@ROscop - Not true. the fact is in many circumstances, that too many so called fathers didn't do their fair share when they were living with their chn's mother. Then, the relationship breaks up, and we're supposed to believe that they're really doing it tough, and being deprived.
Why did the relationship/s break up in the first place;were they violent or controlling or??
How much involvement/responsibility/input did they engage in?

Too many men sit on their bums while their female partner does most of the hands on with kids, parents, in laws etc. The continuing stats re housework done in Australia reinforces this assertion.

Women, including those who also work outside the home still do most of the work at home, including the raising of kids. My ex husband said to me when I was going to work from part time to full time(still within school hours)
'you're going to have to work twice as hard at home' and I did - for over 9 years.He even baulked at collecting the ironing from a few doors down, even though I always paid for it. The list is endless!

Have you even read any of the articles re what happens to women and kids via the Family Law Court, or are you just interested in pushing your own barrow. You should get out more!

What sort of a father were you while living with your kids. Did you share the housework; sick kids; cooking; shopping and organising clothes and purchasing them and linen etc? What sort of a partner were you? You may have been great, but that doesn't mean that all men are/were. You may not have been abusive, but many men are. You need to look at the bigger picture. I've already said, that most couples sort out their shared parenting after separation; it's only a small percent who end up in the Court!

Bowspearer – “, I do want to support legislation which protects children, however what you're talking about wont give it.” – Why do you think not?. I agree that it does not entirely and much more is needed urgently but at least it seeks to fix the serious flaw, highlighted by Chief Justice Bryant, that Family Courts do not have the expertise and resources to investigate child abuse and domestic violence.
I am not talking in theory – this is the clear intent of the proposed legislation – or have you not read it?.
“In practice you have a justice and legal system which primarily believes that women are only victims and men are only perpetrators.” – Not true. There are numerous cases around Australia where fathers have been given custody of their children and mothers have been denied all contact. And many of those mothers have not harmed their children in any way, their only offence was to oppose contact of the children with an alleged abusive father or to have sought sanctuary and protection with their children in another State or country. .Read a few of the cases on Auslii.
Attempts will always be made to manipulate the law to individual advantage, both mothers and fathers and their respective lawyers attempt this every day, some of them succeeding. But that is no reason to oppose legislation to try to correct this situation.
Your derogatory remarks e.g. “naive fool”, indicate that you have no further rational arguments to put forward and you are now resorting to abuse in an attempt to intimidate. Bad luck.!.
The Father’s Rights groups have announced publicly that they were largely the architects of the current legislation and that its purpose was to fulfil their ambitions to give fathers an advantage in Family Law hearings. (or in their terms `Equality’). Yet you claim there are ‘crucial problems” with such laws and the system. Perhaps your real argument is with the Father’s Rights groups.

@Liz45 you ask me what sort of father was I when I was living with my kids. It doesn't really matter, as far as i am concerned, how good a father is as long as he has not been convicted of any offence. If he was a widower and the authorities would not remove his children then I think it should be no different if he is divorced.

I don't care what the stats say about women doing most of the housework or who does most of the bread winning which you don't mention. That is a pretty useless debate.

The simple fact of the matter is that the law should be changed to put a stop to women being the gatekeeper with respect to a fathers relationship with his children, and that includes relocating children without the father having any say.

Making sickening statements implying I must be lying about my abuse and accusing me of wallowing in self-pity over my own abuse - all because I wont be your little propaganda puppet - wont change the harm that fools like you cause. You're a living example of the old saying of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Posted by bowspearer, Sunday, 16 January 2011 9:25:51 AM

Bowspearer, peruse all of ChazP's posts this year along with previous years, insulting, hurting and refuting victims' claims, accounts and opinions on each family law related thread, you won't be the last.

A person possessed with a tunnel visioned, black and white, heartless perspective to most adults that have the misfortune interacting with her.

A hypocrite given she is a victim herself and should be compassionate caring and understanding of other adults' pain and abuse suffered in their lives.

Once ChazP is effectively challenged on validated points raised by other OLO participants, she leaves the OLO Forum for weeks or months while accusing other OLO forum members of the same thing[s].

Every person, other than Cotter, who she well knows on her committees, has been targetted, attacked, insulted and degraded over past years on a regular basis.

An individual who exhibits sociopath traits towards adults and adult victims her speciality.

Yet ChazP has a positive trait exhibited on OLO threads and that is her championing the cause of childrens rights which is highly positive and paramount as a contribution.

I strongly suggest totally ignoring the remainder of her comments that stem from her own background abuse.

Douglas – “Why do you talk about matters from over a century ago instead of the reality of today?” – because the Family Law Act 2006 was a return to those previous laws, giving rights to fathers over children which pertained at that time, restoring concepts of exclusive `ownership’ and `custody’ of children. This is the 21st Century.
“You are saying I am wrong and implying that children can be tossed casually from one mother's lover to another without harm and that is better than the constant attention from any single parent. PROVE IT.” – I am not saying any such thing. I suggest you go back and read my words accurately. I stated that a step-father, or male cohabitee, can often be a far better father to children than their natural father. You claim to have been a step-father and adoptive father – did you fulfil your fatherly role to those children as good as or even better than those children’s natural father.?.
“paedophiles have been granted custody, it is probably true that the law needs amending in this area...” – that is precisely what this legislation is attempting to do, by ensuring that allegations of child abuse are investigated competently and by those competent and experienced in doing so.and that Family Court judges give a high priority to protecting children from the risk of harm in determinations regarding residency and contact with parents.
“Mothers and fathers should both be treated fairly and the child should be granted access to both as much as possible.” – so you mean even if one or both have abused the child by engaging in domestic violence?. Or have sexually abused the child?. Or have threatened to kill the child as an act of post-separation revenge?. That is how the current law stands and is being implemented, when such matters are not competently investigated. Is that why you want the current law to remain, as do the Father's Rights groups.?.
We are unique - LOL - do you also write stories for Mills & Boon?. You sure have a fertile imagination.