2/2(continued)
The fact that the law might be so warped and utterly corrupt in this one specific area, that such a desperate course of action might be the only one open to the victim (short of unending capitulation) and should therefore be redressed does not even enter your mind.

The irony here is that while you vilify antiseptic for showing compassion to a battered man in such a hopeless situation, you openly defend a woman taking the same course of action when the law and social services are there and on her side.

You claim that you have seen way more injuries to battered women than men while ignoring the fact that you could well have seen similar numbers of battered men who have lied to you about their abuse because you, like the rest of the medical profession, the judiciary, the legislature and law enforcement, have perpetuated a culture where if a battered man does speak up, he opens himself up to at best, ridicule and trivialising of his abuse and at worst, possible prosecution after being falsely accused of being the abuser.

Furthermore if you had seen such cases, you clearly would have been oblivious to the true nature of them due to your own blatant bigotry blinding you to them.

In conclusion you are a closet misandrist with no interest with in completely ending the scourge of domestic violence, but rather in allowing it to perpetuate along extremely gendered lines.

@Chaz P – You here claim that the family courts have no capabilities to properly determine where abuse is taking place.

However, you blindly promote law changes that act on accusations without determining them supposedly “in the best interests of the child” without calling for greater accountability for judges (which is the critical aspect of this whole aspect of this issue).

This is depite the fact that even though as recently as last month, Justice Austin openly acknowledged the severe psychological abuse a mother was subjecting her children to yet gave her sole custody of them, justifying it as being “in the best interests of the child”.

bowspearer "you blindly promote law changes that act on accusations without determining them supposedly"

That makes some sense when you consider the points made on the second page of the article.

eg "Recently enacted domestic violence acts in several states are prefaced by the words:"domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children" (eg. s.9 (3) of the NSW Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007).

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) in its far-reaching report Family Violence - A National Legal Response released earlier this month has recommended that similar discriminatory words preface all state and federal laws dealing with domestic violence, including the Family Law Act (see Recommendations 7-2 and 7-3 of its report). "

The combo of acting on allegations without testing evidence is a very powerful tool for some when the "perpetrator" is already singled out in the act.

R0bert

Another child placed in the custody of a convicted pedophile by Adelaide Family Court. It seems to be normal accepted practice in Adelaide Family Courts after so many similar cases.
"A disabled South Australian girl has been left in the care of her convicted pedophile stepfather after the sudden death of her grandmother.
The severely disabled 11-year-old, who cannot be named, will now be cared for by the sex offender who was convicted over the abuse of a two-year-old and five-year-old, the Advertiser reported.
The girl, who has cerebral palsy, was put in the custody of the man as well as her grandmother in 2004."
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8202257/disabled-girl-left-in-custody-of-pedophile.
But no doubt FR supporters will find this wholly acceptable, under Sharia Parenting Law. The sooner the better for the proposed amendments to become law to protect children in such situations. Obviously the safety and protction of the child, was not an important consideration under present law.

ChazP:"The girl, who has cerebral palsy, was put in the custody of the man as well as her grandmother in 2004.""

It is now 2011. Has there been any allegation that the man has behaved improperly toward the girl in those 7 years or at any time?

It appears the Court got its judgement right.

Unlike the professional hysterics you tend to mix with, Chaz, Judges tend to be pretty mindful of the likely outcomes of their decisions.

ChazP - “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…”

Well why are you persisting with your argument that “that Family Courts do not have the expertise nor resources to competently investigate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse”?

I don’t care what Bryant and Faulks are saying, my argument has shown that the Family Court doesn’t need the responsibility of investigating allegations of domestic violence and child abuse” FULL STOP!

Do you want taxpayers to cough up twice to have mothers’ unsustainable claims investigated by two separate government bodies in the hope that those mothers might get lucky the second time around?
The divorce industry is already over bloated.

ChazP – “expert testimony should be confined within their area of expertise and not outside that?. e.g. Psychologists/ psychiatrists/ ICLs/ Court Reporters giving testimony on domestic violence and child abuse. Its like getting a plumber or a plasterer to explain how the electirical system works in your house.” Oh, so child psychologists and psychiatrists and the Queensland Department of Child Safety are not experts in the area of domestic violence and child abuse? That’s right its only people like you who are the experts on domestic violence and child abuse not the qualified professionals working in the field of human behaviour. ChazP you make me laugh…the more you say the more stupid your arguments look.

1 / 2 . Roscop - “Well why are you persisting with your argument that “that Family Courts do not have the expertise nor resources to competently investigate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse”? . I don’t care what Bryant and Faulks are saying, my argument has shown that the Family Court doesn’t need the responsibility of investigating allegations of domestic violence and child abuse” FULL STOP! .”
I’m sorry to have to tell you this Roscop, but Bryant and Faulkes do know a little bit more than you about the workings of the Family Courts of Australia. I know you have a little difficulty with that but I’m afraid its something you’ll just have to accept. Your arguments are based on an extremely small number of highly selective cases, and do not begin to compare with their much wider knowledge of the operations of the Family Courts throughout Australia. The Family Courts have the responsibility of investigating domestic violence and child abuse because the 2006 Act requires Family Courts to do so [Sect 60CG], and can be a rebuttal to the presumption of shared parenting. Of course it has become virtually impossible for a parent to prove family violence and the inherent child abuse because of the harsh determinations in Briginshaw & Briginshaw followed by Amador and Amador, which were more concerned with legal niceties than the safety and protection of children.. The proposed amendments merely clarify the definition of family violence as stated in this Section.
So your arguments are not only stupid but conceited and narcissistical.