Many of the people both in parliament and private citizens have a weird idea of bringing up children, sure most children are as close to perfect as you can get, and some children - and parents - are not just a copy book example. The trouble with those making laws on such cases, many could do with Psychoanalysis themselves otherwise we end up with laws which do more harm then already exist. I don't have much - any faith in politicans, they sign a pledge to join a political party, "I promise to agree with the decisions of the majority of the party" seems to be the promise you have to make to join. I consider that that promise means that the person has no integrity, and little intelligence, and doesn't have the necessary intelligence to make intelligent decisions, and this been proved in many areas of government decisions of the economy. But certainly, genuine abuse and other harm towards children, pensioners and other elderly and the general public, should be treated very gravely.

"The Bill broadens the definition of "family violence" in tune with community perceptions and understanding to include not just actual or threatened physical or sexual assault but harassment, emotional manipulation, financial abuse, cultural, familial and friendship isolation and a range of dominating and controlling behaviours."

So anyone who has ever had a heated argument with their ex loses the right to see their kids, because of "emotional abuse". Anyone who has ever argued over money has "financially abused" their ex. Anyone who dislikes one of their ex"s friends is guilty of "friendship isolation".

No wonder there are so many allegations of abuse in family law cases. The few couples that have never done anything on the list are so perfect that they would never split up.

As YEBIGA said yesterday, seperate the question of custody from the division of assets and you will eliminate most of the bogus claims. Also lower the amount of money going to custodial parents. Many only want their kids for that reason. Money brings out the worst in people.

Fantastic if that's what really happens but from what I've seen of the output of those opposing the reforms put in place when Howard was PM what they really seem to be wanting is a return to maternal bias.

There has been no attempt to address the issues which contribute to false (or overstated) accusations - eg the winner takes it all aspect of property settlements and the lack of accountability associated with child related income. There does not seem to be any interest in reducing the adversarial nature of family law disputes with a view to reducing the reasons why parents might find it harder to work together after it's all over. There has be no talk from them of better way's of dealing with false or overstated accusations.

The current system encourages unnecessary disputes, Howards reforms may have made that process more difficult but the fundamental reasons for the disputes are still there. The changes being pushed for remove some of the roadblocks to unwanted disputes without changing the motivations for them.

R0bert

"a future free from abuse, neglect and family violence a real prospect for all Australian children"

The most likely situation where this is going to occur is if the child is living with its mother in a defacto relationship with mummy's new boyfriend.

Prior to the reforms, about 90% of children from separated parents ended up in this situation.

This is not a proposal for a return to "maternal bias". This is some sense in amongst the madness of the result of Howard's "reforms". What the proposals are aiming for is for the PRIMARY right of a child to safety over and above any parental rights. This is what should ALWAYS occur.

The current situation is resulting an children being sent to live with a parent who is clearly not capable of placing a child's needs first and act as a mature parent. I have even seen orders by the FCA that mean that children can not be taken for any medical treatment without the consent of the other parent and when that other parent has abused the child and left visible marks, then they are not going to consent to medical treatment. This is some of the frightening reality of the current FCA system and it has to change for the sake of the children.

It has to be about the children and not about the parents. That is the beginning, middle and end of the whole discussion and for those who believe that the current situation is better, then they need to go and read the reports that have lead to the proposed new changes.

Personally I do not think the changes go far enough. Much needs to be included that is currently excluded but what worries me is that people who know very little about the reality of the results of Howard's reforms will speak loudly about the unfairness of the proposals and that this ignorance will lead to this opportunity to place the safety of children as a priority being watered down and the children of this country being let down - again.

Tired,
"The current situation is resulting an children being sent to live with a parent who is clearly not capable of placing a child's needs first and act as a mature parent."

Who says?

Where did this come from, or have you just made it up?

Are you a feminist?