Vanna<" Why not ask the children what they would prefer. The feminist system where the children have to live with “mummy's new boyfriend” every 6 months, or living with their natural father."

Will we also ask the children if they would like to live with mummy, or with "Daddy's new girlfriend" every 6 months? The "wicked stepmother has always had a rather nasty history hasn't she Vanna?
Or is 'Daddy" going to stay celibate and alone for the rest of his days?

CJ, I agree that Antiseptic was wrong in his assertion that in this case the children were to spend time with their Father because they a previous strong relationship with them.

After reading the court transcripts provided by Pynchme, I cannot believe that any learned person would come to that conclusion in this case.

It is gender-based correctness gone mad if the courts are agreeing to Fathers, who are KNOWN to frighten or abuse their children, to having any overnight, unsupervised access to those children.

I have never said that children of MOST broken families shouldn't spend equal time with both parents, because it is in the emotional interests of children to know and love both their parents.

However, it should be considered the responsibility of the Family Courts to ensure children are safe with whomever they live with- including their Mothers.

Happy,

Your “mothers and their children” is a complete give away.

So it does have more to do with the mothers than it has to do with the children. The children are “their children” to help justify the mother’s rather minimal existence, and the father is excluded.

I think it stems from the fact that so many women never invent anything, or build anything, or really do anything, so they have children to help justify their existence and make then feel important.

It is also interesting that so many men are regarded as being abusive and unsuitable, but they are regarded as being very suitable to earn money, and then to pay that money to a women. (ie. Men are no good, but the money they earn is good, particularly if it is going to a woman).

Suzanonline
Some time ago the Family Court undertook a survey of the children effected by their decisions, and found that the vast majority wanted to spend more time with their natural father. It was similar to children brought into this world through IVF that still want to know their natural father.

Feminism cannot overcome nature.

CJMorgan:"the children were asked and the Family Court overruled their wishes"

Suzeonline:"I agree that Antiseptic was wrong in his assertion that in this case the children were to spend time with their Father because they a previous strong relationship with them."

From the Reasons for Judgement:"150. The children have a good relationship with each of their parents. The father has been significantly involved with the children all of their lives and is close to them. The same is the position with the mother. Dr R’s evidence makes that clear.
151. Having regard to all of the above I am satisfied that it is important that the children have a meaningful relationship with both parents. The children have a close bond with their parents and love them and enjoy their time with them."

and
"157. There will be a detrimental effect on the relationship of the children and their father by virtue of this decision. However, their relationship with their father is good. He has been significantly involved in their lives and that relationship will be able to continue."

It can't get any clearer than the Judge's own words, no matter how much you may not like them. Whether this was specifically desired by the kids at the time is a moot point: we don't routinely allow children of that age to make binding decisions about anything substantial. Normal people don't, anyway.

Furthermore, the psychologists stated that this relationship was in existence in their evidence and recommended the relationship be maintained.

From the Reasons for Judgement:"M worries about her father being lonely and alone." Hardly a sign of a child who doesn't want anything to do with her father, is it?

As well, the girls were distressed about Dad finding out what they had said, rather than about what he had allegedly done. Let's not forget this was all allegation, not hard evidence apart from the porn stuff, which was hardly extreme, according to the reports. That reluctance may just as well indicate a desire by the girls not to hurt Dad's feelings.

There`s a type of person ,a narcissistic stand over bully that when confronted with the truth or made accountable for their actions, starts to deny,fabricate minimize,call names, blame others, use blackmail and other forms of emotional abuse to brow beat anyone who has the audacity to question their importance..Sound familiar..Anger management groups can help but you need at least some insight into your behaviour and a willingness to change..Mostly these deluded ,self righteous misogynists join right wing,redneck,emotionally bankrupt mens right groups so they can be coached in false accusations, denial,how to continue to have control over their x spouse ,to use the children as weapons,how to manipulate the family law system ,avoid paying child support and all the while enjoy the support of other fractured bro`s in the fight to make the bitch pay...sounds very familiar doesn`t it

Happy

"Therefore, in Family Court, where it is more likely that non-custodial fathers are the ones most responsible for making the bulk of the false allegations of child abuse, and where custodial mothers and their children are more likely to be making true allegations of child abuse"

False allegations aren't the problem, real child abuse is the problem. Less child abuse happens when children are around dad than around step dad.

"The law should reflect the empirical findings and be amended to remove shared responsibility (there is no actual presumption of shared care) as the presumption."

No. The "empirical findings" indicate that children are safer with their natural father than with their mother and her new partner, yet this whole debate is being seen as fathers vs as those who want to protect kids. Shared parenting makes kids safer. Returning to the old system leaves kids much more vulnerable.

"Protection of the children against false denials should be the priority."

Not protecting them from abuse...what a strange priority.

Anti

What is less extreme child porn?

Samiam ~ a very accurate and concise description. It fits exactly with the diagnostic criteria for Anti-Social Personality Disorder (sociopath/psychopath) which is apparent in many males who pursue their case in Family Courts as a means of further harrassing and abusing their former partners. They are also highly manipulative (playing the victim) and cunningly deceptive and with frightening frequency are able to deceive and manipulate the gullible lawyers, Children's Reporters, and Judges. They are narcissistic and obsessed with the power in control of money, which is why they pursue all means of evading child maintenance payments. Rarely are they sent for psychiatric diagnosis. APD/Sociopathy is a permanent and untreatable condition and therefore Anger Management Courses are absolutely futile. Such individuals are usaully also engaged in criminal activities (a large proportion of the prison population have such conditions but many more are able to escape detection), street violence, car hooning, drug dealing etc etc. In fact most events which are anti-social in their nature.
What is needed is a National Register of those with APD Disorder as they are increasingly disrupting and harming our society, as well as destroying the lives of their former partners and children.
Failure to pay child maintenance is one of the worst kinds of child abuse and often results in children suffering neglect (inadequacy of income) but of course such neglect is then blamed on the mother if she has residency of the children. Failure to pay child maintenance should automatically exclude any parent from bringing Court Proceedings for residency or contact as it immediately indicates that parent is abusing the child.