunities and obligations and costs have are increased, kids are in day care routinely. No fault divorce extends divorce rate. Both parents become obligated to financially support their own children after separation instead of the Government paying for all the ones where parents avoided their obligations. (continued)

continued)
In cases today where there is violence and abuse, alcohol & drug related problems in caring for kids, societal systems are frequenty inadequate, selective, secretive. In NSW there is still no 'instruction' to a protective parent in 'what to do' if a child reports abuse or assault and little protective response when they do. If the hairy legged lesbians are so in charge (as alleged) and its all a Marzxist plot, why haven't they made it easier to condemn people who abuse kids to produce a workforce that is functional? Or do lesbians allegedly hate children too?

Answer me this. If your spouse picked up your baby, threatened to drop it if you didn't comply with their demands, is that threat DV or child abuse to you? No marks, no proof. And if you fled with that child, which system do you think would give a damn?

I suspect the spouse would have you in Family Court so fast your head would spin, and they should get 50-50? These are the case BB is on about, the ones where there is a problem for the children. I know she tried to get protective men to join the campaign, for the children, but few did. I hear all this 'false allegation' but little about false denials - the VERY basis of the criminal legal system.

How long must a parent live with this type of threat to harm before they are entitled to say 'enough!' It seems to me by today's cases in FC, the bullying to 'consent' to access that will undoubtedly be unsafe, is what needs to be addresses. Shared parenting ONLY works for the kids when it is child centred.

Cotter. Barbara Biggs is interested ONLY in womens/mothers rights, and in blaming men for ALL child abuse. Take a look at the FB site "safer family law campaign, lets protect our children" which she is an administrator of. Take a look at the "in memorium" on that site. You will note that EVERY instance is of a father committing child murder. There is not a single case mentioned of mother perpetrated child murder, not one, yet there have been dozens of cases of this, many in recent times. Go on, take a GOOD look. Why would any sane man join such a blatantly sexist movement. BB is a hateful creature who is blaming men for everything. The main thrust of this loathsome creatures campaign came after the sad case of Darcy Freeman, yet no mention made of Ms garcia who jumped of the same bridge killing herself and her child only months before, no mention of Yeeda Topham who also jumped from a building in perth killing her child, and this after she was allowed to keep custody after having previously attempting to gas her child. No mention of the woman who gave her 3 children sleeping tablets and tried to gas them, killing 2 of them, just to get back at their father. No mention of Dean Shillingworth who was shaken to death by his mother, then shoved in a suitcase and thrown in a duckpond. I could go on but i think you get the idea. This vile creature is using her position as a journalist to carry out her own disgusting and hateful agenda's against men and is distributing nothing but propaganda designed to get the populace to believe that only men commit such acts. This is the main thrust of her campaign, NOT caring about childrens welfare, which she see's as only secondary.

The focus of the Barbara Biggs campaign is the safety of children after parental separation, particularly from a violent partner. Those who point to mentally ill mothers who kill their children are bringing in a different context of child deaths. Mentally ill mothers who kill their children and/or themselves are not necessarily or usually separated and their behaviour is not shaped by family law proceedings but by their mental illness. This means that there needs to be better mental health supports. The family law centred child killings point to a need for much better assessments in the family law process and decisions which focus on child safety ahead of parental entitlement.

What the current laws dismiss is the documented fact that the biggest predictor of a future relationship between parent and child is how that relationship status was PRIOR to separation. In other words, if a parent, and it is usually the father, is disengaged, disinterested, authoritarian, otherwise pre-occupied and has not established a good relationship with the child prior to separation, then separation will NOT make their relationship a meaningful one. There is no evidence available that suggests that being separated from a former spouse changes the attitudes of the parent to become more caring, nurturing, self-sacrificing and more able to meet the (emotional) needs of the child or children. What is bordering on insanity within the FLC judicial system and the current law interpretation is the dismissing of affidavits from one parent about how the former partner acted and behaved towards the children while they were together. Parents, before even going into court, are consulted in the corridors to come to an "arrangement", one where the caring parent has specifically described, in their affidavit, abusive behaviours towards the children by the other parent, are told to "give something". What's up with that? More consideration needs to be given as to WHY the abusive parent is requesting 50/50 access, while there is pressure on caring parents to give up children to neglectful ex-partners. The law has become a tool used by abusive ex-partners to control their ex-spouses finances by doing two things at once - reducing the amount of child support paid, and forcing legal fees on their ex's.