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.