The A-G said:"“Effectively bush lawyers or pub lawyers are providing advice to people ... which is wrong and that can, it seems on the evidence, result in misunderstandings.”", which Barbara quotes approvingly. What she doesn't seem to realise is that she is one of the "bush-lawyers" that he was referring to.

One of the surest signs of the breed is their inability to see past their nose, often because it's stuck firmly in a trough. Barbara has a lovely trough; she made it herself and she's very busy ensuring it's kept nice and full. The last thing she really wants is for the shared parenting laws to be significantly rewritten, since her trough is constructed and filled from their scraps.

The 3 reports, collectively, found no serious failings in the current system, but quite a few procedural concerns about the way in which those associated with the Family Court implemented it, especially lawyers. Here's a tip: have a look at the Parkinson Report, which informed the current laws - it found that lawyers were the biggest problem with the old system as well.

Diana Bryant, the CJ of the Court, has made it clear that she also believes people appearing before the Court are being badly served by their lawyers and has called for greater powers for the Court to examine claims of violence raised during early phases of a matter, which are then dropped when orders are sought.

What the reports said, in a nutshell, is that 80% of people (mothers, fathers and children) who had shared care orders were satisfied with the arrangement. They said that the rate of self-reported "violence" (including arguments over care) within those families with shared care was less than 5% over the past 3 years, which is about the same as community levels and significantly lower than the rate when primaty care is handed to a single mother
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/35/10859.pdf.

For once, I'm in agreement with McLelland - what is needed is less heat and more light. Barbara and her fellow milkers of other people's misery could best assist by getting a real job.

All of the anecdotes that Barbara used just happened to make men look bad, while the reality (as discussed endlessly on OLO) makes both genders look equally bad. Because of this, I have trouble accepting this as an impartial critique of the new laws.

I accept that some fathers are pretty bad parents. Perhaps it might help if we reduced the financial incentive for both parents to get as much custody as possible. At present, rates of child support seem to far exceed the true cost of having children. Therefore, parents who have little interest in their kids will try to get as much time with them as possible.

Single Mum:"The reviews ALL said that the vast majority of professionals agreed that the current legislation was putting children into abusive situations."

No, they didn't, they said that mothers very often allege abuse, which is a different kettle of fish altogether. They did not say that rates of abuse of children are higher in shared care arrangements, nor did they say that children are at higher risk of abuse just because Mum says so.

Single mum:"You don't have to be Einstein to work out that the defenders of these laws are examples of "abusive" parents seeking shared care"

Oh dear. Have a look at the AIHW report i referenced above. It is a comprehensive survey of violence, neglect and abuse directed at children and it says that "Single Mums" are by far the most likely to abuse and neglect their children - about 6 times as likely as a single father when corrected for reletive prevalence of both types of family structure. I'd not be real proud to be a "single mum" if I were you...

BTW, what are you doing on a blog at this time of day? Isn't it time for the kids to be getting ready for school?

Anti @ Single-mum

<<<< BTW, what are you doing on a blog at this time of day? Isn't it time for the kids to be getting ready for school? >>>>

Demonstrating bullying.

Single-mum - no matter what you do or say, there are posters here who will always damn you. Your post was excellent in pointing out that so-called equal time with children does not necessarily equal good parenting. All it has done has given the disaffected, the means to use children to manipulate and bully their ex-partners - of either sex.

Severin,

'perhaps your exes left you and it stings? Maybe they caught you do the unthinkable to your children, and you want to continue without a protective parent there?'

I think that's a much better definition of bullying. I think antiseptic showed amazing restraint.

AaaH - so the government has spent all that money and time having those reviews of the Family Law and its all a big `misunderstanding' and the fault of those naughty lawyers.!. What a simple world we live in, don't you think?. And I'm sure all those children who have been abused and are continuing to be abused and the children who have died, will be comforted to know that they have been sacrificed for a `misunderstanding'. McLelleand and his ALP cronies must really be able to sleep with an easy conscience.
Fathers can also now rest quietly in their beds in the knowledge that `their' money is safe from all those predatory ex-wives and ex-girlfriends to waste on looking after their kids that they forced them to have, while others can continue to maltreat their kids with impunity. A simple misunderstanding............. and someone really ought to talk to those naughty lawyers about twisting the laws in the way they have.