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