Ho hum, its plain to see that Antiseptic views the world through the very narrow prism of `evidence’ presented to Courts and the propaganda of Male Supremacist Groups. Of course it is common knowledge that Courts are not concerned with Truth and Justice, merely with who wins.

Domestic violence is notoriously difficult to prove. It occurs behind closed doors and without witnesses. It is only forensic evidence which can be of value, but of course many abusers are extremely careful to ensure there is no physical evidence. “You go to the police and next time I’ll kill you and your kids!” are common words used by abusers to threaten their victims. The police falsely believe that such occurrences are `Six of one, and half a dozen of the other” - In every domestic violence case there is a persecutor and the victims. The persecutor is a tyrant and an ‘Intimate Partner Terrorist”. The IPT terrorises the victims. If matters eventually reach a Court, there is little first hand evidence and little forensic evidence of what has occurred. So the odds are heavily stacked against the victims of receiving a sympathetic hearing. Defence lawyers tear such victims apart. The victims are naïve regarding court procedures and are terribly frightened even to be there and are already traumatised by events and likely to be suffering severe anxiety and even clinical depression. They are further abused by the system and some women describe it as `Gang Rape’ by the boys in gowns and wigs.
Is it little wonder that victims of intimate partner terrorism and child abuse are reluctant to report such crimes and far less likely to take such matters into Courts to be further abused by the system which is supposed to protect them. Of course the Court Proceedings are held in absolute secrecy too so the public and politicians hear nothing of these occurrences and the lawyers and court experts are safe in the knowledge that their unprofessional statements and unethical conduct will never become known to professional colleagues so they are totally unaccountable behind this shroud of secrecy.

ChazP says: (due to lack of evidence) "...the odds are heavily stacked against the victims of receiving a sympathetic hearing" In a normal court, perhaps.

But not the 'Family Court (better known as the Feminist Court!) This court assumes an allegation is proven. They do this with the dodgy logic of 'unacceptable risk'. They may be 99% sure that no violence occoured, but will rob the children of their loving father on the 1% chance that the allegations are real and pose an unnacceptable risk. (see John Hirst's 'quarterly Essay' titled "Kangaroo Court" http://www.quarterlyessay.com/issue/kangaroo-court-family-law-australia )

One of the most fundamental safeguards of justice if the assumption of innocence and the right to face your accusor. Unfortunately these have been long campaigned against by feminist supremacist groups and watered down nore and more. There is no assumption of innocence in the Divorce COurt, and in rape trials, for example, men are convicted without 'cross examination', denied their right to face thier accusor.

"Male Supremacist Groups"?!?!? What planet is this woman on?!?! In AUstralia there are two (2) paid staff that could be considered 'men's rights activists'. But there is billions of dollars funding professional feminists... from academics in sociology, to 'E.E.O.' staff at every government office, to 1.3 billions of funding for the 'family Relationships Centres which are nearly entirely resourced by groups which explicitly and repeatedly oppose shared parenting presumptions

Family Law is such a minefield. Hatred and vitriole is all you will get from this debate. Some parents don't give a rats about the kids it is all about ME.

Maybe we should polygraph parents to ascertain who is telling the truth - it really does come down to one person's word against another and when there is spite, bittereness and feelings of revenge thoughts about the welfare of kids seems to go by the way. Ego rules supreme.

Shared parenting would seem the best option for many, as long as there is no risk with one dodgy partner. Shared parenting does not work for everyone and there should not be a one size fits all approach.

It is a pity that family law cannot take place around a table with a mediator, legal representation, with input from friends and family to ensure children get the outcome that is best for them.

No system will ever be perfect because the people who visit the Family Court are not perfect. It is almost impossible to get justice when only two people present know the truth in relation to serious claims.

Bring back the underground railway.

Kind words as those I received from *SuzeOnLine* are always a pleasure to receive. :-)

And there is much truth in the words of *ChazP* in my experience.

..

On one occassion when I was eight from memory we were picked up by my bio father and left at my grandparents.

Bio father then dissapeared off, and accompanied by his older brother and another male friend, launched an assault on my home and locale of bio mother and Knight Defender Step Father.

Step Father was allegedly repairing wooden furniture with a staple gun at the time.

The assault was repelled after bio father received a gaping gash wound above his eye courtesy of the staple gun.

Whilst I can look back now with amusement on such vivid memories, it is also I believe true to say that they remain vivid in my mind's eye today as they were burned in with heightened states of anxiety. The child mind as it was at that time was an unwilling observer of these events. This included such events as watching grandfather sew bio father up in the aftermath.

..

Again, how a court order could so easily subsequently be overturned to again grant custody to my vile bio father remains a fact about which I am unclear. It shall have to wait for a rainy day by the fire at some distant point in the future after I have had a spare moment to request a copy of the file. It had perhaps as its basis misconceived religious notions about what constitutes a family and a father to the children in combination with a consent order I imagine, though I do not know this for sure.

I was quite happy with my Step Father thank you very much and had some kindly person earned my trust at that time I undoubtedly would have revealed it.

But the point of contestation in the custody battle revolved around the allegation that my step father was unfit because he was a "Faerie."

In relation to that matter, though predominately from my bio father, both of my organic parents pulled at me with questions on this matter, and likely as a consequence of this, I clammed up, became somewhat introverted and did not allow my emotions to naturally ebb and flow.

This led to being flogged by a female teacher for refusing to skip on one occasion, and refusing to sing on another .. however ..

..

Living with Asian people has all but cured me of this though, being a very open and naturally expressive group, and perhaps subliminally I have in part gravitated to them because of this ..

ChazP, your absolutely correct, far too many children have been neglected, abused, even murdered by their stupid, fat, ignorant, lazy, third-rate, deadbeat mothers. The greatest danger facing every child today is now & always has been their mother. As we all know, this is a well documented scientifically proven fact.

Of course children have always been safest, happiest, healthiest when living with their biological father, while their mother has been in a harmonious relationship with him. Sadly, many alleged mothers are incapable of doing some "couples counselling" to sort out their problems, instead of, buying a sports car, when going through a midlife crisis they insist on abusing their children by putting them through a completely unnecessary divorce. In these cases the "Anti Family Law Act of 1975" should be changed to a default position of the children being 100% resident with their father, unless it can be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" that the father is defective in some way. (which we all know is exceedingly rare) With supervised visitation for the mother, as we all know that deadbeat motherhood is exceedingly common.

single mum, also correct "the children" need to be protected from the likes of you.

partTimeParent, in my experience over 90% of relationships do include extensive DV by the female on both her hapless husband & children.

suzeonline, i see your ignoring the facts on DV & defective parenting again, as per usual for a femanist. You have engaged in these debates enough times before and had more than enough scientific facts quoted at you to know that women are responsible for most of the DV & child abuse whereas bio fathers are almost never responsible. BTW i note you never replied to my last comment to you about catholic nuns sexually abusing teenage boys at a boarding school.

Severin, wrong, many children got the opportunity to find out, they enjoy living with dad more than mum, some of them even asked if they could live with dad full time, which is where all this protest came from.

DreamOn, you are abnormal, 90% of abuse is female.