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