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