skeptic, the anti family law act of 1975 always was intended to abuse as many children as possible. Feman-nazism was always intended to create fear & loathing among the masses or "divide & conquer". Also with the whitlam government, beginning the process of job exportation, they needed to create new, "jobs for the girls", hence the new industries of DV & child welfare created by the destruction of families & creation of several generations of dysfunctional neglected, abused children.

dane, not so much anti male, as anti everybody, the intention was to create conflict & oppress everybody by encouraging women to abuse themselves & still, think it was somehow, a man's fault.

Antiseptic, have you noticed BTW how completely feminised left wing politics has become. As Germaine Greer predicted in her book, "alleged males" on the left especially those, still defending the abuse of children by radical, extremist, loony, left, lesbian, feman-nazi, paedophiles have become eunuchs, totally devoid of any testosterone or testicles. Just as male paedophiles are sometimes "chemically castrated", feman-nazism was always meant to socially, psychologically or culturally castrate men generally, nearly worked on me for a while, hence the name formersnag. The style of debating they use on all policy areas is also, identical to that used by a dysfunctional, emotionally immature woman to "play head, f#*%, mind games" with her partner, making mountains out of ant hills, selective memory, twisting of words, all of it.

chazP, ho hum still sprouting the radical, extremist, loony, left, lesbian, feman-nazi paedophile propaganda as usual. Did your children ask to live with their father? Is that what happened to you? Have you done any counselling?

Formersnag: I will pray that your soul, mind, heart and body heal from your negative experiences with females; just as I pray that mine heals with the dreadful negative experiences I have had with primary Aussie male figures in my life. An emotional issue that always allows emotion and prejudice from past experiences to cloud the facts of Australian history.

Gee, I hate to break in to this feminine-hate-fest, but I had to stand up for dreamOn with the nasty statement from former(never)snag that he/she was 'abnormal'.
How dare you demean someone else's misfortunes because they do not support your' bitter and twisted views of women. Shame on you.

Former(never)snag <" BTW i note you never replied to my last comment to you about catholic nuns sexually abusing teenage boys at a boarding school."
Gee you can certainly hold a grudge dear.
If you are losing sleep over this then I will say again that I don't condone sexual abuse of children by ANYONE.

Having grown up with nuns I have no doubt they did do what you said. However, I would hazard a guess that the Priests and Brothers were 99% responsible for disgusting acts on both boys and girls in their care.

This thread is about misunderstanding the Family Law however, so I will say again that whatever the laws are now, they are not good enough because kids are still coming off second best after some acrimonious divorces.
The laws need looking at again and again until they get it right.

There are however, many relationship breakdown situations where the loving parents do the right thing and think of their kids first.
I am heartened by this fact.

Suzeonline:"I will say again that whatever the laws are now, they are not good enough because kids are still coming off second best after some acrimonious divorces."

So what do you propose? What do you see is wrong with the law as it stands and how would you address that?

Formersnag, while Feminist ideology informs the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, linking mothers and children but disdaining fathers as supernumery, Feminism as such is not a causative issue with most family breakdowns, although it does strongly influence the likely course of events afterwards. Many of those who are most vocal in deriding the role of fathers are not "feminists" so much as "sociopaths". It is a sad fact that the Court is an adversarial environment which encourages conflict by providing one party (the mother) with cheap access to legal services, while allowing her enormous scope to act out her revenge on the father with impunity if she wishes.

The rest of the State paraphernalia, such as the CSA and centrelink, add further to the conflict by requiring her to take action against the father.

As long as damaged people with clearly unresolved issues pertaining to men are allowed to administer these laws and are given close access to cynical governments who know a great wedge when they see it we will have no end to the mess.

Former/NeverSnag - as the national spokesman for the Father's Rights groups, the only thing to your credit is that you never let the facts get in the way of your firmly held, but twisted and bizarre opinions. With your attitudes and abusive behaviour towards females it is not difficult to see why your ex-spouse kicked you out and wouldn't let you near her kids. Depending which State your in I would happily recommend a good psychiatrist and who knows, after treatment your kids might just want to see you again. With a police escort I would imagine.

Antiseptic/ascerbic - I see you are once again talking through your wallet rather than from any heartfelt concern for your children's needs, wishes, and rights in Court matters. But that is not unusual, applications by father's for residency or contact are most often driven by an annoyed revengeful repost to evade child maintenance. But then, money is at the heart of the whole father's rights and male supremacists campaign. Of course it is usually accompanied by crocodile tears of concern for the poor children which has so far bambozzled the politicians. When fathers rights groups stop seeing women and their children as their possessions and can get over being rejected by females, then maybe they can turn their minds to considering the needs.wishes, and rights of children. But I think it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.