It may well do you good in the court to actually prove you are the father of the child. In the mothers case there is no doubt. 40% of children have non genetic kids in the family.

These sorts of articles do nothing to help gender bias issues in the family court arguments at all. Just as anti-female articles produced by militant fathers groups don't help either.

There is no argument when the statistics show us that women are just as likely to neglect or physically abuse children as men, or that men are far more likely to sexually abuse children.

What should be happening in the family courts with the few couples that end up there, is an unbiased ruling by the judges about what custody arrangements should be made for the particular circumstances of the children in that particular case.

There should never have been a blanket decision to allow 50/50 custody of children as a starting point in every case.
That is just asking for trouble for children, and that is a tragedy.

Happy,

You may want to read this.

"The Family Court judge found Bill's ex-wife to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children - but still gave her custody of the two girls, now aged 9 and 11, because they had become estranged from their father."

http://www.news.com.au/national/sex-abuse-accused-dad-fights-back/story-e6frfkvr-1225822899736

Now fighting the case cost the man "his job, his home and about $450,000 in lost income and legal costs."

This may explain why so few men go to the Family Court.

Such situations would be known by the author, but not mentioned by the author, and this does bring into question how this university trained author has been able to provide such a bigoted and prejuiced view of an issue.

The idea that universities help to broaden the mind is as circumspect as a decision by the Family Court.

Also, while we often hear of "the best interests of the child" (cough/splutter), where is the reasearch that shows that the majority of children are happy with the decisions made by the Family Court.

No such research exists I do believe, (but why spoil a good thing for male hating feminists and the parasitic money making solicitors that actually run the Family Law system).

vanna
The point you are missing is that it should be about the best interests of the children unpopular that ideal is in the modern day.

Whether or not the Family Court makes the best decisions is what this debate is about.

Do you really think that every woman is a male hating feminist? If you do then your contribution probably won't help much in ensuring fairer decisions are made into the future.

With your overt gender bias and generalisation, thank goodness you are not a Family Court Judge!

“A very selective little editorial, distinguished more so by the statistics it leaves out.”
Posted by Ashvani, Saturday, 27 March 2010 12:39:03 PM

Certainly this piece leaves out the ‘statistics’ so enamored by the father’s rights groupies; “statistics” used by father’s rights groupies that were exposed by Dr. Flood as containing;
• “Dodgy methods and bogus statistics”
• “simplistic claims”
• “broader problem with the rhetoric about fatherlessness”
• “flawed methodology”
• “public statements by some fathers’ advocates”
• “confusion of correlation and causation”,
• “highly selective use of research evidence.”

p. 21, Fatherhood and Fatherlessness, M. Flood 2003.

No wonder he’s targeted by father’s rights zealots. They want to shoot the messenger for not bringing their desired version of the message.

If Ashvani wants to point to the so-called gender bias against men in the criminal court, please explain the following-

“The mother of a seven-year-old girl who died of starvation has been found guilty of her murder by a NSW Supreme Court jury.
The same jury found the child's father guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter after a week of deliberations.”
http://www.theage.com.au/national/starved-girl-parents-found-guilty-20090623-cuy7.html
“The child's father blamed the mother for the death, saying she was solely responsible for the seven-year-old's care.

Ashvani, you have no case.

Here is the court report of the case:

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/ebfeb74aa88d192/2010_FamCA_35.pdf

A range of information from various sources has been compiled there.