Interesting. Vanna, Tired clearly gives evidence for her assertion in her very next sentence of the same paragraph.

You however have chosen to quote statistics with percentages in your initial comment yet have not cited them at all. It is your argument which is not substantiated and it appears to be you making things up.

Your response is a clear example of special interest groups dodging and deliberately confusing and obscuring these very serious issues while continuing to use bullying behaviour to intimidate and upset those around them.

It is unsurprising someone such as yourself would object to the changes. You and the behaviour of those like you is the very reason we need them.

I realise that this post might seem out of place,but I am 80 years of age, and over the time have seen a lot of these problems which are happening now. As a child in the 1930's, I saw a lot of the same problems that are happening today, and by the same reason. Wives blame the husband for not being able to supply sufficient cash to provide for the family, and the husband - father also blames himself or his wife for being extravigant, or his employer. The whole cause does happen to stem from the low top tax which has been returning after 40 years, ask any person over 70 if I am right. A return to a sensible tax, top at 66.6% on $450,000, and no tax on taxable incomes below about $30,000. This would to be more successful than any other law parliamentarians would come up with, because their intelligence and integrity are in doubt - believe me. If you are in doubt about this, go on the internet and look up "Tax history of Australia" also look up "Taxhistory of the US", "Tax history of the UK" and if you look up "Taxes around the world" you will see why the economy is "globably" bad, low top taxes bring on a recession or in the case of the US, a depression, the workers suffer while politicans have a wonderful time, and some CEO's have obscene salaries.

Kerry "Tired clearly gives evidence for her assertion in her very next sentence of the same paragraph"

Are you serious? A claim to have seen order's regarding a condition in those orders without any reference to the background of that condition or a link to the orders is hardly evidence that "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". It's an odd restriction which I can't think of any situation where it's the best solution to a problem but it's in no way evidence of the claim.

R0bert

Kerry Davis,
Type “Child abuse + single parent families” into a search engine and you will find many studies and surveys to test your assumptions regards the wonders of single parent familes, with the mother as the single parent.

Also contrary to what the author states, the Australian Institute of Family Studies did not find shared parenting unfavourable, which is somewhat inteserting, because it is known as a feminist organization that has carried out almost no research into fathers over a 20 year period.

To Robert and Vanna,

Unfortunately section 121 of the FLA restricts the publication of identifying details of cases without the express permission of the court. If these cases had been ones that the FCA chose to release publicly as part of their select few cases that they release then I could refer you to those however this is not the case. There is one, however that I can refer you to and that is Robins & Ruddock [2010] FamCA 35. If you read this you are only left to wonder how such an order can be made.

The safety of the child or children must always be a priority.

Tired

If this issue really is about the safety of the child, you wouldn't mind changes to the amount of assets and child support that the parent with most custody gets. After all, its about children, not money, isn't it? As Robert says, people will always lie while money is involved.

The family court has to assess cases where both sides are making claims and defending themselves with all sorts of claims. It is easy to sit on the sidelines criticising. Making these judgements is somewhat harder.