[Deleted for abuse. There is no problem disagreeing with an author, but you can't call them names.]

"The worker gently shook her head at me "Nearly all the mothers complain about violence and abuse and we normally discount them. This case was no different."

Elspeth intepret's this as

"This brief conversation again highlighted the difficulties which face mothers and children leaving violent and abusive men."

That's one thing it highlights but it also highlights the problems with too many people crying wolf, with setting up definition's which don't reflect reality, with using research into relationship violence as a tool to further gender war's rather than trying to come to a real understanding of it.

I've not been close to the family breakdown industry for some years so perhaps things have changed but there used to be so much pressure for women to "identify" violent and or controlling behavior from an ex and no interest when men reported a violent ex that it became obvious that it was an agenda not real concern for safety.

We do need better mechanism's to ensure children are protected from genuinely abusive parents (whatever their gender). We also need mechanism's to ensure that those protections can't be used to gain unfair advantage or create unnecessary harm when used. As it was they could be used to create patterns of residency for the children and living arrangements for the parents which impacted on later steps of family separation regardless of the validity of the claims.

We need to ensure that the accused parent has access to the resources to carry on with their lives and to defend themselves against claims in the same way they would if the protections were not in place.

R0bert

Every single one of us has a breaking point, where we are much more likely to do something that we would not do if we were in a more rational frame of mind.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20051023-0000/www.kittennews.com/cgi-bin/kn_opinion/opinion2b63.html?topic=999997

and see Tom's Tale

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0922rolph.html

It has been well documented that men are much more likely to commit suicide or to die from other causes, following divorce and separation.

Ah James I finally read Toms story that you've been plugging almost as mercelessly as I plug Jack Marx. I think it's a bit overly emotive, and just a tad one-sided. Granted it's a side that probably doesn't normally get much of an airing (appealing to Father-love instead of that unique maternal love we normally hear all about), but on the whole the story seems like effective propaganda. As is this piece.

Really, to me, I think if the author gets her 'safety first' legislation, it will require separated parents to undergo an amazing training regime to ensure they can run fast enough to get to the office first with their claims of violence.

Then they will hold all the cards in divorce proceedings while their partner fights off (In a prove god doesn't exist manner) the accusations, all the while holding custody of the kids.

What if one of the parents tears a hamstring? How will we test for performance enhancing drugs? The game shouldn't be so dependent on who wins the toss.

Unless you have enough resources to investigate fully all accusations (by police) within 2 weeks of them being made, with harsh consequences for false accusations, it's a non-starter.

Radical ratbag feminism is alive & well, & thriving in our universities.

Seems to get a pretty good run in our Labor party as well, just in case you haven't noticed.

The author mentions a father who threw his daughter off a bridge. The author did not mention a woman who jumped off the same bridge while carrying her baby.

The author says that mothers are worried that fathers will abuse their children when the father is granted parenting time. The author does not mention the highest rates of child abuse are abuse due to neglect, which occurs most commonly in single parent families with the mother as the single parent.

The author mentions that fathers could sexually abuse their children. The author does not mention that mummy’s new boyfriend is much more likely to sexually abuse the children than the natural father.

The author does not give the full information, and the question that should be asked, is why do universities employ academics who do not give the full information.

So called university education is a farce.

It is now university misinformation and half-truths.

The words Parental Alienation did not appear. Why? Did I miss them somehow? Were they avoided?

Court loves PAS, Parents lurk about waiting for the first sign of an accusation so they can run in slow motion across the daisy filled field to hug them tightly.

Parent A says Parent B is a baddie and Parent B cries P'tal A'on at the top of lungs, now Parent A is bigger baddie. Huh? Does that mean Parent A is always assumed to be lying or that Alienating a Parent is a bigger crime than, let’s say, Beating A Child?

“Heard of investigating?” I say “Herd of cows?” Court replies.

For the proven baddie parents; supervised visits directed by court.

Why are we forcing children into the presence of people who have been abusive towards them? Doesn’t that send the weirdest message of all to those wee brain cells?

But there is still no getting round Community Services reaction to any mention of violence in the home is there? Take the children… nah not as an example, just take them. Silly Parent A needed proof for court so went to CS for help and now the children are in foster care. Ha Ha!

It is a race Houel but it is the slowest that wins and takes home the PA trophy.

NOTE: Parent A is the FEMALE. Sorry couldn’t stand the gender neutral stuff any longer.

Dr. Elspeth McInnes

The major threat to children safety is the irresponsible politician and the hungry lawyer.

Late in 1974, a group of concerned men and women put to Senator Lionel Murphy that unless the rule of leaving to one of the parents the ‘custody of the child’ changed to the more natural ‘equal duty of both parents to towards fulfilling the needs of the child’, his new “Marriage Law” would open the gates to a flood of divorces and increase the number of suffering children.

It did and the Lawyers have put on more fat than they had before the change.

Pied Piper another version of PA. A true story which I got to see first hand with parent A being a former friend.

Parent A want's to move interstate.
Parent A raises accusations of fear for childrens safety despite no abuse or threats's of abuse but she is afraid.
Parent A put's the sticker on the car about women and children having the right to feel safe.
Parent A put's a rough sign on the front fence to let her ex know that he could not enter the property.
Parent A get's the locks changed and starts being very consipicuous with security.
Parent A does other things to aggrevate the father (setting up conflicts between time with dad and other things they would like to do and ensuring that the children know that dad will mean missing out on doing the other thing). Forgetting that the children should be with their dad when she sends them on outings etc.
Parent A generally does everything she can to advertise to the two children (who can both read) that they should be afraid of daddy.
The older (n my view moodier) child buy's into it, the younger one does not.
The authorities decide that because the older one admit's to being afraid of daddy that the shared care arrangments should be stopped.

Mother then takes children and moves interstate.

Again I was close enough to this to know that there had been no threat to the children or mother and that shared care arrangements had been working well. The driver seemed to be the mother's desire to return to her home state (which she had not lived in for many years), the father remarrying (moving on with his life) and pressure from the government which required the mother to start seeking paid work.

R0bert

Piper,

'It is a race Houel but it is the slowest that wins and takes home the PA trophy. '

I bow to your experience in the issue, but didn't the author says that, in her new order, that any parent under any accusation can not see the child until it is all cleared up. I mean I've rung Telstra before, and I can only assume dealing with DoCs would be a similar experience.

So, I imagine (as I am wont to do) under this scenario, until everything is 'cleared up' one way or the other, the default holding pattern is that the abuser (as accused, not proven) doesn't see the kids.

How long does this default position stand? ie how long do they take to investigate and does it affect 'the best thing for the children' later on when the court thinks about disruption to their lives when arranging custody even if he's just been exonerated?

Also, does it go through the police and have a formal investigation, with charges laid? How does it work? I always thought innocent until proven guilty was a nice way of doing things.

I've only ever heard of this PAS when pynchme and antiseptic and r0bert bang on about it for hours of fun and I usually tune out. I know from my little ones' answers to questions about their day how unreliable kids are as witnesses. My partner fills in the blanks and they parrot what she says so I can believe it would be like shelling peas to put ideas in kids heads.

I do it for fun, I ask did you eat a Giraffe for lunch, and she says yes. Deadpan. Unless.... na, surely it didn't happen.

Their brains work in a different planet and they copy what adults do all the time. My daughter sends up my partner something chronic without meaning to, gives me endless laughs.

Yep seems classic alienation of one parent against another R0bert. Emotionally damaging to children etc.

Not sure why the court, in cases of suspected child abuse, has to be so strange but I heard recently some 200 court changes were being made, lord help the little children.

Is the bigger question more about how do we get people to do the right thing by their children? If one parent can improve circumstances or be happier then the other parent should let them go? We just aren’t willing to sacrifice anything anymore?

No idea why court can’t just identify and investigate claims of abuse and place the rights and wellbeing of a child before the rights of a parent. PA should be tagged as only useable in chronic form.

Aw no, Houel I think you nailed it, more children in care, NGO’s will be raking it in. Adoptions for gays, family court investigations, abuse allegations, all dealt with by removal from parent/s and off they go into foster care. The machine grinds on. No proof necessary beyond random malicious calls are often required.

Then even if the police don’t believe anything happened and certainly have no intention of charging anyone with anything CS can still decide on no proven evidence that something did happen and it was bad enough for them to take the child/ren.

They take newborns now, newborns that were never abused – I mean fair suck of the sav cobber, at least let them neglect bubs a little first.

Yeah their brains... See what happens if you say “who hit you?” 10 times in a row, in the end they will name someone just to shut you up. Then say something like “did you hit them back”. You can create a whole false memory but to date I have only known a visit supervisor to allow this but the caseworker believed it. Luckily the pretend abuser was only 3 years old eh. He probably got put on a sedative for abusing an older child and some foster parents income increased overnight. :P

The more secular we become the more violent we become, the more man and woman abuse, the more greed, the more child molestation. More laws never changed rotten hearts. I can never really understand any man with any integrity hitting a woman or abusing a child but then again I have met a number of women who certainly have enough ugliness in them to drive men to suicide. Social engineers that championed the break up of the family now want laws to some how fix up the mess they have caused. Go figure.

There seems to be far too much focus on extreme cases of violence and abuse and little thought that some of the presumptions embeded within our family law system are themselves responsible for this same violence.

There is so much unnecessary pain and suffering becuase the system encourages both contention and confrontation. Consider the years of legal representation, claim and counter claim to determine the family asset split: 30/70, 35/65, 40/60, 50/50. Any victory had by one party is in most instances undermined by the delay in settlement, the increased size of the legal fees and the immeasurable emotional, and relationship cost.

An automatic 50/50 asset split would in most instances only hurt the pocket of the legal representatives. It would allow each partner to move on with their lives quickly. Without the insidious court process, separated parties are far more likely to sustain working relationship for the benefit of their children.

A system which rewards the custodial parent with a more favourable property settlement instrinsically makes the children pawns in a disgusting game.

Unless otherwise proven, there should be an assumption that both parents will behave in the best interests of the children. Instead, we actively encourage and reward partners to prove that one or the other partner is incapable, abusive or violent.

Where ever possible the system and courts should demand that the individuals concerned sort it out themselves. Similarly with maintenance payments, the custodial parent must be expected to provide for some of their own income; the current system enables a custodial parent to punish their ex-partner by not working.

This is really a disgrace and everyone involved should hang their heads in shame

YEBIGA, you state:

"Unless otherwise proven, there should be an assumption that both parents will behave in the best interests of the children. Instead, we actively encourage and reward partners to prove that one or the other partner is incapable, abusive or violent."

I would love this to be true (sincerely I would - I am not having a go at you), but over 20 years in teaching shows me otherwise. In all those years I can probably count on one hand divorces in which both parties have truly looked to the needs of the children. No, not all are violent or even what you would consider "extreme" but almost all are damaging to the children as the parents put themselves first.

These are not just my thoughts but based on solid experience. I am the person responsible for providing all the paperwork required by the courts from the school. I am also the one who receives the phone calls from parents trying to manipulate what I submit. I get to meet the parent (mum OR dad) who is suddenly interested in their child's education and spends a whole couple of days coming up to the school to "help." Then, coincidentally, they request a letter from me supporting their custody application.

It's an ugly business.

It has been impossible for abused parents to prove domestic violence and child abuse to the Family Courts in order to rebut a presumption of `shared parenting’as in the words of Chief Justice Bryant, the Family Courts do not have the expertise and resources to investigate such allegations. Allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, have not therefore been `false’, only unproven.
“It has been well documented that men are much more likely to commit suicide or to die from other causes, following divorce and separation.” – JamesH.
Such an assertion may possibly be true if the reason for each of those suicides were confirmed by a Coroner’s Inquest.Is it not more likely that such men commit suicide because they have been rejected as unsuitable partners and parents, and cannot face such truths and realities.?. Or that they have failed to get their own way in the Courts and this has been a severe and unbearable blow to their self-esteem.?.
“The author does not mention the highest rates of child abuse are abuse due to neglect, which occurs most commonly in single parent families with the mother as the single parent. The author mentions that fathers could sexually abuse their children. The author does not mention that mummy’s new boyfriend is much more likely to sexually abuse the children than the natural father.” – Vanna.
Such statistics have neither utility nor validity as they refer to reports of child abuse which have been untested by legal process and are derived from reports by child protection workers. Such records do not record who was the abuser, only that the mother was available for interview regarding the reported abuse. The only near valid statistic on persons who have abused children are those which have been proven in a criminal court. Now give us those statistics!.
Hasbeen - The Family Law Act 2006 has led directly to children being ordered into contact with and even the custody of paedophiles, child sex abusers, and domestic violence perpetrators and to oppose these legislative changes is to support such continuing judicial decisions

What we describe here is an industry built on family break-down. One perpetual industry connected to another, the industry of prisons: Connected with the instrument of the “apprehended violence order” and we now produce a permanent supply of violent criminals.

The Apprehended violence order attached to the Father will list a raft of prohibitions, for example, the prohibition of phone calls to the separated partner effectively eliminating any possible contact with his children; at times even prohibiting contact with the children through the mother. A prohibition to approach the Mother (thus the Children) to within certain distances, usually one hundred meters. Accidental meetings at shopping centres will constitute a crime for which an arrest warrant could and often is issued. A couple of nights in the county jail and he is on his way to becoming a criminal.

If this sounds far-fetched, it is not. I know of countless men put into this situation that have no violent history more than expressing unhappiness verbally to their spouse. Quite often the initial reason was infidelity by their partner, obviously not a cause for happy responses, but not expressed with violent actions at all. At the insistence of the estranged partner, and with much embellishing of facts, the AVO was easily obtained.

Quite often the Male partner will lose his job because of the assumption of violence attached to the AVO. He is forcible removed from his children by the action of the AVO. If he is issued with an order from the Family Court with entitlements to visitation of his children, original AVO’s and conditions still apply and he may be issued an arrest warrant for its breach and still serve jail time. I know of limited cases where this has happened.

The male partner is totally alienated at this point, from past friends, his children and often his own family and his job and future prospects. The system has now completed the production of one very bitter man.

Gee, fellas, I bow out with dignity, returning to see exactly the same old diversion from the topic. McInnes speaks about 5% of the cases in Family Law. The ones with violence and abuse as an issue. Not the other 95% who either do not have the funds to fight, are too scared to fight, who are coerced into consent orders, whose own legal teams are thugs and too lazy to fight and all the rest of types, AND the ones who can actually sufficiently tolerate each other to do what's best for the kids fall into this 95% no contest group.

Same old ill-will about having to pay for kids you cant control or own. Damn Child support! Yet federal courts take no notice of whether it's paid or not as an example of financial committment to the children. Ssomeone suggested 50-50settlements , you must be kidding. Control freaks will not do that!

All over the world the criminal system (Westminster) is breaking down. Police won't act and then courts are so overcrowded that prosecution happens in relatively few.

Lets start by defining DV, child abuse, nationally. Then get on topic.

Cotter

While we are at it, let's define "control". At the moment, he is described as controlling as soon as he asks for anything. She can be as selfish as she wants and be praised for her assertiveness.

TPP

So convincing your kids that daddy is evil isn't a form of abuse?

Sure benk, control should be defined, perjury should be punished, cases should be investigated. Psychos should be outed,(litigant/practitioner/judge) stats should be properly collected BUT THEY ARE NOT. One could say the system is should'ved all over.

However, while people refuse to focus on the kids who are being abused by perpetrators who wont admit that's what they are, and in 37+ years of trying to define what Dv really is, and how to 'prove it' we still can't get a national definition and the criminal system is absurd! Only those who haven't actually observed it could have faith in it. Go Ozzies go! Imagine if it was a cricket team! We'd soon sort that, but it isn't its just kids. Kids aren't the whole picture by any means, but it would be a good place to start. Well, if so many of the gendered groups could actually hear the opposing truths and stop trying to drown out the other. But that wont happen, there is no value or individual gain in agreeing.

And whomever wrote about stats dastardly step fathers and boyfriends - do you think any of them might also be fathers who abuse their own too?

Oh, women are bad too I hear. Yes, some are. but some of both genders are desperately trying to get safety for kids who are in dire danger - moral, sexual, physical, emotional etc. If you can see there are good and bad examples in both sides, how come so many just dont have a positive word for the real protectors of children of either gender. Re control? Emotional control is awful, cruel, vindictive. But why do you assume only women do it because that's absolutely wrong

ChatzP,
If you want proof, type the words “child abuse + single parent families “ into a search engine and read through the results.

I just did, and one study after another, from Wales in England, to NSW In Australia have similar conclusions. Child abuse is more likely to occur in single parent families than any other family type.

You will also find that child sexual abuse (normally emphasised by academic feminists to alarm people) is only a small portion of child abuse, and the father is the least likely male to sexually abuse his children.

However, this is somewhat a side issue.

The real issue is the discrimination shown by university academics in not presenting full information and in hiding information so as to portray a gender in a negative way.

This is outside of the anti-discrimination policies of the universities that harbor these individuals, but this is ignored by the universities and the discrimination allowed to continue.

The acceptance of this discrimination by universities basically means no information coming from anyone in a university can be relied upon or trusted in any way.

benk:”So convincing your kids that daddy is evil isn't a form of abuse?”

That would depend on one thing… was it a lie. Or we could get right off topic and discuss the word evil being appropriate?

I think I am more on your wavelength here DD: “What we describe here is an industry built on family break-down...”

What industries keep churning from the complete breakdown of a family in Australia? Courts, shrinks, NGO’s administering foster care, early intervention programs, lawyers, prisons, Centrelink, DoCS, counseling services, mediation services, Refuges, Police…and probably many I haven’t thought of.

Plus the courts take the parents money too? In essence can we say Australia runs on failure?

Cotter I think from what I have read the abuse cases aren’t coming up because of the other parent being then accused of not supporting contact and the abuser then receiving more time with the children. Parents get advised to not mention abuse.

Define Child Abuse?
Neglect, sexual abuse, physical abuse, psychological abuse or harm etc and definitions for CS here:
http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/preventing_child_abuse_and_neglect/what_is_child_abuse.html

Vanna you did it, I asked for everyone to leave it out for once but you went ahead and ran with the solo mother stuff. Yay, like old times. I'm gonna guess it is new boyfriend, mum is used to being a victim due to past history? End result if Aussie wants the industry to carry on - child taken into care.

Vanna - You are still making assertions based on nothing more than `reported’ child abuse (i.e. allegations) or at best, the untested opinions and speculations of child protection workers. If a malicious neighbour reported to DoCS that you were neglecting or abusing your children, then you would become one of those statistics. If a DoCS worker then said they `believed’ the abuse had occurred it would become `substantiated’ and you would then become a part of another set of statistics, but then you would want the opportunity to challenge that opinion in a Court of law where evidence would have to be produced to prove you had neglected and abused your children, would you not, and to have a full and fair hearing as is your right.
It is only when allegations have undergone due legal process that statistics on child abuse begin to have any validity and utility. And if the case was accepted and proven against yourself in Court, you may still have difficulty in accepting such an outcome.
Your remarks concerning gender bias of authentic research sounds more about `Shooting the messenger, when you don’t like the message’. Unless of course you are also referring to the gender biased `research’ towards fathers put out by the UWS?.

"If you can see there are good and bad examples in both sides, how come so many just dont have a positive word for the real protectors of children of either gender."

I don't think any one group stands out as being "real" protectors of children. Individuals may play a real role but of those in the public eye who do the biggest trumpet blowing about protecting children seem to put other agenda's ahead of children's protection. Children are too often used as pawns to get better outcomes for their parents or to deal with the individuals own issues with the other gender.

Who did you have in mind as real protector's of children?

R0bert

ChatZ
If you read through this author’s articles you will not find a single positive word ever written about fathers, or about the male gender.

Everything written has been an attempt to denigrate fathers and males and portray them in a negative way.

If someone did the same with aboriginies, they were be immediately regarded as racist, but repeatedly portray fathers or males in a negative way, leave out relevant information, hide information, selectively make public information, and denigrate the male gender in every way possible, and this is 100% fully acceptable by the university system.

The author is living proof.

The family breakdown is catastrophic in the true sense. To state the obvious, all members of the broken family become victims including Grandparents, uncles, Aunties; you name it. Sure the children matter, but not only the children matter.

Whole networks are built around families: to have a system that demands the unravelling of a family breakdown that must be clarified in the cauldron of plunder containing the interconnected industries that rely heavily on family failure for their own collective welfare is THE madness. What person in their right mind would NOT rort collectively or individually its parts for their own ends. It has become a monster of collective systems that relies on and encourages rorting to ensure its perpetuation.

As has been aptly pointed out in these posts, the author of this one eyed article is but a product or an output of a University mentality of deliberate engineering. She is on the Gravy Train and an active member in the cauldron of plunder, as is the University at which she was educated (or brain washed of any free thought).

Remember folks, Runner is a parody of fundy christianity intended to bring ridicule upon genuine christians.

In fact, The christian bible emphasises the high regard held by "god" for a man who offered his daughters to the crowd rather than expose "god's" supposed messengers to rude propositions.

Remember that "angels" are not depicted as fully human, and so could hardly be "threatened" in any genuine sense by sexual advances.

Throw kids to be raped by the crowd. It's approved by the bible!

Oh, says a hypocritical fundy, that's not true anymore. Yep. Along with the rest. Keep on picking which bits you like.

Rusty

"“It has been well documented that men are much more likely to commit suicide or to die from other causes, following divorce and separation.” – JamesH.
Such an assertion may possibly be true if the reason for each of those suicides were confirmed by a Coroner’s Inquest.Is it not more likely that such men commit suicide because they have been rejected as unsuitable partners and parents, and cannot face such truths and realities.?. Or that they have failed to get their own way in the Courts and this has been a severe and unbearable blow to their self-esteem.?."
-ChazP

Huh? Such an assertion is true if it is can be shown that it is more likely that men will shuffle off the mortal coil following divorce and separation. From a statistical perspective, the motives behind death are irrelevant to the probability of death. Congratulations, you've just earnt yourself the Non-Sequitur of the Week Award.
to be continued...

...continued
"The real issue is the discrimination shown by university academics in not presenting full information and in hiding information so as to portray a gender in a negative way.

This is outside of the anti-discrimination policies of the universities that harbor these individuals, but this is ignored by the universities and the discrimination allowed to continue.

The acceptance of this discrimination by universities basically means no information coming from anyone in a university can be relied upon or trusted in any way."
-vanna

Alright vanna, I am getting heartily [expletive deleted] sick of you whingeing about the evils of university education without providing a shred of evidence to support your position.

Is it just a case of sour grapes 'coz you obviously missed out on the benefits of a university education, and are consequently jealous of those with a better education than yourself?

For the record: none of my lecturers portrayed gender in a negative way. Presumably 'coz gender issues have little bearing on the physical sciences. None of my lecturers showed any inclination toward sexual discrimination. And all of the information they provided accords nicely with information from chemists the world over. Which means that either (a) the entire science of chemistry can't be relied upon or trusted in any way (seems unlikely, doesn't it?); or (b) my lecturers were providing me with trustworthy and reliable information. Given that option (b) is vastly more probable than option (a), I would request that you cease & desist from making such appallingly stupid generalisations.

To the memory of those wrongfully incarcerated by misuse of the AVO.

FROM WHENCE AND TO WHERE

In the land of nowhere
Jingle the keys of crime
Where overlord is jackboot
And enemy time
Future called empty
Suppression the King
Supine the body
Medication bell ring

Correction a mantra
A transient verb
Suppression the object
No argument heard
Crashing steel door
The song 24
Prisoner in shackles
down on the floor

Mother of Son
Not hers was the crime
Wife and the children
All do their time
Nine AM Sunday
A gathering crowd
Front of the main gate
All looking proud

Prisoner excited
Expectancies rise
Suddenly remembers
The sorrow in eyes
Visit a joy?
No, a passing event!
Capitalist toy now
Asunder to rent

diver

How is it that family law has become synonymous with restraining orders, abuse, and violence? These rightly belong within the authority of our criminal codes. If there are increasing numbers of otherwise law abiding decent individuals becoming violent and abusive within the current family law auspices, then the problem could well be the culture of the family law itself.

It is essential to clearly and accurately designate he violence as a distinct and separate criminal matter; the family issues another. By allowing these two to intermix, any debate must become and remain inane and destructive.

The current system seems unconscious to the powder keg of emotions which could ignite violence from the very best of us. Rather then perpetuate a system which in fact rewards one party to egg on the other to cross the line of decency, the system must endeavour to minimize its own complicity.

I am saddened by members who cite their experience of dealing with immature couples who care not for their children. As a father, who has and continues to have an amicable arrangement with their ex-wife both socially and as a co-parent; and as a friend of many who have gone thru the mill - the number one agent for igniting animosity are the legal representatives.

Ostensibly to protect each clients interest, they ensure that every unconscious or forgotten slight is raised, written, read and responded to. Every advantage no matter how puerile is canvased and applied.

This is not a gender issue, it is a ruthless game where the state is cruel and active agent which tortures both men and women alike. And like most things in our culture, it is not the fittest but the most ruthless who the system favors.

The embedded presumption of the family law system to investigate minutae of personal details, to encourage each parent to make claim and counter claim against the other and then to be surprised when those people can no longer work together for the best interests of the children. What kind of idiots have we become?

"To the memory of those wrongfully incarcerated by misuse of the AVO.

FROM WHENCE AND TO WHERE..."
-diver dan

A lovely example of Vogon poetry, Dan.

Almost on a par with that of Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings of Sussex.

<"Is it not more likely that such men commit suicide because they have been rejected as unsuitable partners and parents, and cannot face such truths and realities.?. Or that they have failed to get their own way in the Courts and this has been a severe and unbearable blow to their self-esteem.?." >

ChazP, by the tone of what you have written, it sounds like you are not a particularly 'nice' person.

But then what about the women who commit suicide or neglect themselves following a relationship breakdown? Do you show the same degree of contempt and lack of empathy towards them.

A relationship breakdown is a blow to anyones selfesteem, regardless of gender. Anyone who has feelings that is. Some people recover faster than others.

<It is only when allegations have undergone due legal process that statistics on child abuse begin to have any validity and utility.> ChazP

If only that were true. The innocence project in America has enabled innocent men, who were convicted of crimes they did not commit to be freed. Children who at the times in the 1980's are now adults are coming forward saying that the abuse never happened.

Part of the witch hunt in New Zealand, one zealot would measure a young girls hymen, and if it was outside a particular standard, fathers would be convicted of child abuse, even when there was no other corroborating evidence.

<Unless of course you are also referring to the gender biased `research’ towards fathers put out by the UWS?.> ChazP

This irony put a real smile on my face, I am sooo glad that you dislike gender biased research as much as myself.

So i guess as to the fact that you dislike 'gender biased research' that you have trashed almost 100% of feminist research, or is only research that supports your own biases and prejudices acceptable and then deemed valid.

Riz, I think alot depends on the type of degree and courses undertaken, plus different universities have different reputations.

One university that I know of had to have separate lectures for any males undertaking a particular subject.(it may have changed now)

During my own degree, in talking with one of my lecturers she raised the issue that there have been other males raise the issue of the negative portrayal of males in certain subjects.

As you may know within each university there are some very diverse groups of students and it is easy not to meet some of them, and others are best avoided at all costs.

A female friend who undertook social work, said she found university to be hostile, particularly towards males, at the time she did her course.

JamesH – FR supporters constantly assert that fathers who commit suicide do so because they cannot obtain contact with their children, yet offer no evidence to support such a contention. My point is that there can be a multitude of reasons why fathers commit suicide and offered a few examples. It may not be `nice’ for you to hear but unless you can provide indisputable evidence then the FR assertions are mere conjecture.
I agree with you that even Courts frequently get it wrong in decisions regarding child abuse. But at least the accused has the opportunity to challenge such evidence, even if unsuccessful. My point was that the mere reporting of child abuse is completely without evidence and the accused have been given no opportunity to defend themselves, yet such statistics are bandied around by FR supporters as proven fact.
Justices Nicholson and Chisholm have also expressed similar serious concerns regarding the shortcomings and inadequacies of the Courts in dealing with domestic violence and child abuse as has been presented in this research, are they also to be labelled as gender-biased?.
The argument of FR supporters seems to be based on a tenet that because domestic violence is committed by both genders, then nothing should be done. In effect, they are arguing that two wrongs make a right.
In an increasingly violent society, where many children are subjected to violence in the home, we should all be joining together and condemning such behaviours and ensuring that children are protected from such behaviours and that offenders are severely punished.
When the new Family Law Act is passed, I hope that a National Register of Violent Offenders is put into place as a further measure to curb such conduct. Such people of either gender have no place in our society and need to be identified and excluded in every way and for children top be protected from them.
Our debate should be about "How do we develop even more measures to reduce violence in our society", and not simply attacking those who try to put forward measures to do so.

ChazP "My point was that the mere reporting of child abuse is completely without evidence and the accused have been given no opportunity to defend themselves, yet such statistics are bandied around by FR supporters as proven fact."

You seem to be much more bothered by men using those stats than by the mothers groups using selected portions of them. This article and a lot of other material before it is promoting on the idea of protecting children from fathers (even when not stated directly the examples will almost always be about abusive males and not mention abusive females).

Elspeth and others in the mothers industry have played a one sided game for years promoting the idea of protecting women and their children. They have pushed for gender bias in family law never addressing the the sorts of issues so well put by YEBIGA. They continuously use misleading evidence to back up their push for maternal bias in family law (and a corresponding distribution of the spoils to go with it).

They have promoted a system which maximises the financial and personal pressure on parents to not be able to work together.

If you are serious about not liking the use or misuse of such statistics why don't I see any comment from you about the way's the mothers groups bandy them around?

Part of what's happening is a battle of perceptions, the proponents of a genderised family law system have created perceptions based on the use of selected statistics about family violence and child abuse.
The groups wanting a system where parents are judged on their parenting rather than gender have tried to change those perceptions.

R0bert

Robert – How can the deaths of over 70 mothers and 20 children per year as a direct consequence of domestic violence be construed as `misleading evidence’.?. Does death have a different meaning in your book?. Or that 620,000 children in Australia are denied contact with their fathers as those fathers pay no child support.
The `system’ is the Shared Parenting laws brought in due to pressures from Father’s Rights groups, who unashamedly argue that ALL fathers have an inalienable right to contact with their children, and irrespective of whether they are convicted paedophiles, child sex abusers, or violent criminals. The bias in the FLA system is therefore towards such fathers having a rebuttable presumption of such rights, yet it is impossible to rebut the presumption when Courts do not have the expertise and resources to examine the evidence of domestic violence and child abuse. The proposed amendments seek to correct this situation.

Your attitude that children are mere “spoils’ (presumably of the gender warfare) is despicable but not untypical of the views held by FR supporters towards children and the way in which children are treated in Family Law proceedings, where they are `shared’ out along with the other assets and `chattels’ of the respective parties.
This is clear adultism where children are given no respect or value, and which is far more prevalent than racism and sexism and far more insidious in its effects. Children of course have not been given the right in this country to appoint their own legal counsel and to bring legal action on their own behalf to assert their rights in these matters, as is now the case in the U.K.

I agree that parents should be judged on their parenting and that their participation in their children’s emotional, psychological, and social development and of meeting their children’s needs PRIOR to the separation should be the most important factor in determining whether they are a fit parent to have contact with and custody of their children. If such were the case, then many fathers would not be granted any contact with their children.

I was going to comment on this article, but basically it's not worth responding to. A mish-mash of rehashed rubbish, referencing a report from Bagshaw et al which is so flawed as to be almost fraudulent, designed to justify and enhance the capacity of women to make false allegations of violence while facing no punitive consequences at all. This is McInnes's standard puff piece, no doubt trotted out as part of the propaganda effort around the proposed changes to the FLAct.

Those changes will lead to greater and greater conflict, more police being called to domestics, more DVOs, more complaints from McInnes et al that "something must be done", more kids being estranged from loving fathers.

As long as people like the author and ChazP and the rest of the Women's Entitlements lobby continue to fan the flames of Family Law conflict there can be no solution to the problems such conflict causes.

They have nothing to be proud of.

Ritz,
As soon as a university accepts feminism, it has no interest in science.

It means that the university will accept advocacy research, qualitative research with no quantitative research, hiding of information, giving out misleading information, discrimination and denigration of a gender.

This article is an example from the first sentence, where the author selectively states that a father threw his daughter off a bridge (true), but fails to mention that a mother jumped off the same bridge carrying a child earlier that year.

Such selectivity of information is a universal characteristic of feminism, and the decline in science right through the education system is now the consequence of the acceptance of feminism throughout the education system.

As I have also previously stated, the author has not once said one good thing about fathers in any article written, and everything said about fathers has been negative.

That is not science. That is denigration.

"How can the deaths of over 70 mothers and 20 children per year as a direct consequence of domestic violence be construed as `misleading evidence’.?"

It's not the whole story but as an example of the way perceptions about protecting children from fathers is misused by the maternal bias crowd I'd suggest that those genuinely interested in the topic read through the section titled "2.1 Description of the 2009 fatal assaults" (page 126) in the http://kids.nsw.gov.au/uploads/documents/NSW_CDRT_2009.pdf I'm pretty confident that that report and it's predecessors are not artifacts of the men's rights movement. Feel free to read the whole report for additional context.

There are certainly cases where the fathers are responsible for childrens deaths but in the years I've looked at for the child death review reports the natural fathers have not generally been the biggest risk. We don't ever see that aspect highlighted by the maternal bias crowd.

Nor do we see the impacts of their preferred adversarial approach to family law raised as an issue of concern when it comes to comes to reducing violence either against women or against children. I strongly believe that the the levels of violence post family breakdown are heavily impacted by the very adversarial system Elspeth, ChazP and others are so fond of promoting.

R0bert

I think YEBIGA has it nailed.

Chaz,

'Your attitude that children are mere “spoils’...'

If you've read anything of r0berts posting you'd know that is nothing remotely close to his attitude. You're being ridiculous.

I'm not really emotionally invested in this at all, actually I try not to sound too smug as people's lives can change quickly. But you lot all have so much bias and you all want what's best for kids I'm sure, but I think YEBIGA has explained it all very well as to why the system is a mess.

'The bias in the FLA system is therefore towards such fathers having a rebuttable presumption of such rights'

So it's bias that all kids have a right to see their fathers unless their fathers are *proven* to be paedophiles? I think that's a logical stance for mothers and fathers.

'The proposed amendments seek to correct this situation.'

Well, I must have missed the amendments that mean all accusations are to be investigated in a timely manner by police.

I think you should be careful what you wish for. As a kid my family went through some bad times when one of my parents behaved quite badly with mental health issues, but even though it was damaging, on the whole I am happy that I had the opportunity to see both parents and would have been far more damaged from denied access.

Families need support even when they are fractured, I fail to see how a temporary weakness by either parent under the stress of relationship breakdown and often financial stress should result in them losing all contact with their kids until they reach adulthood.

The circumstances must be *proven* to be extremely risky for this to ever happen.

Families have good and bad times and I think it's the opposite of helping a family to split it up by force due to a temporary stress, especially when the resolution of the divorce could mean the family is on the cusp of resolving a major stress?

R0bert: “Part of what's happening is a battle of perceptions, the proponents of a genderised family law system have created perceptions based on the use of selected statistics about family violence and child abuse.

The groups wanting a system where parents are judged on their parenting rather than gender have tried to change those perceptions.”

Are there groups doing that somewhere? I’ve only seen the HS/SS (He says-said / She says-said) groups here and the odd good post I've read smothered by them.

Is it possible to change a court so much, and the way it does things, that nothing is based on any previous commonly held perceptions? We don’t want a court telling any parent to keep abuse under their hat or they will be seen as being obstructive to the relationship of the other parent with the children. Of course they are trying to obstruct contact, it is their duty.

Be nice to have proper and timely investigations of alleged abuse and only chronic PA acknowledged and proof taking a priority mostly – when did proof stop being important to courts?

Any matter involving the Best Interests of a Child, I feel, all court expenses should be paid for by government. They were talking somewhere about having a “Sexual Abuse court” - which seemed a little too focused. Why not a separate “Child Abuse Court” where the only job it does is to identify if abuse did happen then send the case back to Family Court once that has been proven or not?

This country does weird things YEBIGA, it will take and keep children in foster care without proof and charges never being laid and no evidence of a criminal act on a child having ever appeared in court. Perhaps a Child Abuse Court would sort it, accused parent exits innocent or guilty.

"As soon as a university accepts feminism, it has no interest in science.

It means that the university will accept advocacy research, qualitative research with no quantitative research, hiding of information, giving out misleading information, discrimination and denigration of a gender."

I think you'll find that pretty much every uni in the country has a feminist or two on staff. According to your ludicrous hypothesis, all scientific research in this country should have ground to a halt.

Strangely enough, we still have scientists who get published in prestigious journals, and scientists who are regarded as leaders in their field, and scientists who win Nobel prizes. Graduates can still apply for jobs with fine organisations like the CSIRO, and not be rejected on the grounds that their science degree is not worth the paper it's printed on just 'coz the university in question employed a few feminists in the arts faculty. This evidence would suggest that you're talking a load of rubbish.

"Such selectivity of information is a universal characteristic of feminism, and the decline in science right through the education system is now the consequence of the acceptance of feminism throughout the education system."
-vanna

What decline in science? Science is still taught, and taught very well, right through the education system - from kindergarten to PhD.

I'm fairly certain there are no feminists who believe that withholding information about, say, pi-bonding in organic compounds is going to lead to greater gender equality. They'd have to be at least as crazy as you to believe that two fields as unrelated as chemistry and sociology have any bearing whatsoever on each other. Chemical compounds have properties like valency and pH - they do not have gender, and are entirely irrelevant to any and all feminist theories.

"That is not science. That is denigration."
-vanna

Yes, and it's extremely unscientific of you to denigrate the science faculty of every university in this country without producing a single scrap of evidence to support your far-fetched hypothesis that feminists are leading a nefarious conspiracy to destroy science.

Ritz
I won't answer your abuse, but I'll ask a question.

What university taught you to abuse others, (EG calling them "crazy")?

Would it be a university that emplyess people to break their discrimination policies, hide information, give out misleading information and carry out denigration of a gender?

"What university taught you to abuse others, (EG calling them "crazy")?"
-vanna

Why, the finest university in the land, of course: the famous University of Woolloomooloo.

"Would it be a university that emplyess people to break their discrimination policies, hide information, give out misleading information and carry out denigration of a gender?"
-vanna

No, because then they'd be guilty of at least fraud and discrimination, and god knows what else. Universities have a vested interest in not breaking the law. And I rather suspect that all the other Australian universities follow in the footsteps of Woolloomooloo Uni, and try to stay within the bounds of the law.

Now I have a question for you: why is it that my abuse of you (i.e. calling you crazy) is a BAD THING, whilst your abuse of universities is apparently kosher? Doesn't that seem just a little bit hypocritical to you? If abuse is always wrong, it's wrong regardless of whether it's directed at universities, feminists or vanna, and it is wrong of you to abuse feminists and universities in your posts.

For the record: libelous accusations of hiding data, providing misleading data and sexual discrimination are all defintely forms of abuse, unless you can provide some evidence to substantiate your allegations. Otherwise, you're merely being abusive.

Riz Too,
Did you have to pay a lot of money to the University of Woolloomooloo to learn how to abuse people?

I'll give you an assignment that I'm sure you will find easy to do.

Go through the author's copious articles that mention men or father's, and try and find where the author has written one good word about men or fathers.

I'm sure that won't take you long.

Robert,
I had a read of the survey on child death's in NSW. Appears that the greatest serious danger to a child is not the evil, wicked, evil, awfull, evil, nasty and evil father, but traffic accidents, suicide and drowning in pools and spas.

Odd how feminists never mention this, being so concerned about children and all that.

Can we perhaps get past this kindergarten inter-gender bickering and seek some common ground on which we can agree?.
Is it possible for example, to agree that violence against the person is a serious problem in Australia, whether it occurs in the streets, the workplace, the school, or in the home, and whichever gender may be the offender?. Can we agree that children exposed to such violence in the home are seriously damaged in their psychological and emotional development as well as possibly suffering physical injuries.?. If we can agree on just these few points, then we can move forward and look at ways to try to prevent such violence and protect children from the consequences. And in particular we could look at how children can be protected from the abuses they suffer in domestic violence situations and from inappropriate contact and custody arrangements with toxic and dangerous parents of either gender.
My view is that the essence of these proposed changes in the Family Law are attempting to do that, and will offer children some protection, no matter who the offender may be. If anyone has any better ideas of how children can be protected in such situations and their safety is put first and above the arguments and demands of parents, then put them forward for informed discussion.
But if you want to continue with the kindergarten squabbling, then this debate serves no purpose whatsoever.

"Did you have to pay a lot of money to the University of Woolloomooloo to learn how to abuse people?"
-vanna

ROFLMAO

"Go through the author's copious articles that mention men or father's, and try and find where the author has written one good word about men or fathers."
-vanna

Why? I don't really care about the author's opinion towards men.

Now, can you please answer my question? It wasn't intended to be rhetorical.

ChazP, FR supporters constantly assert that fathers who commit suicide do so because they cannot obtain contact with their children, yet offer no evidence to support such a contention.

ChazP, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 6:39:33 AM

Evidence, this is a real curly one.

Firstly, one tactic used is not to collect data, as such it is easy to say that a problem does not exist.

Secondly, another is not to fund research, because the research does not fit with the governments or universities direction.

Eeva Sodhi did have a website 'NoJustice' and thank heavens for archives.

See Manufacturing Research
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313222440/http://www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

Manufacturing percentages
http://web.archive.org/web/20050310093735/www.nojustice.info/ManufacturingPercentages.htm

<Justice Canada instructs its research contractors to "make a careful choice about which indicators are going to be applied , because you want the indicators to reflect the gendered approach you are developing" >
http://web.archive.org/web/20050317002453/www.nojustice.info/PerceptionsarenotFacts.htm

<There can hardly be more insidious form of deception than the intentional manipulation of public opinion by presenting data in a manner which creates an ideologically motivated perception that one identifiable group is responsible for all evil while hiding the fact that those who are portrayed as the collective victims are equally culpable.>

Rarely do I find myself in agreeance with a feminist, but seeing that you dislike 'gendered' biased research. I hope you apply that scepticism to all gendered research and not cherry pick, which research that you are sceptical about.

I must admit, that years ago when I discovered that much of what I had be led to belief was in fact not true, it kind of caused a little bit of intellectual conflict. A clash between what I was led to believe was true and reality.

Now I am highly sceptical of alleged claims

ChazP,

<Though one of the objections to joint custody of the children, and thus geographical proximity to both parents, which is proven to be a disincentive for divorce, is that men request it in order to maintain power and control over the women, judges do not consider the flipside, i.e. the biggest inducements for sole custody are not only the material and financial benefits that accompany it, but also the unrestricted power of decision making and gatekeeping.>
http://web.archive.org/web/20050210121515/www.nojustice.info/Courts/bestinterestofthechild.htm

A bit of a paradox the above, mothers rights activists, claim that is about male power and control, whilst in reality it is about female power and control.

<Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and redirect their libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another.>

Even within an intact family, the family dynamics can change over time, children get older, parents even sometimes, grow up ;) and develope new skills. The needs of a intact family do change over a period of time, especially as the children grow up and become more independent.

so the following comments by ChazP

<I agree that parents should be judged on their parenting and that their participation in their children’s emotional, psychological, and social development and of meeting their children’s needs PRIOR to the separation should be the most important factor in determining whether they are a fit parent to have contact with and custody of their children. If such were the case, then many fathers would not be granted any contact with their children.
Posted by ChazP, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 8:02:20 AM>

Note that she says 'PRIOR' as a determining factor, in determining the level of contact that is to be judged as suitable. Another factor at play is 'Maternal Gatekeeping' where the gatekeeper controls and regulates the fathers relationships with the children.

Taking such a biased position, means that there is never any room for changes that would normally happen within an intact family and fathers are denied the opportunity to learn and grow and develop a relationship with their children, independent from female influence and supervision.

I would suggest that this has nothing to do with the best interests of the children, but more to do with the mothers desire to inflict as much emotional damage as she possibly can on the man that she now despises with all her heart to the bottom of her soul.

Excellent and timely links, James. I'm sure that Elspeth and the rest of the women at the Bagshaw factory are very familiar with the techniques described.

A piece in the SMH this morning is a clasic of the type. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/binge-culture-puts-young-women-at-risk-20101117-17xpz.html

It says:"HEAVIER drinking is exposing young women to increased risk of sexual assault for which male perpetrators routinely escape blame, a government-sponsored study has found."

You'll note the appeal to authority ("a government-sponsored study"), the blame-shifting (the women are doing the drinking, but it's the male's fault they have sex they end up regretting).

It goes on:"Citing interviews with young women who became victims after getting drunk, the report found the young male assailants were typically ''exempted from responsibility for unwanted sexual contact when alcohol was present''."

The women and the men both got drunk, but only the men should be responsible for themselves, apparently. It's a straight plea to be exempted from taking responsibility for personal choices.

Finally, we find out:"It said young women often used alcohol to ''transgress social norms'' of being female, then found themselves drunk and prey to the sexual advances of one or more young men."

So tjhe women were getting drunk so they could get laid, then regretting it when they sobered up. Who'd have thought?

Sadly, this report, such as it is, will now be regurgitated uncritically by the victimologists in Women's Studies departments everywhere. No doubt along the way the references to women making the decision to get drunk so they could get laid will be conveniently written out.

Perhaps the two major lines of argument here aren't mutually exclusive. It is possible that there have been cases where people who shouldn't be allowed around kids have been awarded access and that there have also been other cases where the court has been too willing to believe lies and has denied custody on tenuous evidence. TPP's idea of more resources to quickly assess claims might help.

Anti

Your article was a bit off-topic bit still made me laugh. The supply of female "victims" seems to expand daily. Now it includes all women who have done anything that they have regretted while drunk. I'm not sure how many would have accepted hearing that they were too drunk to decide to have sex.
Men, on the other hand, cannot use alcohol as an excuse and need to be more worried about how she will feel in the morning than she is. At least men don't use drink spiking as a general purpose cop-out.

RIZ

Quote:

"The only reason the Vogons wrote and continue to write poetry is to appear culturally advanced, thereby gaining the respect of other species. It has had the opposite effect".

And so thus did the establishment rail against the late and great “Henry Lawson”.

Thankfully in these modern times we, at the least, have “spell check”, which we can only hope will eliminate the criticism of the “spelling mistake”!

Sad really that the content (of my poem above) does not suit your sensitivities.

ChazP "Is it possible for example, to agree that violence against the person is a serious problem in Australia, whether it occurs in the streets, the workplace, the school, or in the home, and whichever gender may be the offender?. Can we agree that children exposed to such violence in the home are seriously damaged in their psychological and emotional development as well as possibly suffering physical injuries.?. If we can agree on just these few points, then we can move forward and look at ways to try to prevent such violence and protect children from the consequences. And in particular we could look at how children can be protected from the abuses they suffer in domestic violence situations and from inappropriate contact and custody arrangements with toxic and dangerous parents of either gender."

I'll happily agree to that. What I'm not seeing is any reason to think that the changes will provide any genuine improvements. If anything they appear likely to make the system more prone to abuse, increasing animosity and potentially increasing levels of violence. People pushed to the edge and treated as abusers without any any sign of fair treatment are less likely to act responsibly than they might otherwise do.

As I've just said in one of the other threads I don't think the family law system is the place to do child safety, it needs to be out in the general child safety area. All children should have the same protections regardless of their parents relationship situation.

The family law system should abide by determinations made by child protection bodies, I say that with the reservation regarding points made by Pied Piper about the effectiveness of existing child protection systems.

Parents should also have as much protection from the consequences of malicious claims by someone with a vested personal and financial interest in the outcome as possible. Something I'm not seeing any willing to address from those wanting these changes.

R0bert

RObert

I think you are far wide of the point. What you are suggesting is to invest MORE trust into state-run institutions with the reputation of DOCS. (Department of Community Services in NSW). The department of the “Brain Dead” or maybe “The Department of Child Horror” would be a more fitting title and better describe the collective ability of that lot to defend the welfare of any child.

Sorry, but through a long and painful experience of observation I have firmly concluded the problem is over involvement not under involvement. It is far safer for all, generally speaking to allow broken families to fix themselves than to subject the accumulated mess of separation to Government departments.

diver_dan I get your point but do think we need some form of safety mechanism. Some families can't or won't sort it out themselves broken or intact.

What I want is for those safety mechisms to work regardless of the parents relationship status and to avoid those safety mechanisms being a tool for people to get back at an ex or to use to gain personal financial advantage.

Pied Piper is in a far better position than me to comment on what works and what does not work about child protection. My comments are more about the abuse of the concept of protecting children in the context of family law.

R0bert

Diver you are on the right track and R0bert is too.

I believe DoCS and all our state’s child welfare systems need help, they are failing our children, they’ve told lies and listened to lies, there’s been an enormous amount butt covering and deceit in every story I have heard about people’s dealings with them.

Instead of an ever expanding system involving multiple NGO’s it first to be simplified then fixed.

In emergency cases where the life of a child is at risk; go get the child. Court stepping in within 24 hours to check if it was justified. Without it being critical then Court decides if a child is in need of removal or early intervention or neither and parents get to defend themselves against whatever child abuse charges have been laid. State pays all fees because that is in the best interests of the child.

Anon accusations to govt don’t cut it unless prepared anon to talk to the judge about why you made the abuse accusation.

Removal or Intervention put in place. NGO’s take on all intervention and report back to court when over on its success, if it fails in the meantime; report goes to state run care where if an emergency again exists the child is removed.

Children removed are then under state care who are working with whatever services are required to help the parent’s have their children returned, or not.

Two parents in court and the matter of abuse; that is not a matter of custody and who gets access until investigated. Parental alienation accusations only considered worthy of note if the accusations span a certain period of time. Accusations from both parents of abuse and the child/ren go into care which can be an agreed upon by both parents kinship carer.

We need better monitoring of Foster Parents/Homes. All foster parents to be volunteers registered with the govt only. The staff of 27 NGO’s in NSW with their own policies and cultures can go work for govt if they wish to remain focused on caring for the children under state custody/guardianship.

But speed is needed, we have to move quickly on all issues when a child is parked up in a foster home or the parents are accused of something. Trained people are out there, the NGO’s have them. Take away fostering from them and get them investigating, advocating and intervening early on behalf of families.

It is sometimes difficult, without medical evidence/photographs and the like to prove violence and abuse if the victim has not made enough approaches to officialdom. The added difficulty is the number of false allegations distort the figures and make it doubly difficult for safety issues to be taken seriously.

It is equally difficult for officialdom to distinguish between the malicious allegations and the legitimate ones if there is no overwhelming evidence.

There should be a premise of shared parenting in custody arrangements and any permeatations can be worked out according to work and living conditions in consultation with couples. The 'system' fails when children continue to be placed with a neglectful or abusive parent of either gender. Clearly there have been cases involving women who kill, neglect or abuse children as well as men. We don't need to list every case on either side because this is about safety not about some personal slight women/men take about gender politics. We are all grown ups, kids are not.

Obviously people want to ensure the system does not allow a child to be put a risk at the hands of a violent or disturbed parent. Safety should always be put first.

I would not blame a parent taking off with their child if they knew their ex-spouse was putting the child at risk. The more we ignore the safety of children in these cases the more we set up the impetus for 'secret railways'. If the system cannot work it out, and it would be impossible to ensure 100% accuracy in these highly emotional cases often fraught with feelings of anger and revenge, then it will come down to individuals taking 'safety' into their own hands.

And who could blame them.

'It is sometimes difficult, without medical evidence/photographs and the like to prove violence and abuse if the victim has not made enough approaches to officialdom.

Na its not. All you have to do is expand the definition of violence to 'violent behaviour' to 'threatening' behaviour, to manipulative behaviour' to... hell it's pretty easy. That's what the new laws are all about; Rather than putting money into faster and more thorough investigation, just reduce the burden of evidence.

'Obviously people want to ensure the system does not allow a child to be put a risk at the hands of a violent or disturbed parent. Safety should always be put first.'

With any calculation there is always an element of risk. That risk has to be balanced and it's easy to emotively say 'No Tolerance' and 'Unacceptable', but there IS an acceptable level of risk when the alternative is taking kids and giving them to strangers or totally destroying the relationship with a parent due to a temporary stress on that parent or even a totally fallacy.

I hear a lot of grandstanding about 'best for the children' as if it's clear cut. There are easily many rungs of abuse that children should endure if the alternative is not seeing that parent especially given these expanded definitions. And that IS looking at it from the desire of the children, the kid's perspective.

Ask a lot of kids, whether grown up in a family with periods of abusive behaviour or even low scale 'abuse' (By the new definitions) and they'll tell you you're crazy if you think they'd rather be separated from their parent(s).

Zero tolerance is just a way of saying that you see the world in black and white terms.

Pelican

Like you, I acknowledge that issues of proof are more complicated than some people will admit. Earlier in this thread, Robert, YEBIGA and others discussed people's motivations for lying or exaggereating and money must be near the top of the list. Therefore, it might help to reduce the amount of child support and family assets that the parent with most custody gets. Much as I would like to believe that all of these parents just want their kids to be safe, we all know people who just want to be with their kids to get the payouts.

Benk,
I would agree, and have you noticed that no matter who wins, money always goes into the pockets of those involved in the Family Law system.

Parasites feeding on the earnings of others.

Pelican - "Obviously people want to ensure the system does not allow a child to be put a risk at the hands of a violent or disturbed parent. Safety should always be put first."

Well said, Pelican. That is exactly what the proposed changes to the Family Law are attempting to do. So far I've read a lot of condemnation of the proposals for the manner in which they are trying to achieve that, but no counter proposals as to how it may be done differently to achieve that goal. Just whinge, whinge, whinge, that it will somehow be so unfair to fathers, although it does not distinguish between the genders in its wording or its application.

"I would not blame a parent taking off with their child if they knew their ex-spouse was putting the child at risk. The more we ignore the safety of children in these cases the more we set up the impetus for 'secret railways'."
Thats exactly right Pelican. and we have seen recently how one such young mother is suffering in a Dutch jail and her child has been incarcerated for nearly three months in a detention facility for juvenile offenders. And the Lynch mobs of the FR groups are now baying for her blood when she is returned to Australia because she dared to defy male supremacism and a system which they determined to suit their wants.

Chaz

If a bloke abducts his kids and later claims that he was doing it for their protection, will you support him? Will the court?

Chaz "But if you want to continue with the kindergarten squabbling, then this debate serves no purpose whatsoever. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#189534"

The alternative is to let child safety and assault be issues for the relevant criminal law and the groups which should look after them.

Not such a complex idea really, it does not solve all the problems but trying to have the family law system deal with those issues just creates more animosity between parents and duplicates what should be happening elsewhere but without the checks and balances. We need better way's of dealing with child abuse and assault not a looser system likely to mask real abuse.

You have not bothered at any point to actually engage with the points being made, instead engaging in a campaign of misrepresentation, pretense that you want serious debate and mocking. Who do you think you are fooling?

R0bert

Family Law Council 2009. Dangers posed by violence for children
"In 2000 Mullane J identified that family violence presents a multi faceted danger for children including a risk of violence and injury to the child personally; a risk of living with fear, insecurity and vigilance; the danger of ongoing fear that a parent perpetrating violence will emotionally or physically abuse the other parent they love.
Further the danger that a child will learn that abuse is part of life for females and become accepting of such behaviour and a danger that the child will come to believe from a father's abuse of their mother, that women are lesser beings. Mullane J went on to say that the greatest danger is that a child will learn from a parent perpetrating violence that physical and emotional abuse are acceptable ways of dealing with other persons and thus come to share the parent’s disability.
In 2003 Moore J referred to research from social scientists about the highly detrimental effect upon young children of exposure to violence and the serious consequences such experiences have for their personality formation.
Terror, acceptance, exertion of control, emotional trauma, aggression, anxiety, behaviour problems and lower selfesteem were all identified as the flow on effects for a child living with violence."
Do Father's Rights supporters want this abuse of children to continue?. Or do they want to do something to protect children?.

Robert: - "You have not bothered at any point to actually engage with the points being made,.." - I was simply following the practices of others on this thread. The classic one of course was to distract and divert attention away from the major theme and objective of the proposed legislation i.e. the safety and protection of children, and into a sterile gender wars debate. Same as, same as... the FR supporters always do.
Issues of domestic violence and child abuse are highly pertinent when the future care and custody of children are being determined, and have to be taken into consideration by Family Courts. The Father's Rights Law 2006 even determined that as rebuttable to a preseumption of shared care. Were the FR groups wrong in putting that in that law then?.
Robert - why on earth do you think I would need to try to make a fool of you?.

ChazP <Do Father's Rights supporters want this abuse of children to continue?. Or do they want to do something to protect children?.>

No person in their right mind would find abuse of children acceptable.

What is true is that there are dsyfunctional parents out there, of both genders.

You talk about protecting children, yet if that was your real interest, then you would be keen to protect children regardless of the gender of the perpetrator, yet you focus ONLY on men's rights activists and fathers.

And as such this is not really about protecting children otherwise, you would be listening to what fathers were saying, this battle is all about using extraordinary events, and extrapolating that to all cases of separation and divorce.

As such ChazP it would only appear that your interest in preventing child abuse, is only linked with the issue of 'allowing fathers access'. Other wise the prevention of child abuse would be of no interest to you.

there is a certain degree of zealotry and rationalization that is used to justify certain behaviours that would usually be deemed as unacceptable such as demonising separated fathers and men.

"Abuse" is much more prevelant in alcoholic and drug affected families.

It has been documented that girls in single mother households, enter menarche earlier, than girls who have regular contact with their fathers, and that the girls in a single mother household begin their sexual activity at a younger age, supposition about this is that they might be imitating their mothers dating behaviour.

RobertH : "No person in their right mind would find abuse of children acceptable." - then why are FR supporters opposing this proposed legislation which is seeking to protect children.?. And where have I ever said that FR supporters are in their `right minds'.?.
These are examples the kind of situations which the present legislation often leads to:-
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/seven-dead-after-irish-murder-sprees-20101117-17waz.html

But if you and other FR supporters want these kinds of events to continue, then continue to oppose the proposed law, which I'm sure you will do anyway because its all about YOUR rights, and the children are coincidental. That was shown most clearly in the support by FR groups of two children being given into the custody of paedophile fathers and child sex abusers in Tasmania, Adelaide, and Sydney Courts. Is that what you mean by being in their right minds?.
And isn't it time you gave up using those garbage statistics about single mums abusing kids which have been shown to be completely misleading.
The single simple fact is that single mums don't need or want men who are violent towards them and their children, so stop trying to justify your existence and that fathers are `needed'- its all very pathetic. Barack Obama and Kevin Rudd haven't done too badly after being raised by single mums, have they?.
The Shared Parenting law is a licence for such dangerous and toxic parents to gain custody and control of their children. But of course its a neat device to evade child support and to keep autocratic control over former partners and children.

ChazP:"then why are FR supporters opposing this proposed legislation which is seeking to protect children.?"

You've already been given the answer to that - it's because the legislation is not designed to protect children, but to make it easier for parents to allege abuse in family law matters. Which is the gender that makes the highest number of false claims of abuse? Here's a clue - fathers don't belong to it.

As others have pointed out and as you keep demonstrating so clearly, you and Elspeth are all about the mothers, not the children. the children are merely a means of getting back at the man you hate so much.

It's tragic

"Issues of domestic violence and child abuse are highly pertinent when the future care and custody of children are being determined, and have to be taken into consideration by Family Courts."

Very pertinent but that does not make the family courts the right place to determine if claims of such abuse nor does it make it valid to have a system which can if played right bring significant personal and financial advantage to the person making the claims (proven or otherwise).

Our whole criminal law system is based on the presumption of innocence. That concept seems to disappear out the window when it comes to claims in family law. The maternal bias crowd want further weakening of the presumption of innocence, they won't talk about checks and balances to try and reduce the risks, they are not interested in reducing the motivators for false claims.

The MB advocates claim that the laws and application of the laws is gender neutral but do so against a backdrop of a widespread portrayal of fathers as the major risk factor to children and a deafening silence on their part to the times when mothers or the mothers boyfriend are the abusers. For those willing to use false or exaggerated claims to further their own want's in a family law dispute the gender perceptions around family violence and child abuse will play a massive role in how effective those tactics are.

Genuine risk should be a major factor in determining residency arrangements where that risk exists. Determining if that risk exists requires credible investigation and short term measures put in place while such claims are investigated should never bring benefit to the claimant if the claims are not proven.

R0bert

Chaz

The father's rights groups did nothing to put kids in danger. They only prevented obvious liars from profiting from dishonesty. The courts still take allegations seriously.

Remember, the main protective factor for kids is having both parents in their lives to watch over them and give the other parent a break.

RIZ

Where are you riz, I set a trap for you, I want you to fall into it for my own entertainment.

diver.

Re: Parents advised don’t mention abuse? They do indeed. But many may not foresee the difficulties ahead if they are first-timers in courts. A child makes a scary disclosure of what is offensive and horrifying to the other parent, the parent's role is to protect - they report as they think they are supposed to, have no idea how the system doesn't care less about sexual assault ‘cos it has more important things to do than act for an underage child in the adversarial criminal system'. Too much paper work, not enough success (1% of reported cases) So Docs tell the non-abusive parent to move out. Voila! the child no longer at risk' and off the stats. Doesn't mean abuse didn't happen, doesn't mean child isn't at risk, just means it ain’t going to court, and the Briganshaw standard can't be met. And 'stats' do not include status of alleged offender.
Define Child Abuse? Thanks for the NSW definition Robert, but my point was no NATIONAL definition at law, state and federal, and accepted through agencies.
I earlier referred to "the real protectors of children of either gender."
Robert answered "I don't think any one group stands out as being "real" protectors of children. Individuals may play a real role but of those in the public eye who do the biggest trumpet blowing about protecting children seem to put other agenda's ahead of children's protection. Children are too often used as pawns to get better outcomes for their parents or to deal with the individuals own issues with the other gender. He asks ‘Who did you have in mind as real protector's of children?
answer:Since we are talking Family Law, any parent and practitioner who understands the limitations on the protective parent, the state inadequacies, the idiotic criminal system as relates to kids, and the real well-being of the child. Not a group, a gender – or a a team. So many are alone, trying to do what's right, what's safe, what's expected of a good parent.

Typically what happens is that the definition of DV gets expanded to include all sorts of issue, but as ChazP does, and others as well, they use physical violence and injury to justify the expanded definition.

Basically there are two types of violent perpetrators, the first one has always used violence as a means of dealing with issues.

Well there are three, there is the drug and alcohol affected person. Barring any issues of mental illness or brain injury.

The third is where violence occurs in reaction to a stressor, or multiple stressors. Like I wrote before when my niece was raped, I wanted to out and find the bloke and do a large number of things to him.

Over time these feelings basically resolved themselves. Mind you if he had been standing next to me, the results may have been very different.

In some cases it is easy to esculate a situation until there is a violent outcome, such as shown in Tom's Tale.

I dont know if anyone remembers teasing someone at school until they cracked it and exploded, sometimes someone got hit or something got broken.

We only have to see it in some of the posts here, where the writer of that post is trying to push emotional buttons to incite a angry emotional response.

someone wrote: 'what about women who commit suicide or neglect themselves following a relationship breakdown? Do you show the same degree of contempt and lack of empathy towards them. Answer: Suicide is an awful, growing reality in this country where so many are depressed and not getting the care they need for many many reasons. But I know of no women's group who promoted the idea that 5 women a day commit suicide because of Family Law as a FR group did of men. A wrong stat, and one that disregarded the many reasons a person might feel hopeless and helpless enough to end it all.

The pied Piper wrote of the criminal law 'an accused parent exits innocent or guilty'. No, they dont. They are either guilty, or not guilty. Not guilty does not mean they did not do it, it means the prosecution was unable to prove the case on the evidence that was allowable and admitted, 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Family Law is 'balance of probabilities', but in child sex cases, the court uses a standard set in 1938, which is 'BARD'

Robert suggests: The alternative is to let child safety and assault be issues for the relevant criminal law and the groups which should look after them. You do of course realise that a prosecutor is NOT on the victim's side, that the victim has no legal representative, that the way the criminal law works is very weighted against the victim, who has no right of appeal? Who is not a party to the proceedings.

And which groups Robert? Please find me one?

Of the growing problem of rape of drunken women, I am so thrilled with the comprehension 'she had it coming!' First, Dear Anti, ‘getting laid’ is not meant to be the same as rape of s drunken woman'
Would you say the same of the growing rape of our young men, drink spiked and raped? Check the victim stats (not that you can trust stats) of the young men whose lives are destroyed, the fear of AIDS etc that follows these 'no consent' issues.
And if women are the rapists would you say 'he had it coming' or he went out expecting to be laid and now wants to cry victim?
Robert wrote: People pushed to the edge and treated as abusers without any any sign of fair treatment are less likely to act responsibly than they might otherwise do. Do you ever consider what it is like for a genuine protective parent to be unable to protect their child who is being abused, and be unable to stop it?

Benk challenged: If a bloke abducts his kids and later claims that he was doing it for their protection, will you support him? Will the court? Yes, in fact I have done that and fallen foul of DOCS and the Family court/federal police. Because his kids were at risk from the mother's new boyfriend.

chasp"In 2000 Mullane J identified that family violence presents a multi faceted danger for children including a risk of violence and injury to the child personally; blah blah blah Words are one thing but I've heard the ex-judge in action. I wanted to slap him for his nastiness, ignorance and bias which placed a little boy at risk. he's safe now.

Anti :Which gender makes the highest number of false claims of abuse? - fathers don't belong to it. And which group do you think makes the most FALSE DENIALS anti? And i think a lot of that is because perpetrators don't see themselves for what they are - abusers. 'I dont hit' (I just pinch, punch holes in walls, conrtol every cent, etc

Cotter ": 'what about women who commit suicide or neglect themselves following a relationship breakdown? Do you show the same degree of contempt and lack of empathy towards them. Answer: Suicide is an awful, growing reality in this country where so many are depressed and not getting the care they need for many many reasons. But I know of no women's group who promoted the idea that 5 women a day commit suicide because of Family Law as a FR group did of men."

Nice try,

However a larger percentage of successful suicides are male, basically one male dies from his own hand about every 4.5 hours. where if I recall the female rates is around one a day.

More males die from suicide than the national road toll, and it is suspected that many or some of the single vechile, single occupant fatalities are in fact suicides.

Relationship breakdown, and the family court are just part of some of the factors to do with suicide.

Go to the DIDs website and read some of the stories there.

As desirable as it may be, the CSA does not correlate data on the terminal termination of payers, whether it is though illness or suicide.

The coroner does not as far as I know investigate very far into suicides as to what circumstances that occured previously that may have contribuited to the suicide, unless that person has a mental health history.

So basically they can say the data does not support that, because the data has not been collected, and no-one is prepared to or perhaps more correctly fund the research. Unless they can come up with a research methodology that can effectively hide a can of worms.

cotter the groups who should be dealing with assault and child abuse are the police, criminal courts and child protection agencies.

The issue then get's down to how well the laws which cover all of us are written and enacted, to how appropriately resourced those groups are and what management issues impact on how well they do their job.

It's never going to be simple nor bomb proof. Maternal bias placed children at risk if their mother was a bigger risk than the father, a presumption of shared care add's fathers to the risk pool if the courts have reacted as described but other than for those who think that fathers are inherently more likely to abuse than mothers it's not really increasing the overall risk. Overall it should give parents more of a break from the pressures of single parenting and give the child some respite from the problem parent (assuming that child support can't deal with that).

What appears to be the risk is that in a lot of cases where there is genuine risk both parents are disfunctional. It's not always the case but a lot of family violence is mutual. A lot of people will keep seeking out the same types of partners. Demographics are not absolute but they play a role. People who are often into substance abuse are likely to keep seeking out partners who do the same.

With some of those parents it's always going to be difficult. For the rest we need to find ways of reducing the unnecessary pressures on people which get added to family breakdown which make it even harder to cope.

I think that there is plenty of opportunity to improve the way we deal with child abuse across the whole community. Trying to make it about child residency following breakup is missing most and possibly placing children at greater risk due to the escalated tensions involved.

R0bert

Houlley
Expanding the definition of DV is not going to make a difference on the burden of proof. Proving that someone raised their voice or once shouted at a child, is just as difficult to prove as overt violence. Probably harder.

No-one would argue that only perfect parents should be granted child custody because there is no such person, and all children would remain parentless.

There are two ways of handling the problem when weighing up risks, and that is balancing the risk of placing a child with an abusive parent or denying access to a parent where the abuse has been overstated or completely fabricated.

Both are unfair on child and parent alike. But which way should the pendulum swing - pro child or pro adult. It is difficult - I am not suggesting that it is easy nor black and white.

However even the black and white can be difficult and what about cases where both parents are allowed shared custody and out of the blue one of them kills themselves and their child without any history of abuse at all.

No system is able to factor in unknowables, it is hard enough with the knowables.

benk
There was a man in the US who was interviewed on Oprah (within the last two years) about kidnapping his children to keep them from his wife who was clearly unsuitable. As I said, who could blame any parent for protecting their kids even if it means breaking the law. Family Law does not distinguish between deadbeat mothers or fathers.

It occured to me how stupid we/both genders/courts etc are.

Lets start with a women (mens can reverse roles for their own comfort in this example) who has put up with the odd slap, bit of manipulation and financial abuse (whatever the hell that is) for a couple of years but still loves him to bits and thinks he is still basically a good person who will change, she hangs around, has a couple of children...

Okay then comes the day he kicks the two year old across the room in a rage.

We want her to up and leave immediatly, be a mum, protect the kids right?

No no no, court needs her to stay and subject the children to more abuse while she gathers evidence. For their long term safetly she has to stay and do this so that she can prove in court he is abusive and should not get access to the children.

Crazy, we're all completely crazy.

TPP:"No no no, court needs her to stay and subject the children to more abuse "

What a lot of dishonest tripe.

Pelican:"Proving that someone raised their voice or once shouted at a child, is just as difficult to prove as overt violence. Probably harder.
"

The point is that the propsed changes mean that if she makes the claim, it is treated as being true in the first instance and even if eventually disproven, he will have lost the kids, almost certainly irretrievably. The Courts have a history of handing children exlusively to women who wilfullty disregard court orders in regard to parenting, on the grounds that the conflict created by the mother's deranged state would mean the kids would suffer if shared care was implemented.

This has occurred on several occasions now. What sort of sytem rewards non-compliance and dishonesty?

cotter:"First, Dear Anti, ‘getting laid’ is not meant to be the same as rape of s drunken woman'"

Apprently that's only the case after she sobers up and wakes up next to a bloke she doesn;t recognise. When she gets drunk to "transgress social norms", it's all good fun... The decision to get drunk was hers, the reason to do so was hers, but when it doesn't work out perfectly for our little princess, she suddenly becomes a victim of the horrible man "who got her drunk so he could take advantage".

Why do you think men are able to be responsible for themselves and women aren't? I don't think you have a very high opinion of women, sadly.

why has our society become such a violent abusive place?

The feminist age certainly hasnt taught women much about self respect and independance. They still get themselves caught up with violent abusive men. Why dont they leave before children arrive or at least make sure they dont have children.

Are women so insecure they "need" these types of men.

Everyone has stories on both sides. I know of a lovely dad whose wife walked out with the children and did everything in her power to stop him from seeing the children.

There are sad cases on both sides.

Where has respect and fairness gone?

Why do we all feel the need to be RIGHT, ALL the time, come hell or high water.

In the case I had it was the father I wanted to see the children but not him with his new partner, court had already agreed that the woman had exposed her own child to inappropriate behaviors. In my mind she was a dirty Ho I didn’t want within 10 feet of any child and most adults for their own sexual safety.

But anyways… difficult, we didn’t have the words parental alienation but it was hinted at that I was obstructing the children’s father from spending the time he wanted with the children. He wanted the time to include the new partner.

My position was that I wasn’t I was obstructed her time not his. His choice of partner was not going to adversely affect our children.
What would you have court do with woman vs woman? Because I think that is what it was and he was very much stuck in the middle. He was adamant with court that I was a good mum and concerned for the children but on the other hand he should be allowed the children and while with him it should be his choice what people they come into contact with.

what is really interesting, is that rather than find ways and means of helping alleged violent perpetrators to deal with issues, and to find ways and means of dealing with their allegedly violent behaviour.

Basically the only thing that some people want to do is to lock them up and throw away the keys (figuratively speaking).

Like for example if someones violent behaviour is linked to drug and alcohol use, then if they stop abusing alcohol and drugs, the violent behaviour, usually disappears.

Searching,
I can't find the link now, but over a number of years there were 11 murders of children in NSW carried out by their fathers. There were also 7 murders of children carried out by mothers.

However the training carried out by feminists, many of whom are harbored by universities, now means that many people normally think of violence in a family as something that is only carried out by fathers.

Articles such as this one by a university feminist that gives only part of the story perpetuate the myth that fathers are violent, but such discrimination is allowed to continue by the university system.

Vanna, do you know how many SIDS or cot deaths there are each year? If the Kathleen Folbigg case is anything to go by, a great number of these could be instances of infanticide. So your figure of 7 children murdered by their mother could be a significant understatement of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Folbigg

And what about this Keli Lane and the baby that disappeared off the face of the earth. She concealed her pregnancies from everyone and then claims shortly after the birth of her baby Tegan she handed her over to the father. Didn't even know the last name of the father. The father was not the bloke she was in a relationship with. Though this isn't the only version of what she said took place.

The mother in the Robins & Ruddock custody case gave different accounts on the state of arousal of the father.

I tell you what, of all the women in the world, there are a lot liars amongst them so why should a court accept any uncorroborated from them?

vanna the most authoritative source I know of is the NSW Child Death Review Team reports. http://kids.nsw.gov.au/kids/resources/publications/childdeathreview.cfm

In particular the document http://kids.nsw.gov.au/uploads/documents/NSW-CDRT-10-Year-Study1.pdf gives findings over a number of years.
In the fatal assault category

Description of the deaths
• Over the period 1996–2005, 136 (2.0%) of the 6,879 children and young people whose deaths were registered in NSW died as a result of assault.
o Twenty-five per cent of fatal assaults occurred in the context of teenage altercations (teen killings) – nearly 50 per cent of these involved drugs or alcohol.
• The likelihood of fatal assault was associated with age, sex, Aboriginal identity, and socioeconomic background:
o Infants to 4 year olds as a group were nearly twice as likely to die as a result of assault as were those aged 14–17 years, while those aged 5–13 years were only a third as likely as were those 14–17 years.
•Infant deaths related to assault appear to peak when they are between 150 and 210 days old.
o Aboriginal children and young people were three and a half times more likely to die as a result of assault than were non-Aboriginal children and young people.
o Those living in relatively high socioeconomic areas were only 52 per cent as likely to die as a result of assault as those living in relatively low socioeconomic areas.
o Males were 1.4 times more likely to die as a result of assault than were females.

Also see the companion document http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/uploads/documents/fatalassault2008.pdf

I’d like to see an interim report covering the period since the changes made during Howard period. If there is a case that the changes have increased the risk to children it's reasonable to assume that part of the increased risk would be reflected in an increased number of fatal assaults of children.
I’ll do a basic summary from CDRT reports over recent years. Whilst fatal assault of children is the extreme end of child abuse I’d expect to see some reflection in the figures if the shared care changes have been as dire as some would have us believe.

R0bert

Part 1
I’ve tried to get a feel for the trends in fatal assault of children mentioned in the NSW CDRT reports over recent years. Thankfully the numbers are low enough that it’s not overly reliable but I certainly did not find anything to suggest that increased shared care has created any sort of increase in fatal assault of children. It may take a few posts to get the extracts up. For reference I’ve taken the quotes from the fatal assault sections of the full annual reports and tried to concentrate on familial relationships (where they are specified).

One comment heading a demographic chart is worth keeping in mind. “This analysis is descriptive only and caution is needed in interpreting the results. The demographic factors are rarely independent and this description does not consider their possible connections.”
2003 - Seventeen children and young people died as a result of assault in this reporting period. These children died in 15 separate incidents. Two incidents involved the deaths of siblings. In two incidents the perpetrator of the fatal assault also died.
2004 – A total of 8 fatal assault deaths (unable to copy and not much detail)
2005 - The deaths of eight children were consistent with the non-accidental injury category. The perpetrators were all known to the victims and included: the child’s stepfather or a person in a relationship with the child’s mother (3), the child’s biological father (2), the child’s biological mother (2) and another
person known but unrelated to the child (1).
2006 - In all nine of the incidents involving children under 15 years old, the perpetrator was known to the child. The perpetrator was the child’s biological father in three incidents, biological mother in three incidents and the mother’s partner in two incidents. The other matter remains under investigation. In the incident involving the 15-17 year old, the relationship between the young person and the perpetrator was unknown

R0bert

Part 2
2007 - Six of the assaults occurred in the context of familial relationships: that is, where the injuries were inflicted by parents, spouses, domestic partners or other family members. One death occurred in the context of mental illness, with the young person being killed by an elder sister who was experiencing a psychotic episode at the time. Two children died in the context of family breakdown, in a murder suicide incident. The perpetrator took her own life soon after killing her children.

2008 - . Of the 12 assaults, 10 occurred in the context of familial relationships: that is, where the injuries were inflicted by parents, spouses, domestic partners or other family members. Six of these children died in the context of family breakdown. Two were murder-suicide incidents. In one of these cases, the perpetrator killed himself and his three children due to relationship and health issues. In the second case, the perpetrator killed himself and his daughter because his wife was in the process of divorcing him. In a third incident relating to family breakdown, the perpetrator killed her two children and attempted suicide as she believed that her husband did not love her or her children.
The other four assaults that occurred in the context of familial relationships were incidents of nonaccidental injury. In one case, the perpetrator killed his wife and stepdaughter. He had previously threatened to kill them and had been violent to his wife in the past. In another incident, a child was killed by his mother’s boyfriend. He had been drinking during the night of the murder and had been in several altercations before arriving home. The perpetrator had no prior criminal history. A further two children were killed by their grandfather while left in his care. The perpetrator also killed his wife. The reason for this triple murder is not known.

2009 - The assaults of four children occurred in the context of familial relationships. (This piece is long and I'm not sure if the followup post can happen today. )

R0bert

Part 3
2009 cont'd - In two incidents, the fatal injuries were inflicted by domestic partners when the mother was out of the house. Both families were known to Human Services, Community Services. Table 59 shows the range of personal and family factors that could be identified from the information available to the Team at the time of reporting for these families.

The mother of one infant had previously lived in a violent relationship, it is not known if this violence was present at the time of the death. In the months leading up to the infant’s death there had been concerns regarding the mother’s mental health including a hospital admission for an episode of psychosis eight months before the death, and substance abuse. The mothers’ partner has been charged with manslaughter.

The mother of the other infant had also lived in a violent relationship, separating from the infant’s father soon after the birth of the baby. It is not known if the violence continued in the mothers current relationship. The infant’s father was serving a prison sentence at the time of the incident. The mother had been in out-of-home care as a child and had a history of self-harm and substance use. The mothers’ partner has been charged with murder.

In the other two incidents the perpetrator was the mother of the child. One incident occurred in the context of a relationship breakdown between the mother and the child’s father. It is alleged that the mother drowned her child and then attempted to take her own life. The mother has been charged with murder.

The other incident occurred in the context of mental illness. The mother had a history of depression, self-harm and anxiety for which she had received treatment. On the day of the incident the father returned to the house to find the infant lifeless in his cot with a note from the mother stating that she had killed her child to protect him from harm. The father found the mother drug affected in her bedroom.

R0bert

R0bert, I'm sure that Elspeth et al are grateful to you for pointing out some useful data to appear in the next report from the Bagshaw misandry factory.

As you know, I've done similar analyses in the past and the only conclusion to draw on the available data is that leaving children in the exclusive care of a single mother, especially one that has repartnered or has serial sexual partners is the most dangerous thing that a Court can do to the child.

Robert,
All this data would be known by the author, but they still present a biased potrayal of the situation.

This happens time and again with anything to do with gender, and the matter should come under investigation by the universities, as that negative and biased portrayal does not abide by the anti-discrimination policies of any university in this country that I know of.

An anti-discrimination department in a university can employ up to 5 people, and at present those anti-discrimination departments represent nothing more than a waste of taxpayer funding.

Anti-septic,
I would agree, and the statistics verify what you have said. However I have never heard an academic mention it.

To be an academic, it would appear that you have to agree with feminist theory, and that theory also entails denigration of fathers.

pelican,

'Expanding the definition of DV is not going to make a difference on the burden of proof. Proving that someone raised their voice or once shouted at a child, is just as difficult to prove as overt violence. Probably harder.'

Hahaha.

Would you rather attempt to prove

a) That someone punched their partner
B) That they either punched their partner , yelled at them, didn't allow them access to the credit card, discouraged contact with relatives, shouted at them or wouldn't let them watch TV when their favourite show was on (pick any 1)

And lets not forget, b), by virtue of being grouped under the same umbrella, is now equivalent to a). You're using the faint waft of abuse to imply abuse and using the same precautions against all 'abuse'. The whole principal is 'if there's smoke there's fire, ie a witch hunt.

Also, just look at the terms, suitably broad and malleable. 'emotionally manipulated'? Does crying count?

Answer this pelican, if it doesn't make it easier to 'prove' abuse, why are they recommending it?

'But which way should the pendulum swing - pro child or pro adult.'

My argument is that it is simplistic to think giving custody to a shouting parent is pro-adult. I think it is pro-child as well. I look at this whole thing as a child, I've been there with a manipulative shouting bi-polar verbally and sometimes physically abusive parent and I think I was still a lot better off than I would have been not seeing them.

Sure kids die, it's terrible and tragic, I get that. But there seems to be this focus on denying children flawed but still loving parents rather than helping said flawed and loving parents to be better people. As you said, some child deaths are not predictable or preventable. Lets be brave and accept we cant save them all, and have the courage to help children have THEIR OWN parents a bit more safely rather than taking the easy route of denying custody under the excuse of 'safety'.

I can't answer all those questions Houlley with any authoritative knowledge.

If the prime purpose of the Law is to improve child safety there will never be a perfect system that can satisfy the needs of all parties. Yes there should be some room for re-evaluation should the 'abuser' improve their demeanour by counselling or where the custodial parent is proved to be unfit due to an abusive defacto partner. Any defacto of either parent should come under the same scrutiny given the child will be under their care part of the time. The number of child deaths and abuse cases by the non-biological father is high.

Perhaps the broadening of the law was done with good intent to ensure real cases of emotional abuse are not missed, while there has been more focus on physical/sexual abuse. Then it is up to the Judge to make a ruling using the 'evidence' supplied including testimony from children (not only the parents) using their judgement. The Law applies to both parents, not just fathers.

However, without the law covering emotional abuse, severe cases are ignored. There has to be a point in this where the Judge's impartiality can interpret the law as appropriate in each individual case. Ruling some as overstated in some cases and some possibly as severe emotional abuse.

Some posters, on these Family Law issues, seem to believe that any women (or men) who fight for the rights of child safety are all out to get men - that this is their sole purpose and the child safety issue is a camouflage. These women are about 'safety' first and the Law applies equally to either parent. Where does it say that only fathers will be scrutinised under the Law.

These obsessive and continuous anti-women (dressed up as anti-feminist) comments do wear a bit thin.

Pelican

I believe that claims of DV or child abuse are routinely made up or exaggerated for personal gain and no amount of name-calling will stop me.

If lying, exaggeration and constant reminders of past arguments aren't emotional abuse, what is? Personally, I want kids kept well away from anyone who would tell their kids that the other parent is a child abuser when it is-not true.

Maybe the new definitions are about equality benk.

Given their broad range we have all abused a child in some way.

The most pernicious thing a mother can do is lie or exaggerate when going through the courts. And aren't women good at lying and exaggerating?

Read this little beauty today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331470/Glamour-girl-wannabe-Samantha-Merry-cried-rape-clear-drug-debt-jailed-18-months.html#

At least she got her comeuppance but that would not have happened had it been a custody of domestic violence matter.

Roscop your posts look just as ugly (but somewhat less subtle) than anti-male postings. Apart from my dislike of generalised attacks on either gender you also provide a diversion for those who don't want to listen to what's being said to focus on it being about some men not liking women rather than the arguments being put.

I don't like it when feminists make out that men are oppressors or violent (some are but not most) nor do I like it when women are attacked in the way you attack them.

How about some constructive input to the discussion.

R0bert

Robocop one man used her to get at another man. Doesn’t excuse her and says a lot about her character but the carryings on of drug dealers and their associates really doesn’t seem to have much to do with what is being said here?

Benk:”I believe that claims of DV or child abuse are routinely made up or exaggerated for personal gain and no amount of name-calling will stop me.”

Mostly I can’t work out the personal gain, if they are good parent then one can make use of it for some time off at the very least and top of the list would be that it is good for the children to have both parents in their lives.

I guess we need (ugh) stats, how many claims, how many weren’t true or the court could see were a matter of male only hitting female or visa versa and if split up that violence wouldn’t be seen by the children anymore. Because the articles and interviews I’ve seen the women are advised repeatedly in court to not say anything about abuse. I have no idea if the males are advised the same way but you'd assume so.

But if we start with the premise that claims of DV or child abuse are routinely made up or exaggerated I suspect that very attitude would endanger children. Faster investigation of the facts would probably be a better way to go. Don’t let the accusation linger.

Pied Piper "Mostly I can’t work out the personal gain"

That's the winner takes it all aspect of child residency. If you have the bulk of residency at the time of property settlement you have a good chance of getting the majority of the families assets and I've not heard of many who have signed the house back to the ex when they could.

For those with little desire to work (and or a low employable skill set) it means an income stream from ex and government. It meant control over most of the decisions about children and how they are raised (which for some is a big issue).

The shared responsibility aspect of the previous reforms changed some of the later aspect of that which bugged the "mothers and THEIR children" crowd.

It can be a chance to stick it to an ex that they are still really angry with.

Most of that stuff happens within a couple of years of separation, many are still very much caught up in the hurt of the relationship, they have not had opportunity to make the adjustments they need to build a new life.

There does not seem to be a helpful way of addressing some of the issues, if assets go to the parent with the majority of child care at the time of settlement to help meet the needs of the children what happens if the residency arrangements change later (and often they do)? Moving the assets with the kid's would perpetuate the conflicts, not allowing for housing needs would cause some genuine hardship etc. A no win situation.

BTW I think the impact of child residency on finances motivates both genders to make poor decisions.

R0bert

benk
Who is name calling? The vitriole towards women on OLO is much worse than anything I have seen towards men but Ces't la vie. You can't see into or control the minds of other people, nor would we want to. People only reveal themselves with their words and that is enough.

No-one is arguing that a mother or father who makes false accusations against the other to their children is a fit parent. It can do just as much damage. However it is becoming so one can't disagree with a man on OLO or raise the issue of 'child protection' without being labelled a feminazi. That is equally unhelpful.

The law is to protect children first and foremost. How do you reckon is the best way to achieve this end?

Houllebecq - "Sure kids die, it's terrible and tragic, I get that. But there seems to be this focus on denying children flawed but still loving parents rather than helping said flawed and loving parents to be better people. As you said, some child deaths are not predictable or preventable. Lets be brave and accept we cant save them all, and have the courage to help children have THEIR OWN parents a bit more safely rather than taking the easy route of denying custody under the excuse of 'safety'."
What a cavalier attitude towards deaths of children and protection from abuses. How are parents being loving when they are violent towards each other and their children are suffering abuse as a consequence?. If parents are `flawed', then we all have a duty to protect those children from them. Some `flawed' parents have serious psychotic disorders which are incurable and untreatable and they will always remain a danger to their children. Counselling or anger management are a complete waste of time on such parents and does nothing to curb their violence.
Pelican - "But if we start with the premise that claims of DV or child abuse are routinely made up or exaggerated I suspect that very attitude would endanger children. Faster investigation of the facts would probably be a better way to go".
No we cannot begin with such a silly premise when statistics show how many people are subjected to domestic violence in Australia. The Chief Justice Bryant and Deputy Chief Justice Faulkes have both said very clearly that Family Courts do not have the expertise or resources to investigate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse. So no allegation of domestic violence or child abuse has ever been competently investigated in FL proceedings. So how do you know they are "routinely made up or exaggerated'?.
It is precisely these defects and deficiencies in the present law which the amendments in the the `Darcey Freeman' law now being proposed, are seeking to correct. To oppose these amendments is to directly the continuation of domestic violence and child abuse.

Apologies - the last quote was from PIED PIPER and not Pelican.

I think that the material I provided earlier on fatal assault of children is indicative enough to show that the changes to family law have not sparked a rise in fathers killing their own children. The other area which bears investigation is the rates of substantiated abuse - not perfect but "substantiated" is about the best we have to go on.

The National Child Protection Clearing house provides the best resources I've been able to find. Some of their commentary can at times conform to the politically accepted scripts but as far as I've been able to tell the stats are pretty straight.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/resources/stats.html
The most recent report is at http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/35/10859.pdf

Some key points from that report
• In the last 12 months:
– The number of children subject to a notification increased by 6.2% to 207,462.
– The number of children subject to a substantiation of a notification increased by 1.7% to 32,641 (from 6.8 to 6.9 per 1,000 children).
• Over the last 5 years the number of children subject to a substantiation of a notification has decreased by 4% (from 7.5 to 6.9 per 1,000 children).

The reports do not include all of the data necessary to tell who was the abuser but the living arrangements of abused children should be relevant for this discussion.

A second post will follow (posting limit's permitting with some relevant tables from two reports http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/cpa04-05/cpa04-05.pdf and http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/35/10859.pdf

R0bert

Part two
From http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/cpa04-05/cpa04-05.pdf and http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/35/10859.pdf
Sorry about the formatting, I don't know how to get columns to line up here.

Table 2.12: Substantiations, by type of family in which the child was residing,(a) 2004/05
Family type NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Two parent s/b n.a. 6 23 19 21 15 17 9
Single parent female n.a. 46 36 36 41 39 38 34
Single parent male n.a. 7 4 4 4 2 6 6

Table A1.6: Substantiations of notifications received during 2008/09, by type of family in which the child was residing, states and territories
Family type NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Two parent s/b n.a. 9.3 18.3 17.7 18.1 15.5 13.3 15.5
Single parent female n.a. 42.2 37.9 36.4 34.1 36.7 51.5 31.9
Single parent male n.a. 10.4 3.9 3.5 4.8 2.8 3.6 3.0

I've not yet been able to find the relevant material for the percentage of children living in those Family types.

Other than the lack of figures for NSW and a significant shift in substantiated abuse in the ACT for Single parent female (I assume that the process has changed more than the rates of abuse) I can't see anything in that data to suggest shared care has overall placed children at greater risk.

Just where is the crisis in child safety created by the changes put in place in 2006?

We are being told that the 2006 changes have created a crisis which requires changes which effectively lower the burden of proof yet I'm not finding independent evidence of any increased risk to children (the reverse in fact).

In NSW in 2009 no fathers were identified as having killed their own children, for substantiated abuse despite more children living in single parent male lead households the overall proportion of substantiated abuse for children living in those households has dropped in most states.

R0bert

Robert = Cases of domestic violence with the inherent abuse of children and the direct abuse of children do not appear in the statistics you have quoted because State Child Protection Authorities refuse to become involved in matters in the Family Court as Federal Law and the Family Courts supercede State laws. The State CPA state that such reports are a matter for the FCA but the FCA do not have the expertise and resources to carry out such investigations. That is why such allegations fail in the Family Courts. There is a test case in Tasmania where the Judge sought to engage the State CPA in proceedings and they refused. It is now going to the High Court for a decision.
The FL (Amendments) Bill seeks to correct this situation and require the State CPAs to conduct such investigations and report to the Family Courts.

Chaz:”Apologies - the last quote was from PIED PIPER and not Pelican.”

Umm... nup Houel said it first.

I got that he was talking about “flawed” but loving not "abusive" (under the old definitions) but loving.

ChazP,

Why don't we then take all children into state custody if their parents ever shout. Why are we only interested in separating couples? If this abuse is so bad, I think we should have zero tolerance. All children should be protected, and if you neighbours have a row, you can call the police and those children should spend 6 months in a foster home until it is all cleared up. Oh, hang on, you said counselling and support don't work or aren't good enough. So, any shouting parent should lose their kids for good.

We have to protect the children!

Robert. that stuff happens within a couple of years of separation, many still caught in the hurt.

Many here seem to miss the major issue about abuse and violence, psychopathy and focus on death as if it were the only important issue, rather than the final act.
Perpetrators (whether they are caught and found guilty or not) soon learn to control by threat of violence, using emotional and verbal abuse. Not 'you can't watch your show' (trivialises power play and dominance), but says 'You know I can hurt you, and so you had better obey. Try harder, get it right, love me more, and we will be happy. I am judge and jailer.

They leave because perpetrators make it impossible to stay. To presume the issues are over separation itself is to avoid the issue.

The feminazi are not saying all men are evil and violent and you all know it. They are saying some fathers are not safe and do not observe Australian standards of raising children safely. i would hope all parents could put the children's actual needs first and understand the damage they do. As for McInnes - her expertise is in women and children. (that's boy and girl children)

The crack about women and credit cards? probably relevent, but way outweighed by the women who must pay all the bills from an inadequate 'allowance' with not a razoo for themselves, or the ones who end up with nothing because they were dumped and replaced and were not suspicious enough to make sure their hold on their share of the family finances was secure. Especially with business men/partners.

Instead of poor me and she dun me wrong, why not focus on the children of violent parents. But you have to recognise the range of violence and abuse that will affect them. For example, having' extra marital sex? is that abuse? What if the spouse ends up with an STD? is that abuse? Is it emotional abuse to threaten to kill, lock people outside, skitch the dog onto them?
Counselling wont work with the personality disordered.

Cotter "The feminazi are not saying all men are evil and violent and you all know it. They are saying some fathers are not safe and do not observe Australian standards of raising children safely. "

Just for the record I don't tend to use the term feminazi, it does apply to some but I don't see how it helps the discussion.

I get that McInnes, Flood, the mothers groups etc are saying "Some fathers are not safe and do not observe Australian standards of raising children safely"

What most of the men here are saying is that the issue is that "Some adults are not safe and do not observe Australian standards of raising children safely". We are also saying that most breach the standards sometimes and that playing out of context and minor breaches in custody disputes is not helpful to children or the accused parent.

The stats are extremely clear when it comes to child death and substantiated abuse that fathers have not cornered the market on child abuse.

It's really obvious that the push for these changes only seems to be coming from people who put the word fathers into that sentence rather than adults (or people/parents etc). The examples used are invariable about violent fathers, there is no reference to drops in rates of substantiated abuse or changes in patterns of child deaths.

The official DV stats show a massive gender difference but with so much of that research being distorted by assumptions about power structures within the home those stats are useless other than as propaganda tools.

Shared Care has been attacked while during the time it's been more easily obtained the rates of substantiated child abuse has dropped, the rates of fatal assault against children in NSW appears to have decreased (although with thankfully low numbers that's less clear).

It's not clear that there is a causal relationship but it's certainly significant enough to warrant serious consideration in regard to any changes which may make shared care harder to obtain in the face of allegations.

R0bert

R0bert:”What most of the men here are saying is that the issue is that "Some adults are not safe and do not observe Australian standards of raising children safely".”

I don’t think most men HERE are saying that R0bert. Many men here appear to be on a witch hunt.

R0bert:” It's really obvious that the push for these changes only seems to be coming from people who put the word fathers into that sentence rather than adults (or people/parents etc). The examples used are invariable about violent fathers, there is no reference to drops in rates of substantiated abuse or changes in patterns of child deaths.”

Yep they are out THERE doing that, I’ve seen them but it seems pretty equal overall online with the mens groups and womens groups.

But whatever… someone go help this dad:

http://forums.altnews.com.au/node/1875#comment-7308

He appears to need help right now to help his children.

I think he needs more help with punctuation...

Why is it so hard for people to understand that expanding the definition of abuse is an invitation for open slather on abuse allegations against people who sometimes shout in arguments.

'Many here seem to miss the major issue about abuse and violence, psychopathy and focus on death as if it were the only important issue, rather than the final act.

Perpetrators (whether they are caught and found guilty or not) soon learn to control by threat of violence, using emotional and verbal abuse. Not 'you can't watch your show' (trivialises power play and dominance), but says 'You know I can hurt you, and so you had better obey. Try harder, get it right, love me more, and we will be happy. I am judge and jailer.'

ie, If someone shouts it is more than likely that they use abuse and violence to control their partner and they are assumed a psychopath and should be denied contact with their children.

'To presume the issues are over separation itself is to avoid the issue.'

Well, as I said, why doesn't this new expanded definition apply to intact couples. We cant be too careful, so any couple who ever has a screaming match should lose their kids.

'Many men here appear to be on a witch hunt.'

Au contraire Piper, the new legislation is the witch hunt; Expanding the definition of abuse so that normal emotion in an argument is equated with a systematic bullying and controlling behaviour and a certain predictor of physical violence.

BTW Cotter: What if someone cries or threatens self harm as a manipulation tool? ie 'Try harder, get it right, love me more, and we will be happy.I am judge and jailer'

God forbid someone should cry - lest they be accused of manipulation. Whether having screaming matches in front of the kids is meant to instructive and educational for little minds is interesting - and hardly helpful.

Threaten suicide? Absolute emotional abuse. Needs to be met with 'I'll miss you'. Saying 'you'd be happy if I killed myself' - probably a desperate call for sanity and comprehension. Saying in front of the kids - beautiful, that should make them feel great.

By frequently ignoring the reality of violence, mental abuse, emotional abuse and manipulation, financial abuse, social abuse, psychopaths, sociopaths, drug users and alcoholics who may be involved in crazy-making behaviour, by suggesting an argument involving yelling = lose the kids, you show your determination to avoid the reality of so many people's own existence and lack of power over it. It doesn't matter who's the problem, the fact is blaming the other gender is putting too many kids in danger while this silly argument goes around. Boring.

Sometimes this list is like trying to talk to my ex. Avoiding the actual issue is actually an indicator of pathology of the mind, expecting a pathological to give a damn about any one else's opinion is fraught with impossibility - since they do not give damn about other people's opinion, unless it mirrors theirs.

(but way outweighed by the women who must pay all the bills from an inadequate 'allowance' with not a razoo for themselves,)Cotter.

Former Attorny General Philip Ruddock said that 'where an income was once supporting one family, that income (following separation) must now support two.

I know many of the women here are complaining about being subjected to DV.

However there is a solution and that is shared care, if care was shared, then the custodial parent would be more able to find paid employment.

To think that a person could maintain the same standard of living following separation is just 'pie in the sky' type of thinking. Even couples who have not separated can and do find it hard to make ends meet, such as paying bills etc. So it not anything unique to separated parents.

It may fail to register in the minds of some, but there a many different stories, some are truthful and factual others just follow a well worn script.

Not every separated dad is an abuser, but to use the abuse excuse is an easy card to play.

Basically all this arguing boils down to power and control and lastly money.

The welfare of the kids is just a side show, a false front arguement used to draw attention away from what is really going on.

A solution to DV is shared care?

In whose universe? Newsflash, separation, shared parenting DOES NOT STOP IT.

Cotter,

'you show your determination to avoid the reality of so many people's own existence and lack of power over it. '

I've already stated it was my reality, and I believe I , and many other kids, are still better off not being shunted off to strangers or being denied a relationship with one of their parents.

You have to weigh up the less than ideal environment against the alternative. Safety first is the easy way out. Expanding definitions of abuse rather than investigating whether it really is occurring seems to be the name of the game here.

'Saying 'you'd be happy if I killed myself' - probably a desperate call for sanity and comprehension.'

As is raising ones voice in the heat of an argument. So, if a man reacts angrily, it's abuse, if a woman plays passive aggressive games, it's a cry for help. If a man dominates through manipulation and threats it's abuse but if a woman does it it's 'a cry for help'. Punish men/help women, it's been going on for too long.

I've known women who admit they deliberately provoke men into anger to force them to communicate in more emotive terms. They need the reassurance the guy cares so they push as many buttons as they can. Then when he shouts or reacts angrily, he's an abusive brut?

'Avoiding the actual issue is actually an indicator of pathology of the mind'

That's what you're doing. Avoiding the issue that widening the definition of abuse leads to a lower burden of proof and conflates reasonably sane normal people under temporary stress with pathological abusers.

'they do not give damn about other people's opinion, unless it mirrors theirs.'

I'd say that sums up your attitude to just about every poster here. I think you just don't appreciate the trauma kids feel when being denied a relationship with their parents. It's all so simple to you isn't it. Just ship the kids off to a stranger regardless of the levels of so called 'abuse'.

ship the kids off to strangers? No, no that's not what I'm talking about. I'm actually talking about the children who are endangered and harmed by violent and abusive behaviour. The ones the enquiries have been about. The dawning knowledge that that DV is much more than a punch in the face (whether they deserved it or not) and the impact on the kids in the middle.

And only women 'provoke' men? Men may be angry but women are passive aggressiive? Now there's a great generalisation - women have no right to be angry (a legitimate human emotion) vs passive-aggressive (a personality issue).

As i said, and I don't mind being accurate at all, but then I just grew up in a violent home - what would I know about how hard it is to become homeless and fight my way back to some degree of 'whole' person. To care for my parent who was so harmed by DV that she never really recovered and died early. What of my father who cried 'It's not my fault' like a 14 year old.

Then there's my client who was bashed, beaten and murdered (eventually) so she shouldn't have left I guess. She should have stayed and kept her mouth shut because that's so healthy for their kids. and many more.

Thanks for the suggestion I'm pathological. Of course 30 years in the field has made me so sympathetic to people who cry 'but what about me'

So if you decide that you would have been better off if you hadn't been taken from your parents, that's possibly right for you. This isn't about losing a parent - this is about saying 'NO' to bad parents. If the child ends up with the other parent, perhaps that has at least something to do with parent's own behaviour instead of blaming someone else.

Yep Houel, the incredible amount of damage that is done by removing a child from the adults they are attached to is appalling. Once in care they are likely to suffer it many times along with a system that does not monitor how they are treated regularly.

These kids in care don’t do as well as their peers for many reasons. But if they took the monitoring they should be doing with foster parents and applied it to families they consider at risk a rather large industry could collapse.

At risk... not abusive (old school def).

As for shared care; better than care by neither.

James:”Not every separated dad is an abuser, but to use the abuse excuse is an easy card to play.”

That card is available to both genders.

It’s gonna be a mess when gay couples split and have to share care of adopted children. Who will the mens groups support?

Houel:“…widening the definition of abuse leads to a lower burden of proof and conflates reasonably sane normal people under temporary stress with pathological abusers.”

Well said.

Cotter I don’t think anyone here is advocating violent men get time with their children. I hope even the mens groups would never help a known and proven violent male near a child – I would certainly rather see them fatherless.

The worry is the broadening of the abuse definitions and what it will do to the stability of all children. We want to say NO to bad parents but don’t want to be saying NO to all parents labeled abusive in this new broad way

Cotter "this is about saying 'NO' to bad parents" except in your world and the world of those you side with it's only about saying 'NO' to bad male parents.

You are so blinded by your own journey that you refuse to see that the experience of many others has been different.

I'm able to agree that some men are utter a-holes who should never be allowed near other human beings. That some women have gone through hell when dealing with bullying male partners. Can you say the same about some women and the experiences their partners have had?

Again it's extremely clear when it comes substantiated child abuse that the genders are pretty much the same overall in their role in abuse. The factors that make a difference are things like substance abuse, poverty, stress etc not the nature and placement of the lumps. When confronted with that you drop back to DV but I'm guessing that you want to run with the version's of DV that have been subjected to feminist analysis (eg men have the power so DV is something they do).

I understand that substantiated abuse and fatal assault are not the whole story and that there are a range of behaviors leading up to that. The reality is that substantiated abuse and fatal assault stats should reflect the underlying patterns, they are the least subjective measures we have to tell what is actually happening at those lower levels.

Much of what you accuse others on this thread of doing seems to be exactly what you are doing.

You don't talk about the parts of the problem you want ignored - what protections do you think should be put in place while investigations are underway to avoid unproven allegations impacting on long term outcomes?

Just how will you differentiate between out of character behaviors during the stress of the end of a relationship and long term behaviors?

R0bert

I've got this cotter sussed...

Mother goes into regular but unpredictable blind rage screaming for hours and slamming every door in the house with all her might, threatening suicide if she doesn't get her way and crying hysterically; Poor woman needs some help around the house and a mental health check. She has 'a right to be angry', 'a legitimate human emotion'.

Father gets angry and shouts at his wife in an argument; Classic Domestic violence, early signs of pathological abuse. Will be certain to lead to physical abuse so must never be given access to his kids.

Cotter gives an example of what happened to one of her clients, but it is not possible to extrapolate that to other peoples experiences.

During my life time, I have known of only two people to be murdered, one was male who was stabbed, and another female who was strangled. Neither of them were personal friends, and I only knew of them through friends.

We live in a country where a woman can admit to committing murder and still be found innocent.

So Cotter in your case were drugs and or alcohol involved?

<I've known women who admit they deliberately provoke men into anger to force them to communicate in more emotive terms. They need the reassurance the guy cares so they push as many buttons as they can. Then when he shouts or reacts angrily, he's an abusive brut?>

Houellebecq

I will second that, plus I have also experienced it and it is not pleasant to be manipulated that way.

Houllebecq : "Why don't we then take all children into state custody if their parents ever shout". - your callous sadistic comments were in regard to children who have been killed. Killing a child is a long way from shouting at a partner or a child.

Pied Piper : "I don’t think anyone here is advocating violent men get time with their children. I hope even the mens groups would never help a known and proven violent male near a child – I would certainly rather see them fatherless."
Then you are totally out of step with the Father's Rights groups who have consistently supported Court decisions to award contact and custody to convicted paedophiles, and child sex abusers. By opposing the changes to the law, you are supporting violent men getting time with their children - thats why the law is being changed to prevent that.

RObert : "what protections do you think should be put in place while investigations are underway to avoid unproven allegations impacting on long term outcomes?" - Such decisions should always err on the side of protecting children.

RObert - "Just how will you differentiate between out of character behaviors during the stress of the end of a relationship and long term behaviors?." - It is the long term behaviours which will be investigated, using findings of other Courts re:DV.
Don't you just get sick of the pathetic and tiresome excuses for violent behaviour - "I was under stress M'Lud!." - "It was the drink, M'Lud". "I was provoked M'Lud!." "The boss sacked me so I went home and took it out on the wife and kids!". NOTHING is "Out of character or "a momentary lapse". Thats the way you are! - Face it.
Take responsibility for your bad behaviours.

Cotter get outta here. You know you get slammed here if you get into your own personal experiences that are bad and suggest a male ever did something wrong. Where was your head at?

“I will second that, plus I have also experienced it and it is not pleasant to be manipulated that way.”

The boys are on fire tonight.

This not along the lines of she made me beat her is it? No? Good good then, nuff said.

“We live in a country where a woman can admit to committing murder and still be found innocent.”

Could this be explained more fully, just in case I have future plans?

James during my time I have had a lot of children in my care. I happily blame all adults involved from abusive parents to abusive departments not investigating to abusive NGO’s being funded for generations to abusive services that benefit from the children being in care.

But I’d like to know why there aren’t more male caseworkers, is it cause they wanted to go work in the mines instead?

JamesH = "However there is a solution and that is shared care, if care was shared, then the custodial parent would be more able to find paid employment."

"Four years after their parents' mediation, the children were asked if they were content with their current living arrangments. Twenty-seven per cent of children (n = 26/89) in a primary parent arrangement wanted to change their living arrangement in some way, compared to 44% (25/57) of children in shared or equal care. One third (33%) of children in shared care wanted to see more of their mothers, and 10% wanted to see more of their fathers. Eighteen per cent of children in primary parent arrangements wanted to see more of their fathers, and 12% more of their mothers. Of the children who had continuously shared care over 4 years, 45% (n=15/33) wished to change the arrangement, with all but one wanting to spend more time with their mother.
While fathers remained very satisfied with shared parenting arrangements, children more often wished to change them" pp. 395 - 396.

That's 44% (changing patterns) and 45% (continuous) of kids in shared care were NOT happy and wanted to change. This shows that shared care is not working for these kids and that 33% and 93% (14/15) of them are missing their Mums.

Note, the reference to fathers, despite their children's unhappiness at the arrangements, still report they themselves as extremely satisfied.
McIntosh, J. E., 2009, 'Legislating for Shared Parenting: Exploring some underlying Assumptions', Family Court Review, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 389 - 400
So `Shared Care' is working well for fathers, but not for kids. Could it be because it has become such an easy way to evade paying child support?.

Oh dear, relying on Jenny...

It's bit like relying on Elspeth to be even-handed - a brave gesture doomed to failure.

So 56% of children in shared care were happy with the mix of care they have. The rest could be a mix of stuff, some genuine cases where it really is not meeting the children's needs, some cases where one parent was working to undermine shared care by making it clear to the child how different life could be if only eg less rules, more junk food, more gaming time, take your pick there are lot's of way's to convince kids that the grass is greener elsewhere.

Some dad's will like shared care a way of reducing child support just as some mum's are opposed to it because it reduces child support, Family Tax Benefit, etc. Probably some cases in the other direction as well but not as common.

For the record (yet again) I'm the resident parent and I don't get child support nor have I tried to get it, it's a much happier place for all of us to keep our finances separate.

Chaz were you aware of the drop in substantiated child abuse in Australia over the last 5 years?
Were you aware of the NSW child death review team reports and what those reports say about fatal assault?
Were you aware that more children have been killed by their mothers than by their fathers in recent years (at least in NSW) when you wrote "How can the deaths of over 70 mothers and 20 children per year as a direct consequence of domestic violence be construed as `misleading evidence"?
Do you think that you and those pushing for these changes have been honest in the way you have portrayed child abuse to try and support these changes?
Do you really want to increase the levels of abuse and killings? because that what you are doing in your desperate quest to try and slip maternal bias in through the back door of the family court.

Is it really worth it to try and get those extra CSA and FTB dollars Chaz?
R0bert

<That's 44% (changing patterns) and 45% (continuous) of kids in shared care were NOT happy and wanted to change. This shows that shared care is not working for these kids and that 33% and 93% (14/15) of them are missing their Mums>

One of the problems with such socalled research is that even children in an intact family can and do wish that they had different parents.

In the article 'Manufacturing Research"

<The survey questionnaire does not include any relevant questions. Much of the information about fathers was gleaned from mothers.

Eventually the authors themselves acknowledge that this document fails to examine the reasons for irregular or failed contact:

While the NLSCY provides, for the first time, national level of information on the amount of contact between non-custodial parents and their children, it did not ask about the reasons for the patterns of contact maintained. We cannot, therefore, address these issues. What we can do, however, is to describe the patterns of contact between non-custodial parents and their children after separation, and the factors associated with these patterns [p.21]

Based on the lack of information it is not possible to conclude, as the authors did, whether or not fathers are satisfied with the current custody and access arrangements. It is also not possible to describe the factors associated with the patterns unless the factors, i.e. the reasons, are known. Had the researchers asked the relevant questions the outcome may have been quite different.

The same "finding" was rediscovered by the same authors a year later, with additional input by Heather Juby, in their revamped treatise and now called: "Keeping Contact with Children: Assessing the Father/Child Post-Separation Relationship from the Male Perspective” which, it goes without saying, is totally devoid of "male perspective". What is glaringly missing is the question about mothers as gatekeepers and perjurers.>

http://web.archive.org/web/20050308115735/www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

What you are all so expert at is trying to trash any research which does not support your particular point of view. Can any of you point to any research which you have completed and which has been peer reviewed.?. Can you in any way claim any expertise in research?.
No. All you're capable of is contemptuous sarcasm and personally derogatory remarks at those who do undertake research.
You use the first names of the researchers as though they are personally known to you, which I would greatly question, but really it hides your attempts at appearing superior by not according them their titles, and that you are in some way fit to judge your academic superiors. Come back boys when you can show your own academic standing and that you have in any way contributed anything of use to our society, apart from your wailing and whingeing about the inconvenient truths demonstrated by others in painstaking research.
How is it that the several reviews of the Family Law have demonstrated serious defects and deficiencies in the law, and more than enough to convince the government that reforms are needed, yet only yourselves and George Brandis cannot see that children are suffering abuse and death as a direct consequence of this law as currently constituted?.
But then. maybe you do, but take the view that what are a few children's lives sacrificed on the altar of the paramountcy and inalienability of Father's Rights. Houle virtually spelt that out for you all. Essentially, these reforms are about which takes precedence and paramountcy, father's rights or children's safety?. We know very clearly where you stand. And if any of you are lawyers, you clearly would not want your gravy train to stop, would you?.

ChazP:"Can any of you point to any research which you have completed and which has been peer reviewed.?"

Yes, thanks.

ChazP:"Can you in any way claim any expertise in research?. "

Yep.

ChazP:"How is it that the several reviews of the Family Law have demonstrated serious defects and deficiencies in the law, "

They haven't. They've demonstrated that taxpayer funded women's groups have enormous capacity to influence Government to the detriment of everyone, as if that needed any more evidence.

I am contemptuous of the Bagshaw factory because it produces contemptible products unworthy of being called research. they ignore inconvenient data and they misreport data that has come from other, more reputable sources. They misinform the public to suit their own agenda. They write reports quoting themselves as authorities, yet they don't seem to get cited much by anyone else.

The stuff they produce is designed to push a barrow, not inform an enlightened debate. If I make up claims in my business, I can be sued for fraud. When these so-called "professionals" do it, they get promoted and more funding.

Look at my thread elsewhere on professorial integrity.

ChazP just loves the sidestep. When one tack fails try another.

I'll play along for a little bit because I think that the child safety aspect of the push for these changes has been adequately exposed for the sham it is.

Some comments by feminists on feminist research and part of why the claims of such research should be treated with a very high level of suspicion.

http://www.unb.ca/par-l/win/feminmethod.htm
"Second, research for the sake of research is insufficient. As Maria Mies states, "the change of the status quo becomes the starting point for a scientific quest" (Mies, 1983, p. 135) . Research must serve the interests of women instead of being a tool to support the dominant masculine world view. Feminist research must not be abstract and removed from the subject of investigation but instead must have a commitment to working towards societal change. In the form of recommendations for policy or with the researcher being part of a collective involved in political activity, the research can not simply seek to present data and information. "Feminist research is, thus, not research about women but research for women to be used in transforming their sexist society" (Cook and Fonow, 1986, p. 13). How this is played out in the research process is again the result of choices being made by the researcher. Having the research question come from a women’s collective or organization is one such way into staying grounded within the women’s movement. The commitment to feminism as the underlying motivation to feminist research means that research and action can not be separated."

http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/gar99199.htm
"Feminists reject the view that any research can be value neutral. Hence, they renounce research methods which participate in the notion of a 'detached objectivity' and distance between the researcher and the researched (Roman, 1992; McInnes, 1994; Wolf, 1996). "

R0bert

Ah Chaz,

'your callous sadistic comments were in regard to children who have been killed'

Correction; They were in regard to defining shouting as domestic violence.

'what are a few children's lives sacrificed on the altar of the paramountcy and inalienability of Father's Rights.'

Correction; 100% success is not possible, this should be accepted. I support the inalineable right of Children to have contact with their mother and father in cases where shouting (ie abuse under the new definition) has taken place.

'Killing a child is a long way from shouting at a partner or a child.'

My point exactly ChazP. SO why is shouting equated with abuse for the purpose of denying children the right to see a parent? That's what the expanded definitions of abuse in the law really achieve.

'Thats the way you are! - Face it.'
Correction; I have never raised a hand to any of my partners, or to any woman at all for that matter. I have in the past been slapped, kicked, punched, threatened with a knife and had glasses thrown at me by one of my partners.

'Take responsibility for your bad behaviours.'
Just what proof do you have that any of the posters have behaved in any way violently? It's plain obvious to anyone reading that you see all men as a single entity. All men as abusers. I feel really sorry for you.

Your arguments are about as sophisticated as Senator Conroy stating if you don't agree with a universal government controlled internet filter you are pro-child porn and paedophilia. Do you listen to Alan Jones and read The Tele and watch ACA for all your news?

Piper,

'This not along the lines of she made me beat her is it? No? Good good then, nuff said.'

Nope, it's

'You know you get slammed here if you get into your own personal experiences that are bad and suggest a female ever did something wrong'

Houel:“…widening the definition of abuse = lower burden of proof, conflates reasonably sane normal people under temporary stress with pathological abusers.”

R says 'Well said. What BS. Just ignore the cases of entrenched DV why dont we?

"this is about saying 'NO' to bad parents" except in your world and the world of those you side with, it's only about saying 'NO' to bad male parents'. Oops. Cant find where I said anything like that. you presume and you are way wrong. those I sidewith? you mean 'not R. H. J, V? Oh, and A. i never side with A.

'You are so blinded by your own journey that you refuse to see that the experience of many others has been different.' And your right to your inane analysis is none of my business.

Do you really want to increase the levels of abuse and killings? ..your desperate quest to try and slip maternal bias in through the back door of the family court.
I see, so the inevitable men's only capacity is to kill and abuse if thwarted....Hmmm. Why am I not surprised.

Chatting with senior police today, they disclosed how hard it is to get cases through the legal system, and why the recorded crime rate is down, and child abuse cases frequently unsubstantiated. Sexual assault of children is low priority.
So all you 'experts' who play with the stats that suit you, understand that you are playing with the tip of the iceberg.

For the last time, when I say parents, I MEAN PARENTS, BOTH GENDERS WHO ABUSE. AND AS FOR WIDENING THE DEFINITIONS - the behaviours have always been there, you just can't bear to be outed. For everyone's sake, please stop shouting as if the world will turn over and people will lose their kids because of it. it is abusive, but unlikely to lose of parental rights by itself.

Whoever 'analysed my life reality and work' boring..predictable and still irrelevent and wrong. Alcohol and/or drugs. No. Just an overgrown bully who demanded the family obeyed with his rule, or else he got REALLY cruel

'Oops. Cant find where I said anything like that. you presume and you are way wrong.'

Oh really? You've actually even gone a step further and accused all the posters that disagree with you of being abusive in their relationships....

cotter; 'you just can't bear to be outed'

WTF?

chaz; 'Thats the way you are! - Face it.
Take responsibility for your bad behaviours.'

Double WTF?

Personal attacks and accusations of abuse with no evidence to total strangers. I'd say that's a pathology. It's is clear as day you two hate men. Are all people who oppose the death penalty murderers?

'it is abusive, but unlikely to lose of parental rights by itself.'

So why is the widened definition even there then? Why will it protect children more if it will only ever be used in cases where actual real abuse is proven anyway? If you can prove real abuse, why do you need shouting to be contained in the definition? Because you cant prove abuse, so instead you lower the burden of proof rather than committing more resources.

If shouting is abusive there are millions of mothers the world over who are abusive, who shout at their kids all the time. In fact I would say EVERY SINGLE PARENT has shouted at their kids at least once a year.

'You know you get slammed here if you get into your own personal experiences that are bad and suggest a female ever did something wrong'”

You won that round Houel. But I’ll be back.

Comments in the article at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11280

are very relevant to this thread. It add's another dimension to the proposed emphasis on DV allegations which should make it clear to all but the most determined that these changes are not gender neutral.

"Recently enacted domestic violence acts in several states are prefaced by the words:"domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children" (eg. s.9 (3) of the NSW Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007).
Advertisement

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) in its far-reaching report Family Violence - A National Legal Response released earlier this month has recommended that similar discriminatory words preface all state and federal laws dealing with domestic violence, including the Family Law Act (see Recommendations 7-2 and 7-3 of its report).

Racial, or in this case gender-profiling, of offenders is controversial in law enforcement procedures, but to upgrade it into legislation is nothing short of extraordinary. It creates an obvious bias in the minds of judges and magistrates that a particular class of defendants is more likely to be guilty by reason of his gender or race than would be the case if he were of a different gender or race (and likewise the other gender or race more likely to be innocent).

In the case of the Family Law Act, its only possible application would be to prejudice fathers in parenting disputes since the Court would be required to assume that fathers are more likely to be abusive toward their children than mothers. To suggest that courts are somehow able to discard such bias in determining individual cases, while maintaining the general rule as to which groups are most likely to commit certain offences, is naïve and stupid. And if the bias is to somehow be withheld in the determination of individual cases, then why legislatively prescribe it in the first place?"

R0bert

Antiseptic – Your claim to having research experience is notably the only one. There are clearly others on this thread who are speaking with great authority on matters on which they have neither knowledge nor experience. As a matter of interest I have extensive experience of undertaking research for governmental and non-governmental bodies and am well acquainted with research ethics and methodology.

I am equally contemptuous of the simplistic and unqualified misrepresentation of child abuse statistics and the garbage research on `Men’s Issues’ which emanates from the UWS and which is used by FR groups and supporters.

Robert – I do not make sidesteps. I just simply will not follow your pathetic attempts to control and direct this debate and to discuss what happens to be important to you.

Houle : “SO why is shouting equated with abuse for the purpose of denying children the right to see a parent? That's what the expanded definitions of abuse in the law really achieve.”.
Where in the Proposed legislation (Para 4(1AB)(c) - Definition of Exposed (to family violence) is there any reference to `Shouting’ which you are so obsessed about.?.
“Overhears threats of death or personal injury” and “sees or hears an assault...” are not `Shouting’ at a child.

Robert : Where in the `Definition of Family Member‘ Subsect 4(1) in the proposed legislation is there any reference to any gender?. It is your own gender bias and preferences which are showing. Are all those Feminists out to get you?.

Can you explain to me how working class Mums in North Sydney suburbs, Townsville, Adelaide Toowoomba etc be the fire-breathing Feminist Dragons which you all fear so much and where are all those “Feminist Ideologues” which Sue Price claims are lurking around every street corner.?. It is these Mums and their kids who are suffering the ravages of the ill-conceived Shared Parenting laws and I am yet to meet one of them who would know and promote Feminist Ideology . I’d bet you keep your bedroom lights on all night in case those Feminist Bogeymen come and get you.!.

ChazP I'm guessing you are well versed in advocacy research but not so good on truth. You float a perception, when material that shows that to be wrong is produced you move onto the next one.

They won't need to put the gender part in these proposed amendments if they put in the other acts relevant to family law.

How do you feel about profiling in legislation such as the piece from NSW in the quote I supplied earlier or the proposal to include similar in the Family Law act?

You seem to take great delight in suggesting that I'd be keeping the lights on at night out of fear of mum's from around the country but that's pretty much you seem to be taking regarding all the decent dad's from around the country who don't abuse others.

R0bert

'You know you get slammed here if you get into your own personal experiences that are bad and suggest a female ever did something wrong'Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 25 November 2010 8:39:12 AM

Houlle, take care mate, I know what you are talking about thats why I try really hard not to give any personal details out, because it will be used against you.

I think you have been holding a mirror up to them and they do not like the reflection they are seeing.

ChapZ wrote ;"What you are all so expert at is trying to trash any research which does not support your particular point of view."

Yet that is exactly what she does. ChapZ said she does not like gendered biased research, yet by her own actions, she show that she will support gendered biased research that only supports her point of view.

As someone point out before, if you try to develope a valid arguement the general tactic is the label the poster as being a misogynist.

Chaz...

“The Bill broadens the definition of "family violence" in tune with community perceptions and understanding to include not just actual or threatened physical or sexual assault but harassment, emotional manipulation, financial abuse, cultural, familial and friendship isolation and a range of dominating and controlling behaviours. "Abuse" will now include "serious psychological harm" including harm caused by exposure to family violence.”

Shouting could come under controlling or dominating behaviors yeah?

I’m as bothered by expanding definitions as Houel is, my concerns are more focused elsewhere but I refuse to annoy R0bert with them at this time.

James it's all quite equal as far as being labeled here goes. Point out a flaw on one side you get accused of hating the other. I'm sure a lot of us read then sigh read then sigh.

Robert : “I think that the child safety aspect of the push for these changes has been adequately exposed for the sham it is.” -
Please explain how the deaths of Darcey Freeman, Farguharson children, 3 Osborne children, Dominic Xuan Yu, Imran Zilic and many other children who have died or been abused following custody and contact decisions by Family Courts can in any way be construed as a “Sham”. Is the fact that children have been given into the custody of convicted paedophiles a `Sham'. Or that a three year old has to travel back and forth alone between Sydney and Dubai, a `Sham'. Or that there are so many other `Ping-Pong' children having to live week about in different homes, or have to travel hundreds of miles across the country for two hour contact visits a `Sham'.?
Or that children scream in distress when forced into contact visits or return from contact visits with a parent who has self-induced alienation by their abuse of them, a `Sham'. Or that children erupt in anger when their attempts to make their views known to Courts and they are refused, a `Sham'?. Or that children return from shared care visits, dirty, unfed, poorly clothed and having spent the week left to watch television alone with no parent present, a `Sham'.
These are the frequent scenarios from children forced into shared care arrangments. But then, those things don't happen in your world, because you don't know about them and don't see them and don't understand them, and if anyone tries to tell you that these things are happening, you don't believe them. Isn't it all a Sham RObert in your cosy isolated world..

ChazP, I suspect the difference between you and I is that what you call research, I call advocacy. What I call research is something you simply have no capacity to grasp, due to inadequate training and I suspect, an innate lack of ability. As I said, read my thread on professorial integrity.

Frankly, I don't care what you think about UWS - nothing to do with me.I know only of Peter West from UWS, who has always struck me as thoughtful and balanced in his output. A strong contrast to McInnes, et al. Another strong contrast is the amoujnt of funding provided to Dr West and the Bagshaw factory, which is dedicated to giving Offices for Women everywhere exactly waht they want to hear - at a price.

Your response to R0bert:"I just simply will not follow your pathetic attempts to control" is standard Radfem polemic, usually dragged out when the Radfem is losing the argument. Nice of you to conform so closely to stereotypes - it saves the rest of us having to do much thinking to respond to you.

ChazP:"Can you explain to me how working class Mums in North Sydney suburbs, Townsville, Adelaide Toowoomba etc be the fire-breathing Feminist Dragons which you all fear so much "

Oh dear, now you're trying to drape yourself in the cloak of the working poor. Another standard tactic to try to derail the discussion into emotionality and away from the rational discussion of the subject.

I suggest you go and have a long look at www.nizkor.ord/fallacies. Perhaps print a copy and stick it on the Bagshaw factory noticeboard. No doubt you'll be accused of "trying to control" or something equally fatuous.

You go grrrrl...

'working class Mums in North Sydney suburbs'

Not many of them! You don't know Sydney very well. North Sydney is full of doctor's wives.

Aw, I have to pipe into the pissing contest, I have a Science degree with a major in statistics. Lots of Physics involved too. Appeals to authority don't really impress me though.

'trying to control'? r0bert that falls under 'manipulative behaviour'. I think you will have DOCs at your door pretty soon. Hang on easier than that, 'controlling behaviour'.

Who would have thought all the hen-pecked men of the world were actually victims of domestic violence. Manipulative and controlling behaviour? How many wives have manipulated and controlled their partner not to spend as much time down the pub as he wants to or visit his friends and relatives. Every group of friends has one or two guys that 'aren't allowed' to come to the pub.

Piper, I'll take that,

'Shouting could come under controlling or dominating behaviours yeah?'

There is also 'shouting' in the DV campaign... To violence against women, Australia says No.'

It is pretty cute I agree James that chaz is allowed to pick apart r0berts stats, but he's not allowed to question anything she comes up with. And he's the controlling one to boot!

In the end, I'm bored with all this. I just wanted to correct the information about the 'working class' North Sydney suburbs. I suppose it's all relative though, that lot probably think they're working class as if their home is worth less than 1.5 million.

Antiseptic - You have such a naive understanding of gender politics but delivered in your usual arrogantly superior manner. Stay with your paranoid fear of all those wild RadFems hiding under your bed while you desperately try to preserve and protect the walls of your supremacist castle.
Well I'm leaving you now boys as hols begin today and I'm off for a few weeks. I must say I feel like I've been savaged by a flock of dead sheep. But I'll be at my villa on Bribie Island for the summer so drop in if you're passing and I'll share some hemlock tea with you before I come back to Canberra in Feb. Be good boys and play nicely with each other in your little sheds.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/anger-at-no-prison-for-sunburn-mum/story-e6freuzi-1225960478446

Here’s a freaky one.

Did someone forget to put sunburn in the abuse definitions?

I’ve no doubt she will lose the children, the mental cow.

Judge could only deliver a fine. Weird shet. Many parents want court to charge them so they can prove in court they are innocent of child abuse but I keep hearing the police have refused to press charges although govt still takes and keeps the children. The more I learn the less I understand about this system and its reaction to alleged abuse or even proven abuses.

And please mens.. Don’t use it to prove women are meaner or make me go find a dozen articles where the male neglected his children. It’s depressing.

Similar convo’s over multiple threads Houel, gets boring.

ChazP:"- You have such a naive understanding of gender politics but delivered in your usual arrogantly superior manner."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

Just some light "holiday" reading for you. Perhaps you could send the Bagshaw grrrls a copy.

I saw that report TPP. I thought it was a pretty good example of an overeaction to a case of having too much fun to notice the sun, as happened to me on more than one occasion. I remember falling asleep at the beach when I was about 12 or 13 and having to sleep on my stomach for a week or more because of the burns.

No doubt she should have paid more attention, but jail and removal of her kids? Seriously? I bet she never does anything like it again. Thanks to the victimologists thinking is very badly skewed.

Yeah I was thinking that. Light on details, but really, are we criminalising stupidity now? Maybe she was inside watching them outside and it didn't click, maybe their sunscreen washed off, this kind of stuff could happen to anyone really given lack of sleep or a momentary lapse or some such. Well, a lot of people. Not me though, I'm better than her:-)

There's been two ex Australian Rugby players who have run over their kids and nobody wants to jail them. I think running over your kids is a bigger mistake than forgetting sunscreen.

Oh, so we’ve moved onto talking about the housewives living in the north shore suburbs of Sydney. This is the mob that the Salvation Army was so concerned about it produced a report telling us why they were reluctant to leave all the violence that takes place behind closed doors in that region and go confine themselves to women’s refuges…the reason being these refuges didn’t have swimming pools, tennis courts, gyms etc. Just imagine if the refuges did have those facilities…all the boutique and coffee shops in the area would go broke.

Yes, give generously to the Salvos so that they can continue to produce such laughable reports.

Piper if the description in the age piece is anywhere near the truth the abuse seems to be in not getting treatment for the kids.

Missing the protection until the sunburn has happened is pretty common, not getting treatment for kid's in the state they are described as being in takes a different mindset.

At face value I'd be inclined to give the judge and cop's the benefit of the doubt on that one. As for long term consequences it needs to be worked out if the choices in that instance are a reflection of long term parenting or a one off absolute crap day aberration.

R0bert

H…q makes and interesting point. I agree running over ya kids in the 4WD is a bigger mistake than forgetting to put sunscreen on them. But the real issue here is failure to seek treatment for their injuries and allowing them to suffer.

Posted by ChazP, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:43:09 PM

ChapZ a highly emotive post.

The plan fact is that it is much more likely to be mothers who neglect their children according to figures from child protection agencies.

A year or two ago, I saw a dad trying deal with 2 young child. I smiled, he was tying hard and he is on a steep learning curve, having to deal with children without the maternal gatekeeper supervision.

And it will be the best and hardest time of his life.

Children have an amazing capacity to survive the most incompetent of parents male or female.

Another thing is that children even in an intact household will play one parent off against the other, separation makes this perhaps more apparent and is just another hurdle to ove come.

Some parents may infact encourage this type of behaviour either vebally or non-verbally. Rewards such as lollie or ice-cream simply reinforces the behaviour.

but such manipulation is usually well and truly hidden. 'Oh she gets so distressed and usually settles down with a ice-cream, cuddle, story' etc.

Just like a child who tosses temper tantrums when shopping, buying them things, just reinforces the behaviour.

James - And your pretty observations of a year or two ago and one dad have exactly what to do with the topic? Was it his momentary freedom from 'maternal gatekeeping' that caught your eagle eye?

Observing that being a single parent is the hardest job in the world and its an evolving process influenced by zillions of factors might be acceptable. it's hard enough when there are two parents who can actually agree on stuff.

Most of my clients (of those who are single parents)do not start out expecting, planning to be, or trained for single parenting, and it gets a whole lot more complicated when the other parent is an ass whole. So, perhaps if that person changed their behaviour, there wouldn't be so many stats on poor outcomes for children of single parents. Because as summer follows spring, 'single' doesn't mean 'free of the negative influence of bad parents'. And as amazingly unbelievable as it will no doubt appear to the 'experts on my life here'(not) my clients may be men (yay) or wimmin (the crowd says 'boo!) or children (the crowd roars MINE!

<James - And your pretty observations of a year or two ago and one dad have exactly what to do with the topic? Was it his momentary freedom from 'maternal gatekeeping' that caught your eagle eye?>

Cotter

Heaps, Cotter Heaps.

Articles like this paint a very stark picture about fathers having contact with their children. I dont think I ever read a positive one about dads and their kids.

So you have clients that either makes you a social worker, pychologist or a counsellor.

Before I ever found research on maternal gatekeeping, it was some thing that I had already observed and theorized.

What I find really, really interesting is that there had been very little followup on this research. It almost like 'Oh we wont look at that anymore'.

But as soon as dads can be painted as being dangerous towards children, research pours out, like a tidal wave.

Gender bias, Nah I must be mistaken. There's no gender bias here.

I am sure in your professional capacity that you are aware of defense mechanisms.

<Compartmentalizing is the act of splitting an idea or concept up[1], on the principle that 'compartmentalizing experiences... prevents conflict stemming from the incompatibility of the two polarized aspects of self or other'[2]. Often, 'when the individual is confronted with the contradictions in behavior, thought, or affect, he/she regards the differences with bland denial or indifference'.[2]>

Because, JamesH, the issue is not about good dads. It's about unsafe dads. Not all dads, or even most dads, just the ones who are unsafe for their children.

It's not about denying fathers who have any respect for their children.

It's not saying 'all mothers are perfect no matter what they do', yet I have several who are good mums but who have been fined, put on bonds and even jailed for trying to stop the abuse and violence against their child. You do know that even people found guilty of crimes against children are often granted shared parenting or supervised access, no matter whether the child enjoys it or not. But you wont find many of them on places like this because they are not political - too beaten down. So I guess I speak for them to some extent.

Like the dad I saw, the other day. For him the real perpetrator was the mother's father. He said the father-in-law had perpetrated against his daughter (the mother-wife now) and that the kids were in danger.
So here we apparently have a father who did perpetrate against his daughter, and a father accused of perpetrating.

I am neither judge nor jury, My role is to advise.
McInnes is reflecting the stark reality of too many children's lives, those at the pointy end, not the ones who are tucked up safe in bed at night and left to sleep uninterrupted, but the ones who are not.

cotter, we all understand that some bad people exist. The problem with McInnes et al is that they expect laws to be formulated with no evidentiart requirements or consequences for making a false allegation.

It is the inherent capacity for misuse of those laws that is their flaw, not the intent to protect the most vulnerable.

McInnes, et al are intent on making men vulnerable to false claims by vindictive or venal women at a time when everyone is at their most emotionally stressed.

The great harm to the long-term future of all the people involved is simply not something that is of any concern to the professional agitators who write these cash-for-comment pieces.

Cotter I get what you are saying but I think a big part of the problem is the determination of some to play this as a gender issue and to make out that child abuse is a male thing.

Even where the wording of one part of a topic may be in gender neutral terms there are other factors at play which offset that (eg the material I referenced earlier about profiling in DV legislation).

The unscrupulous will play off that will false claims and after a while it just get's too difficult for everyone else to separate the real from the false except in the worst cases.

The issue of dealing with false allegations is a difficult one, it will all too often be difficult to differentiate between false claims and unsubstantiated ones and on-one should be punished or rewarded for making a true but unproven allegation. Likewise no-one should be punished for being the subject of an unproven allegation.

It's probably true that in some cases children are being placed with dangerous parents but that was happening before the previous changes and will continue to happen if the new changes are brought in.

Again you have used loaded language "the issue is not about good dads. It's about unsafe dads. Not all dads, or even most dads, just the ones who are unsafe for their children. "

why isn't that "the issue is not about good parents. It's about unsafe parents. Not all parents, or even most parents, just the ones who are unsafe for their children."

and "It's not saying 'all fathers are perfect no matter what they do', yet there are good dads who have lost meaningful involvement in their children's lives, had their reputations damaged etc because their ex was granted unchecked power by a system which differentiated based on gender."

McInnes is a player with an agenda running very strongly along gender lines who as far as I can tell never tries to bring any balance to the issue. The bad parents in her writings are always male.

R0bert

Cotter, Robert raises some very pertinent points.

You mention about mothers being fined for trying to stop their children from being abused.

The question is, is there a conflict here of parenting styles. I dont know the details of the cases that you are familar with, but understanding that even in an intact family there can be conflict between parents and parenting styles.

Sometimes this conflict can esculate beyond the original conflict. I have seen it happen a number of times.

JamesH : "Children have an amazing capacity to survive the most incompetent of parents male or female." - Very profound!. And of course they then spend much of their surviving lives in prisons, prostitution, and go on to mess up more relationships and their own children ad infinitum. The cycle of neglect and abuse.
The whingeing Glasgow Defence of `WAZNAMEE' used by fathers is getting more than a bit tedious and cliched. "Its not us but all those Live-in Lovers, or Step-fathers, or Single Mums who are abusing the kids". In my experience Live-In Lovers and Step-Fathers are better fathers to children than the inadequate biological fathers who have been rejected by the mothers and by their children. Why?. Because the mothers have learned to be more selective and to choose men who rae less likely to be brutal and to be more caring and concerned for their children's needs. Many single Mums do far better with their kids once they have rid themselves of the brutal self-centred males, who unfortunately have fathered their kids, but the wounds and scars remain in the post trauma depressions of the mothers and the children. Many never fully recover from their experiences and their lives are ruined by the experiences of violence and abuse.
They then often have to face the abuses by the Courts and the lawyers and `Expert' psychiatrists who are the hired guns for the father's rights groups.

I thought you were on holiday, dear? Fish not biting?

Here's some more light reading for you while you wait for the big one.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

You'll also note that I am consciously employing the conversational strategy of http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html.

Sometimes it simply can't be helped.

Anti it's fairly obvious that ChazP got quite upset by the relativly civil tone of the discussion and was hoping that a flame targetted at those evil Menz groups might be just the wedge to provoke an in-kind response and get the discussion back off track.

Probably not the best day for the beach today.

R0bert

<In my experience Live-In Lovers and Step-Fathers are better fathers to children than the inadequate biological fathers who have been rejected by the mothers and by their children.> ChapZ

Ouch! Nasty.

Firstly on the hierachy of evidence, expert opinion has the lowest rating.

So you wish to extrapolate your own personal experiences and apply that to ALL other relationships.

Sure without doubt that there are alot of very good step dads out there, just like there are alot of very good fathers. Often the cases of abuse that get quoted only make up a vey small percentage of society, but the way it is portrayed is that every child is being abused.

Just as there are some who are not particularly nice people.

Interesting piece on child sexual abuse, is that there are female perpetrators, and children who do report this abuse are not believed.

It is a topic that the media tends to steer away from.

Interesting article on research in todays paper.
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/research-reports-are-often-beyond-belief-20101128-18cg5.html

And this is suppose to be extremely rigorous scientific research published in peer reveiwed journals and papers. One must ask what hope is there for the softer science of humanities research.

Sensationalism tends to get the headlines, even when there are errors in methodology and fact.

ChapZ wrote; "than the inadequate biological fathers"

Maternal gatekeeping; "She may question and criticize his actions as a parent and fail to encourage his interaction with his children"
http://marriage.about.com/cs/roles/a/maternalgate.htm

ChapZ wrote; "who have been rejected by the mothers and by their children."

In her paper the Double edged sword of exclusion and rejection, Barbara Leckie describes the bullying behaviour of schoolgirls that is aimed to inflict emotional or psychological pain on the victim. The victim finds themselves socially isolated.

Leckie in her paper wrote that the bullies, justified their behaviour by statements like "they deserve it" or "they were asking for it".

Now I imagine that a mature adult would actively encourage the children to have a relationship with the other parent, regardless of how incompetent the other parent was.

Aah!. Antiseptic (There's RADFEMS under my bed) - so we all know what happens in debates - how bright of you to point those things out. I note that you have not included any reference to your own passive aggressive debating approach and your predilection for labelling as a means of neutralising your opponents in debates.
JamesH - "So you wish to extrapolate your own personal experiences and apply that to ALL other relationships." - you certainly can make quantum leaps of wrong assumptions. I make no apology for not giving you any personal information on which to base your attacks so you now create your own faulty image.
Well lets get on and continue to dismantle the Howard government's Sharia Parenting Laws, shall we?. Or do you still want public stoning for mothers who abscond with their children to protect them from abuse?. And the death penalty for women who commit adultery?. Any further amendments you want to your Sharia Parenting Laws?. Send them to the Sharia Parenting Law Association

ChazP:"I note that you have not included any reference to your own passive aggressive debating approach and your predilection for labelling as a means of neutralising your opponents in debates."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive%E2%80%93aggressive_behavior

"Passive–aggressive behavior, a personality trait, is passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to following through with expectations in interpersonal or occupational situations. It is a personality trait marked by a pervasive pattern of negative attitudes and passive, usually disavowed resistance in interpersonal or occupational situations.

It can manifest itself as learned helplessness, procrastination, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible"

Nope, can't see me there. That learned helplessness bit sounds a lot like the whole maternal bias thing though, don't you think?

On the "labelling" bit - you're right, it does neutralise the substandard shrillings you've offered as "debate" so far. Well done you! We're making progress.

No need for thanks, I consider it a free public service.

ChazP "Or do you still want public stoning for mothers who abscond with their children to protect them from abuse?. And the death penalty for women who commit adultery?"

When I've asked about what safeguards could be put in place to prevent abuse of the proposed changes that's not quite what I had in mind.

You do tend to like extreme's.

I'd suggest that mothers face the same consequences as fathers for absconding with children to "protect" them. Those consequences should be based on the circumstances of the act and the likelihood that the children faced actual risk as opposed to a parents unwillingness to act according to the law.

Not sure where punishing adulterers fit's it. Is that a particular concern of yours? By itself it has little to do with child safety but then not much of what you are doing is about child safety is it?

We have had a clear drop in substantiated child abuse during the corresponding period to the Howard reforms being in place (not necessarily causal but significant enough to pay attention to). We may have had a drop in fatal assault of children during the same period. You are desperate to dismantle those reforms without any apparent consideration of what's worked and what's not worked from those reforms. You are clearly driven by agenda rather than any actual interest in the well being of children.

R0bert

Robert, I think ChapZ is a tad upset with me. Don't know why ;)

Social services accused of hiding truth over baby death.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/docs-accused-of-hiding-truth-over-baby-death/story-e6frf7l6-1225963635072