What is needed in these cases is a holistic, co-ordinated common sense approach with child's needs uppermost.

I sense a lot of "pro-mother" bias in the article which disturbs me. During 12 years in public health my experience was that child neglect and abuse was more commonly committed by mothers in single parent situations and/or Mum's new BF. Quite often in cases of 'stepfather' abuse Mum was acquiescent at best and active participant at worst.

Another observation: Where abuse of the female partner occurred, children were less likely to suffer similar abuse but if old enough to realise what was happening, were traumatised by the mothers suffering. This type of male was usually highly manipulative and likely to be chiefly concerned in using the children to control and/or punish the mother.

Similarly I have seen highly manipulative vindictive mothers doing likewise through spurious accusations of various forms of 'abuse' including instances where physical harm was committed and then blamed on the father.

Both types of parent obviously have serious psychological disorders and should be sterilised immediately to prevent future innocents suffering and clean up the gene pool in general.

However back to the issue: Anyone required to make huge far-reaching decisions about a child's welfare - whether a case of custody between separated parents or returning a child to a situation from which they have been removed, should have as much relevant information as possible to assist in making the right choice. If that means access to previously "Confidential" information then so be it.

Re: "... father’s rights groups have threatened to mobilise their members against the Labor Party if the laws are changed to better protect children."
I call 'red herring'! If these groups (I'm aware of only one)have such huge membership that they could seriously affect election outcomes or exert undue influence, it would only prove what I suspect has been the case for quite a long time - that Fathers have been getting the rougher end of the pineapple when it comes to retaining contact and involvement in their childrens lives post-divorce/separation.

Possible?

Biggs has chosen her words very carefully here. She states that there is a problem and that governments need to do more, but is careful not to make any specific suggestions that could be analysed or aportion blame directly to members of either gender.

If all that fathers and their supporters achieve is to make these people think carefully about what they say then we can feel that we are getting somewhere.

Fathers' rights groups appeared after child support legislation and DNA technologies combined to force men to have financial responsibliity for the children they fathered. Fathers can reduce child support by having half or more of a child. That's where fathers rights groups have come from. Fathers in countries without child support systems aren't campaigning for family law reform - they can walk away and get a new family without consequences.
The fathers' rights political clout clearly trumps that of children - they don't vote. The fathers' rights groups have money and control at stake and they will fight to the death. There is more than one group. They have many faces. Children will continue to be the front line in family law and they will continue to be killed and injured by dangerous parents while the law looks blindly on.

Yes Benk, the author did choose her words carefully. I think she wrote an unbiased report of the issues at hand, and is obviously on the side of the children in these cases, without taking the side of either women or men.

Barbara Biggs <"Those in entrenched conflict separations with cases pending, either before the courts or in mediation, will be grateful for her latest recommendation that information from mediation sessions be provided to the Courts for consideration."

This will be hugely helpful to judges when deciding on custody conflicts. In my experience people can only be civil for a short amount of time, or for only one or two mediation sessions, when it is in their nature to be aggressive, controlling or manipulative as a rule.

Hopefully, the mediation staff will be trained well enough to check out the true nature of both of the parents coming before them regarding child custody conflicts after separation.

Many parents will eventually shoot themselves in the foot by suggesting nasty things about their partner, children or related issues.
Many of these sorts of people just can't help themselves.

The data and reports from these mediation sessions will be invaluable to judges who are to rule on child custody disputes, who previously had to rely on hearsay and perhaps listened more to the most compelling personality of the parents rather than getting to the truth.

"Life sentence for mother who gassed two kids in her car
Christine Flatley From: AAP February 24, 2010 1:39PM

A WOMAN who gassed her children to death in the family car as an act of revenge towards her ex-husband has been jailed for life.
The 43-year-old woman, who cannot be identified, was found guilty after trial in the Supreme Court in Brisbane last week of murdering her six-year-old son and 10-year-old daughter at their home at Sandstone Point, near Bribie Island.

The charge of murder carries an automatic life sentence in Queensland, which was handed down to the woman on Wednesday.

She was also found guilty of the attempted murder of her 16-year-old son, for which she received a concurrent sentence of 15 years.

During the trial the court was told the mother decided to kill herself and the children after being issued with a Family Court order stating they would spend Christmas Day with their dad."

Barbara Biggs refers to a murder (that of Darcy Freeman) committed by the father during custodial/access dispute. Crazy mothers do terrible things too but seem to end up with the kids regardless.

There needs to be much less of a leaning towards the SEX of the main custodial parent than towards the SUITABILITY of same. This needs to be of paramount consideration. Same goes for the pre-occupation with keeping kids with unsuitable (loopy/criminal/incompetent/abusive)biological parents/relatives and the notion of 'culture'.

It would seem that the same issues and conflicts arise when custody disputes are between the birth mother and the social mother.

Personally I do not think that socalled fathers rights activists have as much power as Babara gives them credit for.

It is true that either gender can and sometimes do behave very badly.

divine_msn <" There needs to be much less of a leaning towards the SEX of the main custodial parent than towards the SUITABILITY of same. This needs to be of paramount consideration.
Same goes for the pre-occupation with keeping kids with unsuitable (loopy/criminal/incompetent/abusive) parents/relatives and the notion of 'culture'."

Absolutely! Children's welfare must come first, no matter what.

This includes protecting and correctly placing children with an appropriate parent or carer when:

*The one parent wants 50/50 access to kids, but kids don't want to have their whole lives disrupted between two homes.

* One parent is obviously more appropriate to provide holistic care for the kids.

*Children of some cultures cannot be left with any relatives or friends in that community without suffering further harm.
Race should have nothing to do with safety from harm.

*There has been ANY allegations/convictions of inappropriate behaviour or aggression from one parent- until proven innocent.

All these child custody dispute cases should each be decided on it's own merit, rather than advocating for a 50/50 share in custody before anything else is decided.
Kids must come first.

Suze

Look carefully at the article. Biggs implied that there is a problem; that not enough was being done to protect children. She then argued that changes need to be made. What she wrote next was interesting.

"In an act exactly mirroring the findings of one review - that parent’s rights are favoured over safety of children under the current law - father’s rights groups have threatened to mobilise their members against the Labor Party if the laws are changed to better protect children."

So she claimed that father's groups are putting self-interest before children's safety and that fathers are the main obstacle to the necessary changes.

The point that I made is that, while much was hinted at, she never said specifically what changes need to be made. As has been demonstrated several times on OLO, father's groups are quite willing to take their critics on and know their stuff. Biggs never gave them this opportunity by presenting a small target.

As has been said many times before, shared parenting is the best way to protect kids. It reduces neglect by giving both parents a break. It reduces physical and sexual abuse by ensuring that children have a variety of adults looking out for them. It deprives child abusers of the secrecy that they need.

dysfunctional families often equal child abuse. Added to this the cocktail of violence and pornography on our screens and you have an epidemic of child abuse with only a small number of cases getting the needed attention. Scream all we like but we have created this tragic situation by demanding individual rights above what is good for the community. Social engineering has been extremely bad for children and shows no sign of improving. I am thankful I grew up in an era where most children has a loving father and mother who put the children before their own selfish wants. Family courts seem to have done a lot more harm than good as a general rule. IN saying that I would hate to be a judge in the complexities that they face these days.

Suzie - "*There has been ANY allegations/convictions of inappropriate behaviour or aggression from one parent- until proven innocent.'

that's where we hit conflict with the idea of innocent unless proven guilty. It's a genuine conflict with no easy answers.

- If we stick with innocent unless proven guilty we place kids at increased risk.
- If we allow unsubstantiated claims to be the basis of decisions with very serious consequences to the accused and their children we place a very potent tool for abuse in the hands of the less scrupulous.
- If we have consequences for making allegations which are not later proven/substantiated then we risk people not being able to report genuine concerns.

The prime concerns I'm aware of from the fathers groups over unsubstantiated allegations are that they can be used to set patterns of contact and residence which may be used to establish permanent arrangements (because the kids are used to a pattern) and because they can be very effective at getting one parent off side with the system. If you are treated as an abuser it tends to impact on demeanor and attitude which reinforces negative perceptions about the accused.

An allegation of abuse can leave the accused with no where to live, with those who might normally provide support suspicious of them, with the distress which comes from being cut off from those you love and from being cut off from the familiar things which help provide stability. It can leave the accused cash strapped when they need additional funds to get legal representation. It can leave the accused in a very bad place emotionally when they need to be able to present well to those who sit in judgment of them.

Part 1 of 2

R0bert

Part 2

Barbara has been careful with her words but once again the villains when identified by gender are male, a pattern on the part of those opposing shared care as the starting place in disputed residency cases which shows the agenda they seek.

I have mixed views on material from mediation leaving the room. At face value it could be great but my own experiences with mediators/counselors in the area of relationship/family law were less than inspiring. I gained the impression that many of those I dealt with were in the business out of a desire to help women.

In one case the appointed mediator was a single mum who had made similar choices regarding her own childrens schooling to those which I was opposing for my son and who expressed issues with her ex regarding child support payments - I would not like her to have had opportunity to put her views back to the court.

In another case an appointed counselor spent much of our time attacking fathers groups, one of which I was involved with at the time.

The courts should have good material to work with but if those preparing the material carry significant bias that could also be counter productive.

R0bert

Ms. Biggs,

To your previous article, I posted comments on the misname Family’ Court, (It should be ‘Broken Family’ Court) and the vanity of the lawyer who designed it.

As for Mrs. Briant, she should have refused the appointment on the ground that the Law, as codified, is inhumane, and sounds more like ‘Victor’s Justice’ (victors being one of the parents and the legal profession), then one which attends to the preservation of children’s integrity, health and education.

As woman and mother, she should have requested one condition to her appointment as chief Justice; the condition of disregarding all considerations except that of the children’s well being at equal expenses of each parent.

Benk, <"It reduces neglect by giving both parents a break. It reduces physical and sexual abuse by ensuring that children have a variety of adults looking out for them. It deprives child abusers of the secrecy that they need."

I do realise that the writer has an agenda. She has some bias against men's groups.
However, I don't believe that all families are better off with 50/50 shared parenting. It should be considered on a case by case basis depending on the circumstances in that family.

If it is in the kids best interest to spend most of their time with one parent rather than the other, then it doesn't matter what the other parent wants- don't you see that? Shouldn't the kids needs and wants come first?

If warring parents are so angry with each other that they can't do what is right for their kids, then there really is no choice but to let the courts decide is there?

Robert, all I was saying was that if there is allegation of any form of abuse against either parent, then the children should not remain in their care until the allegations have been investigated and proven unfounded.

We just can't take the risk that they could be true allegations can we? I feel sorry for any innocent parents who have been wrongly accused- but the children's safety and wellbeing must come first, ALWAYS.

If mediation helps the courts to decide, then more power to that process should be given. True feelings or tendencies of both warring parties will eventually come out, given time.

And it will be obvious to whoever is the mediator- whether they are male or female, single or married. We can't pick and choose who does these jobs to a certain degree

Suzie I appear to have a lot less confidence in the impartiality and competence of relationship mediators and counselors than you do.

I also have a different view to a lot of others about the childs wants aspect of this. My own son has always prefered to live with his mum. As far as I can tell that is mostly about the difference in discipline between us, my son would prefer a home where breaking the rules does not carry any consequences. I doubt that is particularly uncommon for children to prefer to be able to get away with what they want. His mum does do better than I do at some aspects of parenting, but they are things I do Ok at.

I also think that the principle of a child's best interests is misused as a trump card to ignore basic concepts of fair play and do stuff to others which we would never accept in other circumstances. The concept is treated by some as a black and white issue rather than an issue of balance.

If a childs best interests were the only consideration (and based on selective criteria) we could find excuses to take children away from many parents and place them with families who might be able to do a better job with them especially if we do it early enough that the child does not know it's happened. If it's Ok to deny significant involvement in childrens lives to one parent for reasons other than wrong doing or incompetence by that parent then why not do so for all parents? The use of the concept of a childs best interests by some reminds me what I've heard of forced adoption of the children of single mum's in times past.

R0bert

Suzeonline

I agree with all your points. Apparently there are those who believe that very grey issues can be solved if:

The 'right' people are mediators - whatever that means. Fact is some counsellors are brilliant and some aren't - irrespective of gender. None of them are part of some 'great feminist conspiracy'. BTW if there is a great feminist conspiracy - why haven't I been invited? Why are women still being raped? And why are there so few women in power? As a 'conspiracy' it is lame.

R0bert

I see from your post that father knows best for his son, but your son disagrees.

Have I understood you correctly?

Suze

I agree that it isn't in the interests of many children to spend half of their lives with each parent, particularly when one parent is proven to be unfit to care for them. I also agree with Robert, that the listening only to what the children want leads to parents trying to win their children over with gifts and a lack of boundaries.

I just took issue with the implication that father's groups are the main obstacle to protecting children and that a greater effort to protect children will necessarily mean keeping them away from their fathers.

If it is always against the interests of the child to spend half of his/her time with either parent, why then wouldn't the same thinking apply to childcare where a child can spend from 7am to 7pm with strangers?

I don't mind what arguments are advanced either way but there should be some consistency.

Outside of one or both parents throwing a log or two in the road and creating stress, there is no reason why sharing shouldn't work well and to the benefit of all concerned.

Severin I do believe that adults generally should and do know better than children on most key issues.

I've skimmed back over the preceding posts and you appear to be the first to mention a 'great feminist conspiracy'. Are you trying to misrepresent what others are saying to polarize the discussion even further or are you reading into comments what has not been said (or as far as I can tell implied)?

Maternal bias by individuals does not imply a conspiracy nor does it imply feminist.

Much of what the mothers groups push relies on outdated gender stereotypes which don't do any favors for men or women wanting an end to those stereotypes and to be less constrained by assigned gender roles.

Thankfully we have made a lot of progress in changing perceptions about parenting, when my son was born I had the expectation that I could and should be a hands on parent doing the dirty nappies, giving him his baths, taking him out for walks, reading the bed time story etc. The same goes for a lot of other men (but not all). There is still a way to go when it comes to attitudes about parental leave vs maternal leave but progress is being made there as well. I had no expectation that I could be the stay at home parent at the time.

There are men and women who are more comfortable with the old roles but I don't see that they should be able to use that to push those stereotypes back on the rest of us.

My gender should not have counted when it came to residency but it did and in my view the agenda Barbara and others push is very much about maternal bias rather than a genuine concern for which parenting arrangement really are in a child's best interests.

R0bert

My comment here is about counsellors, not about family law. Some counsellors have a bias against men that shows up in interesting ways.

My wife and I had a session or two with a counsellor from a large, national counselling organisation. We then had a couple of individual sessions. I completely lost confidence in this ounsellor when she said to my face that I was the cause of my wife's alcoholic drinking, not that I was an enabler, but that I caused the problem at first instance.

Anyone who has any training or experience in drug and alcohol counselling knows that the seeds of substance abuse are sown in childhood, and that no-one can cause another person to drink in an adult relationship.

We have been fortunate to have been in contact with other counsellors since who see the problem as it really is, but I wonder how much damage this relationship counsellor has done.

Robert <" If a childs best interests were the only consideration (and based on selective criteria) we could find excuses to take children away from many parents and place them with families who might be able to do a better job with them especially if we do it early enough that the child does not know it's happened."

No Robert, we were just discussing the children of warring broken relationships. Let's leave adoption for another thread.

Some men may be wonderful Dads, but at the end of the day are we going to drag kids kicking and screaming out of one parent's home and into another just so it is 50/50 and 'fair' to both parents? And we would do this because 'adults know better'?
Adults should be aware of what this does to kids.

All children will try to play one parent off against another, whether mum and dad are in a relationship or not. Children of divorced parents don't have a monopoly on that behaviour!

At the end of the day most kids are going to want to continue spending the bulk of their time with the parent who they were used to doing so with before the relationship breakdown.

What I am wondering, is why, suddenly, some parents who previously had little to do with the everyday life of their children (their own choice), now want to share 50% custody of them after a breakup?

Of course, there are many hands-on Dads these days, and I agree they should continue this after a marital breakdown, if that is what the kids were used to.

Children need habit and normalcy in their life if they are to handle such a terrible, life changing ordeal as the breakup of their parents.

How do I know this? Because my three siblings and I went through it in our early teens.
30 years later now, and it is no easier, believe me, when your parents still hate each other and fight about all family problems

Barbara Biggs had a terrible adolescence, which has shaped her life and her views. Her experiences were a very long way from the normal life path followed by Australians, no matter what demographic group they come from. It is impossible to extrapolate from her experience to that of others, because it was so extreme.

When reading of her life, a couple of things stand out: she is remarkably determined and she is very fond of the good things in life.

Having had the terrible experiences, she has done her best to capitalise on them. Good for her, but it must be remembered that she is self-promoting when she writes pieces such as this one. it takes money to live the good life, after all.

The Family Law Act 1975 was an honest attempt to make possible divorce without acrimony and artificially manufactured "grounds". It largely succeeded, with most couples divorcing as amicably as the situation allows.

We rarely hear about these cases. What we hear about is the relatively few contentious matters, which some interest groups, mostly run by and for women, just like Barbara's, publicise ad nauseum in an effort to "generalise from extremes". Just as we cannot generalise from Barbara's adolescent nightmare, we cannot generalise from a very few cases in which one party or another is determined to be intractable and is willing to be dishonest to achieve their ends.

Barbara and those like her are one of the causes of these intractable cases. They have manipulated the perceptions of (mostly) women, based on an appeal to emotion ("what about the children") to sell books and get grants from government. They are not interested in the "normal", just the extremes.

If one wishes to "wedge", one starts at the edge.

I commend the following link to those interested in a comprehensive breakdown of cases in simple language http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/news/pg/news/view/605/index.php&filter=21

Needless to say, it doesn't support the alarmist views of the self-serving extremists.

I'd also take issue with Ms Biggs's claim that CJ Bryant has said that violence is a large problem. What she has said is that the claim of violence is used freely (over 50% of litigated cases contain such a claim) yet that claim rarely seems to have any influence on orders made by consent before the court is asked to decide the matter. She is also conserned that the Court has little power to investigate such claims, especially when they have been made in a lower court and an order made "by acceptance without admission". She has made it clear that her view is that violence is a serious claim to make and that her court should be able to investigate freely when it is raised as a factor in a case.

Entrenched conflict between parents is a great wedge for people like Ms Biggs. It is easy to fcreate such a scenario and when it occurs, the father is nearly always the parent who misses out on time with his children. As a weapon in the court it is devastating, since even if the mother is the one causing the conflict, or even if there is no conflict at all, except for the mother's unwillingness to cooperate in the best interests of the children, she will be very likely to be given majority care.

It's a bit like the car in front of you braking heavily for no reason: if you run into them, you're going to be held liable, even if the other driver was simply being an arsehole.

R0bert

Don't be so coy. You have been a contributor to OLO for many years now and you are fully aware that there are many other contributors who raise the chimera of the 'great feminist conspiracy' - some of whom are contributing to this thread. That the GFC hasn't been mentioned on this particular thread is irrelevant and you know that.

Regarding your son. I agree that good parents would know better than most children what is best. However, from what I understand of your personal situation (which you have chosen to bring into this forum), your son is not in danger from his mother, that he prefers to stay with her. Now, you may well be a far superior parent than your ex - I don't know, the family court does not know either. Your son is safe with his mother? Is this true? Then the best outcome would be for you to apply under the 50/50 ruling that is now in place to have shared custody.

I understand that you must find the present situation difficult - but what is the ideal solution? I would be interested to know what you think would be your preference given your situation.

Thank you.

The separation of parents affects children at any age. The community, as a whole, has a stake in protecting those of the children who are unable to fend by themselves. Effectively we are talking of ages up to the middle teens.

Parents who indulge in discord know well that they are injuring their children.

Conversely, removing the children from quarreling parents is in fact what they ask for, and the community has the duty to remove them to a safer place, at the expenses of the parents.

The document of marriage should make clear that children are not the exclusive property of parents but they are elements of the community entrusted temporarily to the nurture and care of their parents.

From this novel point of observation, we can see humanity in better accord with the conditions essential for its survival on this planet

While Family Courts favour of the Rights of the Parents to have equal access to the children, over the Rights of the Child we will continue to see children abused physically and emotionally.
Many Courts also insist parents attend mediation sessions before any Hearing in the Family Court. While a useful tool it becomes a wasted effort where one or both parents are still fighting after many, many years of separation or divorce.
One reason for the bitterness through the Court might be as a result of one parent’s attempt to protect the children from further abuse, after experiencing abuse that led to the marriage breakdown.
The children become the victims of the Family Law, continuing to suffer abuse in all forms.
The rights of the child should become the priority, followed by the rights of the parents to have access.
Twenty years ago, the Convention on the Rights of the Child became the first legally binding international treaty to affirm human rights for all children.
Australia has ratified this convention but is yet to legislate and bring it into Australian law.
A document I recommend is; Melinda Jones; Faculty of Law University of NSW, called Myths and Facts on the rights of the child in Australia; http://www.aifs.gov.au/conferences/aifs6/jones.html describes many of the false and unreasoned arguments causing delays.
Children in Australia continue to suffer. After 13 years since the Review (1997-2010), little progress appears to have been made.
A Community Advocate, I was recently involved trying to have a Child Protection Order put in place to protect a young family.
The mother’s request had been refused. I took the matter up. The outcome was:
• The Child Protection department refused to impose an Order to pre-empt abuse.
• When the children returned, complaining of abuse and showing evidence.
• Child Protection was contacted to investigate the abuse.
• The request for an Order and investigation was refused, despite evidence of abuse.
• Instead asked, “Are the children safe in the care of the fulltime parent”. Told yes the department refused to take action, stating it would close the file.

continued

The children had contacted the Children’s Helpline before access saying they did not want to go on the access visit and gave their reasons. The response: Advised to contact the Helpline when they returned from the holidays.
They did and during the lodgement of their complaint they said they might not have enough money on the phone and it might run out before they completed their complaint. They had given their name and telephone number, yet the Helpline did not return the call despite being told they were running out of money and despite advising Helpline of the abuse.
Speaking with a police officer on another matter, I expressed my disgust at the lack of interest and failure of Child Protection to act.
He asked had I been in contact with SOCA. I asked what this was and was told that this was a unit set up to investigate claims of sexual and other abuse. When I asked wasn't it part of child Protection he told me that it wasn't. It was part of the Police Department.
This raises an interesting question.
If child Protection was unable or unwilling to do anything, then why did it not refer me to the SOCA UNIT?
I asked an investigation to be undertaken, as I would lodge the complaint as the mother had been refused any help. The Unit contacted me, then the mother; interviewed the children and an investigation is in now process.
The law needs amending so that children are no longer treated as property of the marriage, but as individuals with the same rights as any other citizen. Australia, although it has ratified the Convention of the Rights of the Child, it is dragging its feet legislating these rights.
Another case involved a homeless youth under eighteen who has been many years seeking help, pushed from pillar to post without help, and contacted the Crisis line. Depressed and suicidal, he sought help from the Crisis Line. Asked whether he had attempted suicide before. When he replied no, they told him they could not help. What sort of help is this!

Severin, my preference has always been for shared care arrangements. In our case it became very difficult because my ex chose to leave the area. Our son's living with me most of the time was at my ex's request. We are currently making changes so that our son spend's more time with his mum. I've also made it clear that I'd be Ok with a change in residency if it's agreed by the adults involved that it's in his best interests (and we have an external counselor involved).

There was a time when I considered my son to be in harms way living most of the time with his mother but I think that's passed now. The harm was primarily from a lack of boundaries and a child that did not cope with that.

Shared care does add some disruption but I suspect that the impacts of that issue are overplayed by the maternal bias crowd. The benefits of time out to the parents well being and emotional state don't seem to rate much mention.

I get the impression that much of the debate is about stereotyping the worst of the other side and trying to fit the stereotypes to all opponents.

We all know that there are men who don't do hands on parenting but that does not mean that all or most men wanting shared care after separation are the same group. There will be some overlap, property settlement and CSA will ensure that but my guess is that for every man wanting more care on that basis there is a woman somewhere doing the same.

I really don't want this thread to become another debate about feminist conspiracies, that tends to polarize debate along predictable lines with little benefit to anyone.

R0bert

R0bert:"Shared care does add some disruption but I suspect that the impacts of that issue are overplayed by the maternal bias crowd. The benefits of time out to the parents well being and emotional state don't seem to rate much mention."

In my experience, for young children the disruption is minimal and can be easily managed, but it can become an issue as the children get older. now that my daughter is in high school, her social activities have become more extensive, especially "sleepovers", which I feel are best supervised by her mother, rather than me. Whether we like it or not, a single man is not regarded as an appropriate chaperone for teenage girls by most people.

When combined with other factors, such as the more "feminine' environment provided by her mother, the lesser standard of discipline that her mother enforces and so on, she tends to spend more time at Mum's these days than with me. My son, OTOH, for precisely the same reasons, tends to spend more time with me.

What is most important, I believe, is to allow these situations to evolve as naturally as possible, so that the kids do not feel pressured by their parents. Cooperation between the parents is essential, although a close relationship is not. I deliberately maintain a "no contact" policy with my ex, which evolved as a self-protective strategy during the nasty court-going days before her legal aid ran out. We communicate via email and the occasional short conversation when our paths unavoidably intersect.

Another vital factor is the absence of any external pressures that distort the relationship between parents. The CSA has been an extremely destabilising influence which I hold principally responsible for the conflict early on. Any scheme that rewards one parent for keeping the kids from the other parent is a disgrace and I have to commend the Howard govt for getting rid of it.

One further factor in ensuring cooperation is that she now works full-time. Less time on her hands means less aggravation for me and some appreciation for sharing the burden.

Antiseptic is correct when saying that, for the most part, the disruption to young children's lives is a little less upsetting than that of teenagers after marriage breakup.

Teenagers will want to continue their social lives despite where mum and dad live!
However, we should never under-estimate the effect that a parents marriage breakdown has on young adolescent teenagers.

Just as they are beginning to think about the other sex, and relationships, and their own rapidly changing bodies etc, these teenagers then have to come to terms with the relationship breakdown of the two people they love most in the world.

For my siblings and I, we were all wary of relationships and having children. Of the four of us (now in our forties) there are only two grandchildren for our parents!

However, you can't spend the rest of your lives blaming your parents for everything.
Now I have my own daughter, I understand them so much better.

R0bert

Apologies for not returning to this thread sooner. I really appreciate your info regarding arrangement with your son, I understand that this is personal but I do have a clearer picture.

What I would really like to know is more general - how you feel about the current 50/50 legislation in the situations where parents do not get along and children are at risk? From what I understand children have been placed with abusive parents simply to comply with this rule. I think this is what Barbara Biggs was getting at. Blaming which gender inflicts the most abuse does not solve problems - clearly both genders may be at fault. Which is why children's requests must be considered along with investigation into parents' suitability. There is no magic answer with such an emotionally loaded issue, for example, where one partner feels loss of control when denied custody - where custody is perceived more as a competition than one of the best outcome for children.

Severin "What I would really like to know is more general - how you feel about the current 50/50 legislation in the situations where parents do not get along and children are at risk? From what I understand children have been placed with abusive parents simply to comply with this rule."

I favor 50/50 as a default position (where both parents want at least that proportion of care. Where there is credible evidence of risk to the children (enough to have them removed from a parents care in other situations) then the default should not apply. Where there is entrenched conflict serious efforts should be made to work out who's driving the conflict rather than reverting to maternal bias as the default.

It would also help to find better way's of reducing the external stimulus to seek more contact than is really wanted - changes to property settlement rules to try and take away the win/loose scenario while still meeting the practical needs would be a good start. CSA continues to be a bone of contention, either ditch it entirely as a source of conflict or have the money paid into and taken out of a common pool rather than directly to or from the the other party.

R0bert

R0bert

I basically agree with your points.

In limited way, the 50/50 is a move towards acknowledging male parental contribution. However, used as a 'one size fits all' is no more progressive than the former legislation.

I agree the default position of 'maternal' should shift to 'parental'. Of course in the majority of cases this simply doesn't matter where parents are able to reach an agreement. It is an outrage in situations where the mother has been the abuser, a concerned father has been sidelined due to anachronistic views of men and women. Equitable participation in business, law and politics by women is proving to be a very slow and fraught process. Ideally where both partners wish to follow careers there needs be employers flexible enough to arrange part-time or malleable hours for either men or women who have caring duties (caring is not limited to children either, older relatives are just as valid and requiring care). No employee should be discriminated against due to family responsibilities. Until then, the onus tends to always fall on the female.

The issue of maintenance - again in most cases is agreed upon. It is only a minority who either flee their responsibilities or manipulate the situation due to selfishness. Again I do not wish to see the minority establish the law for the majority. Only in those cases where partners are simply not 'doing the right thing' should something like a government dictated distribution of monies be applied. Perhaps a constructive action would be to look at how more socially aware nations deal with separated parents, such as the usual suspects; Sweden, Denmark, Holland. There's some homework for you.

Cheers

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1024465/woman-sues-over-step-mum-getting-mum-tag

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/parents-stopping-kids-going-to-school-at-wadeye/story-e6frg6nf-1225840231233

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1016781/mum-who-gassed-kids-gets-life-sentence

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/hunt-ordered-for-fugitive-parents/story-e6frf7jo-1225840419918

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1016578/nt-woman-threw-baby-onto-footpath-court

i see Bab's & her sistas in da hood are telling deliberate, premeditated, half truth again. More carefully & politely this time, but that just makes the deception, more devious.

Antiseptic, hit the nail, right on the head as usual, by mentioning, also politely, Barbara Biggs traumatic childhood experiences. Suzeonline has again referred to her COD experience as well & this is exactly the problem. There is almost no such thing as a senior fauxmanista, social worker or counselor out there who had a normal upbringing. People whose parents had a happy, harmonious, successful marriage that did not end in divorce, don't, go into the industry. Only damaged goods do.

I have met &/or worked with many such people. Their father was either mentally ill, alcoholic, other drug addict, gambler, etc. So obviously they lived in slums with other children in the same boat. Many of these victims go on to live dysfunctional lives but there are some who by virtue of being born with a stronger personality &/or character pass well enough at school to continue education at TAFE &/or University. They are imbued with a burning desire to solve the problem.

At uni especially, their minds are further infested with "women's studies" & left wing politics generally. Where they are taught the black arts of stat/survey rigging, dogmatic propaganda, spin doctoring, etc.

Severin, "the great fauxmanista conspiracy", do you deny that women make up 90% of the social/community work force? Please all of you, don't believe me on this check it out for yourself.

Go to your local neighbourhood centre, the offices of DOCS, CSA, counselling services other than "men's helpline", police force DV or DOCS units, family court mediators/counselors, family lawyers specialising in "sep rep" work, academics, ministerial advisers, everywhere. If you see a male, he will invariably come from the same sad childhood and believe that almost all men are as evil as his father was.

90% of these sicko's are female however & the "old girls network", gleefully takes every opportunity to bash boys & men, individually & collectively.

Severin I detest homework.

I've found some info at a site whose agenda's I'm not across. From what I've seen so far it does not appear to be overly militant in any direction.

http://www.childpolicyintl.org/childsupport.html (The Clearinghouse on International Developments in Child, Youth and Family Policies
at COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - Last updated 2004)

My impression is that the countries listed struggle with some of the same issues. Some principles listed in the page on the Netherlands were interesting http://www.childpolicyintl.org/childsupporttables/1.105Netherlands.html

" * assessable income is calculated by deducting amounts for living expenses, which are based on social assistance rates, from gross income;
* for the non-resident parent allowance is made for the costs of setting up a new home and the costs of contact with the children;
* where the non-resident parent has a second family, assessable income is reduced by around 50 per cent to reflect an explicit principle that people should be free to form new relationships;
* partners of non-resident parents are expected to contribute to the maintenance of their own natural children, whether living with them or elsewhere, and may also be assessed as partially liable for their partner's children if their relationship is in effect that of a parent;
* where the resident parent has entered a new relationship, the decision about liability for maintenance between a step-parent and a non-resident parent is based on an assessment of the relationship between the child and the non-resident parent, including such issues as whose surname the child bears and how frequently contact occurs."

I'm still thinking about how to search for info on property settlement issues and the impact on child residency disputes. Apportioning property on the basis of child residency at the time of property settlement can in my view be a massive factor in contributing to disputes about child residency. The long term stakes can be very high for both parents.

Formersnag tone it down will you please. What are you trying to achieve with post's like that?

R0bert

R0bert

I haven't found anything particularly illuminating regarding 50/50 custody either. Apart from that it is a trend for most western countries and that nations like Sweden had it long before Australia or USA. Also nations like Sweden treat children as separate legal persons.

I think we are learning as we go along. I, for one, am grateful for the small amount of common-sense I had in my twenties resulted in me leaving my husband before having children. I accept that I may have 'missed the boat' now in terms of breeding, but we all pay prices for something and I know I did the right thing back then.

R0bert, for you personally, is the 50/50 rule having any improvement in your situation? I forgot to ask that before.

Severin, for me personally the 50/50 rule makes no legal difference but I suspect that the change in perceptions about single dad's does make a difference. When I first started as a single dad doing shared care I used to regularly get people making it clear that they needed to talk to the "real" parent but I've not had that for years.

That seemed to change around the time the changes were brought in, the issue may have forced people to rethink some assumptions. That occurred over a relatively short time frame. Those are subjective observations.

My expectation is that if 50/50 had been in earlier it would have changed the way I was treated by industry people who at the time seemed to struggle with something other than 80/20. It may have also changed my ex's views on what she was entitled to.

R0bert

The problem lies in the fact that most people,politicians, judges and magistrates included , do not have any idea of the dynamics of the power/control relationship that causes Domestic Violence and Abuse.

The laws are based on the "happy family" who somehow become unhappy.

To me the undisputed fact is that a man who has used abuse and violence of any kind against the mother of his children has already damaged his children. The Family Law Act enables him to continue his abuse after the relationship appears to be over.

That is why it needed to be changed.

The only thing that Briant is sticking up for is her own hide, and the socially destructive parasitic workings of her feminine infested family wrecking court! The main principle of family law! is to brake down the family unit and alienate individuals with in their own society> thus making them all more reliant on the government, so it can justify its every intrudance into our lives. They don't give a care about our children at all! The system has turned our children
into objects of financial value to be bar-ted with in this wicked court! The government encourages the brake down of the family unit! (the cut)then offers the only bandage:Family Court! A classic example of the law making business for it self! and in this case! yes the children are their victims! Open your eye's people! Government and law are hand in hand, behind close doors! The devours industry is the lowest of lowests!

All I here about! is what is in the best interest of the child! And if you have half a brain, you would say! two responsible parents to start with! It sickens me to see children being raised by morons! That is the true root of child abuse! Let's face it, all it takes is a fertile womb, a lie (I'm on the pill!)and a one night stand! and presto we have a little meal ticket. Sad! isn't it? And to top it off governments pay would-be-mothers to do this! We need to take a page out of Chine's book on social reform! And go one step further and only a lough healthy, licenced, responsible couples to have children! Too easy! Government's remind me of irresponsible single mother's on welfare, can't keep the one's it already has, in good nick! but it's going to bread more anyway! I say, quality! not quantity! And, how many ants do we really need on our ant hill?( planet Earth )People who bread off the social misery caused by the brake down of the family unit! are the lowest of lowest in my book! criminals!Time to wake up!

You're a raving fascist! Buy a dictionary!

Peterson: <"Government's remind me of irresponsible single mother's on welfare, can't keep the one's it already has, in good nick! but it's going to bread more anyway! I say, quality! not quantity! And, how many ants do we really need on our ant hill?( planet Earth )People who bread off the social misery caused by the brake down of the family unit! are the lowest of lowest in my book!">

Peterson, homosexuality would be a sensible solution. It's clearly the best path to keeping the number of ants down and reducing the number of system sucking single mothers as well.

(*wink* at CJ)

CJ Morgan, Gee! I must have hit a nerve sunshine! Say what you like, but you haven't come up with a better solution, or a solution at all! I'd live to help you pull your head out of your ass! Or do you prefer to play in the gutter with Pynchme? So sad! Too bad.

Peterson: <"Or do you prefer to play in the gutter with Pynchme?">

I doubt you upset CJ except re: your spelling boo boos.

What do you mean "in the gutter" ?

Hi All

I am somewhat disconcerted at some of the replies.
When I posted I mentioned how we as a socieity have failed to protect our children etc.

I was surprised that no one responded to the failure of child protection or offered an alternative solution that would protect them.
Most of the comments related to whether the male or the female received favoured responses.

Personally I am not greatly concerned about the parents. I accept the various propositions that some should not become parents but reality is that it happens leaving the children the victims.
I also accept that sometimes partners grow apart. that is a fact.
So why not accept reality and agree that the relationship is finished and move on, each working towards the interests and welfare of your children.

I believe the law needs changing or amending so that the children are protected, treated with respect and also legally acknowledged as individuals instead of property.
To reiterate I believe in the Rights of each parent to have access to their children but not when it means children suffer as a result.

The 50/50 Shared Parenting rule is an archaic throwback to Solomon's type of reasoning. The only decision to be made is How would you like the children to be split? - Horizontal slicing or Vertical Slicing or perhaps even diagonally. What is happening as a result of this stupid kind of thinking is that children's hearts are being metaphorically divided in these ways because each parent must have their piece of the child ~ after all, it is their right under the FLA. But of course, it is all in the children's best interests to be divided up in this way along with the house, money, cars, record collection, ornaments, and all the other goods and chattels.
The rest of the FLA is just an exercise in restoring the Victorian position of the omnipotent, omniscient and tyrannical father. Some people are so very obviously still stuck in Victorian times and it was such thinking that led to this unworkable mess of legislation which claims to be concerned about the `Family'.

[Deleted for abuse]

Antiseptic ~ Oh boy that rattled your cage Old Buddy!. Don't like a mirror being held up for you to see yourself. I see you're still trailing your knuckles on the ground. Long live the Neanderthals eh!. Good on yer.

[Deleted for abuse]

Chaz

In Victorian times, fathers could have walked away from their kids and little would have changed. The current generation of fathers spend much more time with our kids, therefore it is unrealistic to expect us to simply forget about them when relationships end.

Antiseptic ~ I see you're still enjoying looking at those Hamilton pictures of naked pre-pubescent girls, no doubt while you're enjoying as bit of self-love. That explains why you sympathise and support paedophiles and why you have been such a disappointment to mature females. Keep revving that big red sports car with the loud exhaust. The window cleaner must have made your ex a very happy lady.

So, chazP,

Burned all the "alice in wonderland" books yet? Picketed the new movie? No? Lazy you are.

Oviously your own children are so ugly that no-one would wish to photograph them? *And* you agree? Had a go at Anne Geddes yet?

Thought so.

Further:
You obviously agree that the boyfriends of otherwise diverced women should have no contact with the children of another father. *At least* when the "boyfriend" has been shown to have abused them. Please direct your efforts to enforce this and to remove such children from the custody of women with such poor judgement.

Don't just sit there dissing anti, get on with it and show working.

We *will* wait the decades required...

Rusty.

Dear Dear Rusty, Your jealousy and envy are showing. I guess your ex's live-in boyfriend is doing more for her than you ever did!. Now that is the real penis envy that Antiseptic likes talking about. Size really does matter my friend!. Maybe Antiseptic will let you join him looking at his pictures of pre-pubescent little girls.(sic).

That's it?

That's all you got?

Bronx Cheers, I suggest.

Rusty

These posts are starting to get off topic and personal! If you have no constructive comments or suggestions on what the author has written! you would be wise to say nothing, do nothing, so your not promoting your own immaturity. It's easy to knock down the messenger! It's another thing to do better!

And ChazP, your bitterness and anxiety radiates from your writing and I feel so....... sorry for you! We all get scares from life's journey. Learn from them, don't let them control you! You should be better than that. Give yourself a big huge, girl! And if that doesn't work! On your broomstick Bitch! LOL!

Aah Peterson, so you think I should not respond when I am attacked with vitriol and vindictive, insulting, comments (read several previous postings) but simply cower in a corner. No chance ~ I will not play victim to any such tactics, much as these bullying males would prefer when I post opinions and issues which they'd prefer not to hear. Please don't be so condescending and patronising ~ I don't need it and will never succumb to.

No, chazP,

You are simply unaware of Facts.

It is a fact that some females abuse children and on average and in specific cases do not suffer the consequences that males do.

As a result, children suffer.

The request is that courts judge cases on the merits, rather than on the sex of the plaintiff.

If this does not suit you, suck it. Females already have the best of it in the family court and this can only reduce as sanity is imposed.

Rusty

Rusty Catheter ~ Where have I said that females do not abuse children?. Simply because I do not mention something (and there's lots of things I haven't mentioned) that does not mean I lack awareness or knowledge of what occurs. I simply choose not to comment and that is my right, as this is a subject introduced by FR Supremacists to suit their agenda. So no debate on the issue. So don't jump to ill-founded assumptions.
My primary arguments concern the manner in which Family Courts are breaching and violating the rights of children by ordering them into residency and contact with toxic and dangerous parents, especially when such Courts represent the people and are doing so in the name of the people of Australia.
I can see that your opinions are based on the propaganda and distorted misinformation of Barry Williams and John Abbott so are notably lacking in merit, validity, and utility.