ChapZ, "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."

How can it be an admission if a DVO/AVO is accepted on the basis that no admission is made? Obviously you skipped Logic 101 in your education.

In closing to the above Roscop, I should add that my injuries from three years ago did not result in spousal physical abuse.

Some work related and two inebriated individuals.

Roscop – “Isn't that the role of the police and agencies such as DOCS?” – You are quite right, they are the statutory authorities to investigate ALL such allegations, and all Court officials such as psychologists, psychiatrists, court reporters, lawyers, are mandatorily required to report any such allegations to those authorities in the first instance. Many are not doing so but are giving uninformed and unqualified opinions to Family Courts on matters which are clearly outside of their area of expertise and authority, and are in breach of their professional rules of practice.?.
“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.” – that is extremely exceptional and rare. Obviously that psychologist realised her error of asking a child leading questions and was found to have done so. It could be held that by doing so she corrupted and contaminated the evidence, so any subsequent inquiry by the statutory authorities would therefore be valueless. Something which happens with frequency when unqualified professionals take it on themselves to usurp the role of the statutory authorities in such matters. It is the purpose of the proposed legislation to prevent such unqualified opinions being made in instances of alleged domestic violence and child abuse.
Then, and only then, will children be afforded the protection they require under Family Law, when the statutory authroties investigate all such cases and meddlesome other professionals stick to their proper professional roles.
“How can it be an admission if a DVO/AVO is accepted on the basis that no admission is made?” – it also means that it was undefended, and if an DVO/AVO is granted penalising the alleged offender, then reasonable cause must have been established.

The cost of defending a violence allegation can be made artificialy very high, not just in monetary terms.

One party is favoured by a drawn-out process, the other is deprived of all access to beloved children. In the hope of getting insultingly little contact sooner, poorer decicions are made even by genuinely innocent defendants.

How about, in the absence of police evidence, *both* parents are deprived of custody, *both* be required to pay child support (and earn it) and both be required to justify their fitness as parents, whether accused of violence, or of letting it happen. Perhaps proceedings would proceed more rapidly, affidavits shorter, mentions fewer etc. Clearly false allegations to be punished on a no-tolerance system, just to save the busy court's time.

Worth a try.

Rusty

1/2 Chaz, one thing you seem to be ignoring in all of this with your blind and naive push for the changes to family law, is that in the case with Roscop referred you to, the judge openly acknowledged how harmful the mother had been to the children (even driving them to self-harm) and yet in his own words, he ruled that the abusive mother be given sole custody "in the best interests of the child".

Now if this legislation has no scope for prosecuting judges who make these kinds of rulings, while being satisfied by rulings that are "in the best interests of the child" and judges can currently give parents who the court has proven abussive, sole custody of children and justify it as being "in the best interests of the child", then how can the new legislation you're so zealously arguing for dio anything but sweep the problem under the carpet.

Furthermore your claims about DV orders being unchalleneged works off the assumption of police and the courts being just and impartial. By your own admission, this is not the case, and the system is currently set up so that an abusive parent can use the courts as a personal weapon, rather than them being the impartial arbiters of justice they should be- you're completely ignoring issues such as judicial and police intimidation here.

You've gone to great lengths to take a gendered approach to child abuse, even accusing me of lying about my abuse (and according to others here, I seem to be one of countless of your victims in that regard). For all your claims about wanting to combat child abuse; the attitude you have displayed here has been one of villifying the actions of male abusers while minimising and trivialising the actions of female abusers.
(to be continued)

2/2 (continued)
Therefore I put it to you- do you care about protecting abused children, or only about maintaining the misandrist and stereotypical parts of the status quo (as the two are incompatible, it cannot be both)? If the answer is the former, then stop pretending you care about all abused children and survivors of child abuse. If the answer is the later, then you direly need to reflect on your own attitudes, as what you have actually demonstrated here, is caring soley about the former while trying to pretend it's the later.