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.