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.