Roscop – “...he had been found guilty sometime earlier of committing 3 offenses relating to child pornography being on his laptop. Also the court found that the father had invited one of his daughters into bed and had demonstrated affection in a way that was inappropriate for a child at that age” - that is paedophilia and incest. The supervised custody was not by an independent person, but by his own family member. – DUH!.
“I don't think anyone (could) can say the family court treats fathers more generously than it does mothers” – my major point is that Family Courts do not have the expertise or resources to competently investigate domestic violence and child abuse (Chief Justice Bryant) but which you choose to ignore, and therefore children are not being protected, whether that is from a father or a mother. An illustration of how Family Courts have tried to compensate ( inadequately) for this deficit, is to appoint virtually anyone to give an opinion about child abuse and domestic violence allegations e.g. Tennison & Gourlay [2010] FamCA 127, as quoted in Aligante & Waugh (No. 2) [2010] FamCA 554 (6 July 2010), where a lawyer was appointed to make a determination regarding sexual abuse allegations. Whilst lawyers may have a great deal of knowledge about legal matters and a range of skills, the investigation of abuse and domestic violence allegations are not among them. Similarly in Aligante & Waugh a court-appointed `Consultant’ was allowed to give an opinion on allegations of child abuse, domestic violence, and rape which were clearly outside of the area of expertise of such a consultant.
In effect, no finding in the Family Courts regarding domestic violence and child abuse allegations since the 2006 Act and probably prior to that, has been based on a competently investigation. So the discrimination has been against anyone, fathers and mothers, making such allegations. But as the vast majority of such allegations have been made by mothers, then they have been discriminated against by the inadequacies of the legal system. Do you get it now?.

ChazP, your response to my previous post referring to 2 cases involving offenses committed against children, amply demonstrates to other participants in this forum, that your concern for the best interests(welfare) of the child is selective, depending on whether the perpetrator is a mother or a father. In other words you take an extreme gendered approach to these child abuse issues.

"...my major point is that Family Courts do not have the expertise or resources to competently investigate domestic violence and child abuse "
Isn't that the role of the police and agencies such as DOCS? I've never heard of any court being an investigative body. I always thought they were there to hear the arguments, look at the evidence and make legal decisions.

@ChazP, you made reference to Family Court case Tennison & Gourlay with respect to which you say "a lawyer was appointed to make a determination regarding sexual abuse allegations" Wrong! A lawyer made an application for the court to make a determination. For your information lawyers are in court to make representations not determinations.

"Senior counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer in that case made an application, pursuant to s 69ZR FLA, to make a determination about the sexual abuse allegations before moving to a determination of the overall dispute"

Plus it should be mentioned that in that case the mother's side relied on an unprofessional female child psychologist to make her case against the child's father. Included in the judgement is the comment ""When asked if he got her to touch him" is a serious breach of an appropriate modus operandi and ultimately muddies the water to the extent that it is unsafe to accept what follows."

That psych reported the alleged abuse to Queensland Department of Child Safety which decided the allegations were unsubstantiated. So the appropriate authority did investigate the matter and that was taken into account in the judgement.

Clearly your comprehension of the Tennison & Gourlay case as used by you in your arguments is poor.

Roscop says why would anyone go to the doctor repeatedly with soft tissue injuries unless requiring stitches, particularly if living on a farm where nicks, cuts and bruises would be the order of the day? Most people on farms take care of their own first aid needs and know that an ice pack is the best thing for soft tissue injuries unless the farmer smacks his fist into his wife's left eye every time then there might a more serious injury.

Catching up on some reading here Roscop.

Blows to the eyes often result in 'flashing' [white streaks appearing as snow flakes or rain drops continually or intermittently throughout a 24 hour period appearing in front of the eye].

In other cases, a detached retina is common which can produce a variety of symptoms, including stabbing sharp pains, or a dull throbbing, sometimes loss of vision, blurred vision, bleeding from the eye, all in all, the concern being that if left unchecked and not treated by an eye doctor or specialist, long term or permanent damage to the eye retina and a person's sight is the result.

When I was slogged three years ago [twice previously with a glass, fist, flying steel object and a cricket ball], LOL can laugh about the last, the flashing did not occur. Whole face bruised black and blue with swelling; yet the blue eyes were intact, no detached retina just severe pain behind the eye and flashing which lasted two irritating months while working in the health care industry assisting other people. Life progressed.......

@we-are-unique, I asked the question and you've responded. Thanks for that. In the context of the scenario I didn't think they were talking about the type of soft tissue injuries you mention ie detached retinas etc, because if the victim was presenting "repeatedly" with injuries of that nature they would also be presenting at times with non-soft tissue injuries such as broken eye socket and noses etc etc.

ChazP:"Antiseptic - " the vast majority of DVOs/AVOs are "accepted without admission", meaning the reality of the allegations is never tested.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves in a Court of Law. If they choose not to, then it is an admission of their guilt."

The majority of DV allegations occur in the context of family law matters. Many, such as the one by my ex, are made as tactical moves in those Family court matters. They are designed to drain the respondent of resources and to place him under pressure as well as to bolster the claimant's case for a greater share of custody of the children. Most respondents don't defend because they lack the resources, either financial or emotional, to do so. The DV courts are not intended to arrive at the truth of the allegations, but to separate two people who obviously don't get on. The purpose of "acceptance wthout admission" is to facilitate that, while removing the evidentiary burden that would be required by a prosecution.

In earlier days trials without evidence where the outcome was pre-established were known as lynchings, or witch-hunts, depending on the time, place and circumstances. I suppose we should be grateful that the modern version doesn't involve a rope around the earest tree.

It's nice of you to show how much modern-day feminists resemble old-time religious oligarchs in both their thinking and their modes of operation. A love of authoritary and a lack of brain-power seem to lead to converging outcomes.