Roscop – in Care proceedings it is only necessary to prove that a child has suffered abuse to a legal standard of ‘On a balance of probabilities’. Although in a majority of cases the biological father was the alleged perpetrator, particularly in cases of incest, there was insufficient evidence to bring proceedings in a criminal court to satisfy higher standard of evidential proof of ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’. But the children had to be protected by the law, even if the perpetrator could not be prosecuted. There is no evidence that the main abusers of children are not mothers, the statistics which are so frequently quoted refer only to reports where mothers names are entered into records because they are the parent which social workers deal with and even `substantiations’ of child abuse are not a legal standard of proof.
A National Register is already being discussed between a number of State Police Commissioners at their own proposal as it is a matter of serious concern to them. I shall await their decisions and dete4rminations before commenting further as they may well introduce an exact format of what I am suggesting.
Bowspearer – So six Government ordered reviews and reports, and the comments of concern by Chief Justice Bryant, Deputy Chief Justice John Faulkes, and former Justices Alistair Nicholson and Richard Chisholm are knee jerk reactions?. I suppose they are all included in your `feminist’ paranoid rants.
This legislation is not about feminism or discrimination against any social grouping, much as your paranoia may be telling you, it is concerned with the safety and protection of children and ensuring their right under international law to a say in decisions about them, is upheld and enforced in the Family Courts – nothing more, and nothing less.

Cont/ If there is gender bias in the Family Courts of Australia, it is in enforcing father’s rights over children at whatever costs to the child, even breastfeeding children have been forced into staying visitations with all that implies for their emotional, psychological, and physical development. Children have also been forced into week-about Ping-Pong residency arrangements which have led to their living out of suitcases. Does that sound as though it is being discriminatory against fathers?. So your claim of stereotyping against fathers does not hold water. In fact a case of discrimination against children and a stereotyping of them merely as parental possessions, is much easier to prove
We are unique – I’ve answered your comments on a National Register of Violent Offenders above, but would add that such a Register would have no implications for children’s safety, as I’m sure the Police Commissioners would agree.
There can be no `valid reasons’ for one person to assault another with impunity, except to use reasonable force to protect themselves. The rest of what you suggest is claiming `provocation’ which is no longer a defence in law.
If you have bad laws which are leading to injustices and even atrocities committed in the name of `the best interests of the child', and a legal system which is dysfunctional and biased, then the first step is to correct the laws, and thereafter reform the legal system. Beginning with judicial appointments of person who can exercise objective reasoning, impartiality in their values and attitudes, and can reach decisions which are fair and just. Then it requires a vast education and training programme for those officials who report to Courts and the lawyers who oil its wheels. (and their own pockets).

Yes Liz45, for once I fully agree with you in what you say and that is“…there's the experienced people who can tell the difference between 'defensive wounds' and offensive wounds”. At times these experienced people are called jurists and at a trial covered by the CBS video all they needed was experience at using their grey matter.

Please place the following link in your browser and watch the full episode of the 48 Hours Mystery video titled “Fatal Choice”: A doctor's wife claims self-defense after she kills her millionaire husband. Whilst watching pay close attention.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/48hours/full_episodes/?tag=bc#ixzz1BS2JZ985

ChazP, here's a challenge for you. Liz45 might like to join you in this challenge though I doubt when put to the test she would be capable.

You say " If there is gender bias in the Family Courts of Australia, it is in enforcing father’s rights over children at whatever costs to the child".

You say this within days of a Family Court case being reported in the press which clearly indicates that something to the contrary is true:

"Fury at ruling in custody battle"

A MOTHER found by the Family Court to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children has been given custody of them.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/fury-at-ruling-in-custody-battle/comments-e6frf7l6-1225817724269

The challenge for you Chapz is to point participants in this forum discussion to one specific reported case that supports your statement. The type of case I am talking about is one something like where the father was found by the Family Court, not just alleged by the mother, to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of his children and was given custody of them.

A National Register is already being discussed between a number of State Police Commissioners at their own proposal as it is a matter of serious concern to them. I shall await their decisions and dete4rminations before commenting further as they may well introduce an exact format of what I am suggesting.

'Non-publicised' ChazP.

Police Commissioners do not have the legislation or power to 'publicise' National Registers of Offenders.

I would not be holding your breath.

It's been mentioned on here that feminists do not condone attitudes which trivialise violence against men, yet the evidence of how false this is, is nothing short of damning.

The reality is that when you look at the Dulith Wheel (which has become the accepted and almost unquestioned IPV model), and the number of studies out there which base themselves on it (small surprise that their findings are questionable about the one sided nature of abuse), they are entirely based in the stereotypes of "women as perpetual victim" and "men as perpetual abuser"- thus they do minimise and trivialise male abuse victims, by perpetuating a stereotype that if a man was abused, it MUST have been in self defense. Furthermore, this is entirely in line with the ideology found in the SCUM manifesto, which is still required reading in many university campuses.

Furthermore, the mention of offensive vs defensive wounds completely ignores aspects of abuse such as the level of damage men and women can naturally do to one another, or the psychological aspects of abuse and the ways these could be manipulated by an abuser.

This isn't even going into issues such as violence in lesbian relationships with is largely ignored as "women are perpetual victims" or issues such as mutually abusive relationships which the system is arguably incapable of dealing with because of its small-minded view on domestic violence.

Even amongst feminists who claim this on here, there are still stereotypes which they draw on, such as physical size differences, which ignore the use of weapons, timing of attacks, or psychological attacks upon victims, and in doing so, trivialise abuse against men- as if it has to be argued that battered men are practically an urban myth or battered women cannot be treated with any legitimacy (do I even have to point out how this helps no one in the longrun).