mog the only abuse here at the moment seems to be your comments about fathers who don't like kid's being used as pawns in the search for ever more of the asset and handout pie and runners ongoing campaign against accademics.

Just a little bit of trolling on your part I guess in the hope that you will get the response you deserve and then be able to claim to be a victim of male abuse.

R0bert

Houel:”If you look at it realistically, there are many children better off with contact with a parent who ONCE raised their voice in an argument than being banned from seeing that parent.”

I think so Houel, or smacked them or smoked a joint.

The weird thing is that children in abusive homes still do better than the foster children overall.

This I would call a reflection on foster care rather than children coping okay with chronic (chronic is my new fav word) abuse.

Identify abuse, just the basics, get that early intervention going. Get the NGO’s the hell away from fostering, give them early intervention administration where they go near no child/ren not in the custody of the parent/s.

What I find interesting is that here on this site the male female thing drones on, every thread that has anything to do with families - same old same old “boys smell”/”no girls smell more”.

But on sites where the children are in REAL trouble; the mums and dads are incredibly supportive of each other. They might spew on past partners or individuals but none of this menazi/femnazi stuff that bubbles to the top here like bath farts.

If you want to blame anyone for the lack of welfare for children look at the social engineers who have railed against the traditional family unit for the last 50 years. These include those who championed defacto relations (due to their own lack of morals,) feminist and now gay advocates. Commonsense shows that in most instances a child is much better of with a natural/father. Blaming laws changed by Howard stinks of the usual political hogwash which ignores the root problems that lead to neglected and abused children. Now many of our pollies live far from moral lives swapping partners as often as you change your shocks. If you think these guys have any answers you are fooling yourselves.

TPP

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I am genuinely interested in finding solutions to this mess. I know that you may well speaking from your extensive experience, but is there research that has found that children in foster care do worse than children in less than ideal homes?

Shayne Neumann,

Too often we have heard the chant “The welfare of the child is paramount” to believe you or anybody who comes up with it.

The major threat to children safety is the irresponsible politician and the hungry lawyer.

Late in 1974, a group of concerned men and women put to Senator Lionel Murphy that unless the rule of giving to one of the parents the ‘custody of the child’ changed to the natural principle of - “equal duty of both parents towards fulfilling the needs of the child”-, his new “Marriage Law” would have opened the gates to a flood of divorces and would have increased the number of suffering children.

It did open those gates and the Lawyers feasted on the disputes re: partition of chattels and ‘custody of children’.

I was among the ones that in the late 1960 formed the Divorce Law Reform Association, saw Lionel Murphy twice and proposed the “equal parental duties” principle.

Mr. Murphy was a lawyer, an indoctrinated lawyer and a terminal politician, who was resolved to make legislative history and would have succeeded if he only had been able to step out of his cult of the Law into the life of family and children.

The novel principle would have meant that if the child was to become a weapon, emotional or financial, at the mercy of a spouse, the child would have been taken away in an arranged accommodation at equal expense to both parents.

No more solicitors financially bleeding the parties.

No more children in danger.

It would have been harsh a condition of divorce, but just!

Just as the Courts of Law can never be

Pied Piper "What I find interesting is that here on this site the male female thing drones on, every thread that has anything to do with families - same old same old “boys smell”/”no girls smell more”.

But on sites where the children are in REAL trouble; the mums and dads are incredibly supportive of each other. They might spew on past partners or individuals but none of this menazi/femnazi stuff that bubbles to the top here like bath farts."

I don't think what's being discussed here is really about protecting children. The ones at real risk are mostly already known to the authorities, it's failing's of the general child protection area which should apply to all children rather than fiddling with family law where the real work needs to be done.

All I'm seeing so far is an attempt to increase the power of claims of abuse with no willingness to discuss protections against the abuse of that increased power.

I'm not familiar with Shayne Neumann so I don't know his history on this topic but Elspeth has a long history in the mothers rights groups and those supporting the changes so far have been the usual crowd wanting a return to maternal bias in family law.

As for "“boys smell”/”no girls smell more”" I think James, Antiseptic and myself are all fairly clearly of the view that on issues like this that girls smell about the same as boy's. Parents of both genders do good and do wrong, we are just really over the continued claims and implications that it's just dad's who do the wrong thing.

R0bert