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?