Dream On:"I did not take offence at *AntiSeptic's* remarks about my alleged "abnormality,""

That's good, because it wasn't antiseptic who made that remark.

Dream On:"If I am correct as above and you can accept that in some cases, financial responsibility should be enforced against some fathers but custody ought be declined, then why is it that you wave the flag one way or another?"

But I don't accept that. As the law stands at present, a mother can behave abominably, she can lie to the court, threaten her children with abandonment, make false allegations of the worst sort against the father of her children and the Court will still award her sole and exclusive custody.

If a mother goes out of her way to prevent her children from having contact with the father then his financial responsibility must come to an end. The Court in these cases often advises the father to "move on", but how is he to do that if he is financially shackled to a family he is not allowed to have anything to do with?

My view is that the child support act encourages this sort of misbehaviour from mothers because it links the time in care with a financial outcome: more time in her care means he has to pay her more. For some women, that is sufficient incentive to interfere with his time with the kids. It's s zero-sum game, after all: if she gets more, he has to survive on less, so she "wins" all 'round.

Far better to get rid of the ideologically based CS law and replace it with a levy on all taxpayers. Children are a common good not just a private joy and we already spend a huge amount of money on the CSA, mostly to administer collections from the 70% of CSA-collect "paying parents" who are unemployed. We also spend billions annually in the form of courts to oversee the process and the collateral damage that it causes. Get rid of the whole mess and start again if you're serious about reducing conflict within separated families.

Dream On:"Statistics for example are largely irrelevant.These determinations are made on a case by case basis, in light of the evidence accepted in relation to the requirements of the Act."

And what do you think informs the Act? Ms Biggs and a few of her more dysfunctional and innumerate supporters want to "generalise from extremes" to have the Act changed. Their position is that if one child is hurt by a father, then no father should be allowed to have care, but they carefully avoid discussing the fact that giving children to a single mother while removing the father from the picture is the most dangerous thing that a Court can do to a child. If legislation was based on the few extreme examples that they provide it would lead to many, many more children suffering at the hands of abusive mothers and their hangers on.

dream On:"Now, are you perhaps projecting?"

Oh dear. Let's talk about projection, shall we? You say:"I had a bad Dad, therefore all Dads are bad". I say:"sometimes mums do bad things for bad reasons and the kids suffer". Who do you reckon is doing the projecting?

I have discussed my own case ad nauseum. I suggest you look up my posting history if you'd like to know the details.

Dream On:"are you aware that give the impression of a hostile, antagonistic individual who may be a risk to others?"

Are you aware you give the impression of a neurotic individual who just doesn't like men? Gee, this is fun.

BTW, I represented myself in the Family Court and was awarded 50:50 care, despite the best efforts of the mother to paint me as "violent", which is the standard tactic of third-rate lawyers in the FLA, with no evidence whatever other than "he intimidates me". I had to fight both the DVO and the FLA matter and I still got the best outcome for the kids.

That was way back before the Howard reforms too.

Now what was that about "projecting"? Perhaps it's time you tried to reconcile with your father?

Antiseptic.

Section 121 of the FL Act prevents me from naming, for your personal edification, women so affected by abusive court decisions. eg, one's who have been jailed, fined, given a Good Behaviour Bonds for daring to sully the good name of father - which is apparently so very much more acceptably punishable than his rape and sexual abuse of his children. Bit like breaching the 'what happens on tour, stays on tour' rule? wink wink. Or 'No fault divorce'? Do whatever, it's fine with us! Beat up / rape the missus? Move on, get over it we say.

Until the legal system corrects its process to facilitate the evidence of children - wot? listen to children! you say. Never! Whatever next - no doubt because they would be put up to it by their wicked mothers who for some masochistic reason choose to go thru a particularly nasty,demeaning, expensive sequence of processes in the mistaken belief a child is deserving of protection - even from their own fathers. To be faced by a 'self representer' with such confidence - even though I'm thinking it didn't happen in recent times so isnt all that relevent.

Grown men and women seek help from our service because of lives affected by paternal sexual abuse with impacts that seems never ending and heart breaking. Are they all liars? All mislead by wicked mothers? Should we turn them away and say 'shame on you' and 'It was really your mother you liar!'

In your own case your version vascillates between 'we had 50-50, and be damned if I wus gunna pay a cent more than she did', but our kids love us for it (oh, yes, I am paraphrasing) To I beat the lying ex cos she couldn't prove I was intimidating. Yeah - I can see how you'd never try to intimidate.....

And Chazp - you are just being an old meaney sticking up for children. It doesn't matter what you say, the likes of Anti will never hear the cracking sound of the shell of ignorance breaking.

Cotter

Other than yourself, no-one is arguing that genuine cases of child abuse aren't getting investigated. Many women make allegations that appear to be untrue and the debate is over how much benefit of any doubt they should get.

"Until the legal system corrects its process to facilitate the evidence of children." I was unaware that children are unable to testify. In fact, acting as a juror, I listened two children explain in minute detail what their step-father may have done to them.

As for ChazP "breaking ignorance" even his strongest critics would concede that Antiseptic knows quite a bit about family law. He can quote reports and find statistics to back up anything he says. Anti might be obsessed, but he certainly isn't ignorant.

Benk, I am flumoxed by your post
'Until the legal system corrects its process to facilitate the evidence of children." You wrote: I was unaware that children are unable to testify. In fact, acting as a juror, I listened two children explain in minute detail what their step-father may have done to them. 'May have? They dont usually charge on may have. Alleged would be the usual word used.

Children are neither seen, or heard in Family Court. Even the ICL is not obliged to speak to them. At all. What kids may have disclosed to others / specialists/ is often dismissed in FL because the 'accused' wasn't present at the treatment session so wasn't heard. Clinical child psychologist treatment reports are dismissed, and the children Ordered away from any psych support at all. In Criminal court, unless damage has been extreme, it is unlikely a child under 7 will be able to give evidence effectively and participate in cross-examination successfully. It may be MORE likely if there has been another eye witness, even a child. Perhaps that was the case in the matter you heard. So it's not impossible, or never, just unlikely. An accused has the right to answer allegations of when, where, and what he is accused of, and a small child has little capacity to recall exact details, especially in serial abuse cases.

You then wrote
'As for ChazP "breaking ignorance" even his strongest critics would concede that Antiseptic knows quite a bit about family law. He can quote reports and find statistics to back up anything he says. Anti might be obsessed, but he certainly isn't ignorant'.

I say that while you seem impressed by Anti's 'knowledge', I am not - but then my cases are current, now, today. When you sit in the court, you may be surprised at what goes on. Its the difference between 'research' and really happening. But 'just anecdotal - even when you are there.

Posted by benk, Friday, 19 February 2010 3:49:18 PM

" ... even his strongest critics would concede that Antiseptic knows quite a bit about family law. ... "

I can't see any evidence to support that assertion, quite the contrary actually.

Posted by Cotter, Friday, 19 February 2010 4:21:05 PM

" ... I say that while you seem impressed by Anti's 'knowledge', I am not ... "

Neither am I. Actually, I am singularly unimpressed by him.

*AntiSeptic's* rambling, ranting and raving appears to me to be largely devoid of a legal basis. I haven't seen him link any of his rabid accusations to a specific provision of the Act whatsoever, assumabley so that he can inform the nation as to the development of same in the public interest. He does rather seem to be obsessed with a series of irrational "boys versus girls" arguments.

Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 19 February 2010 6:59:00 AM

" ... I had a bad Dad, therefore all Dads are bad" ... "

Actually, I am as stated very fond of my Step Father. I have no time for my bio father whatsoever though. In the company of my school friends growing up, I have been privileged to spend time with many "Father's" of a "Good & Upstanding" nature. You have degenerated into making up facts to support your "views."