2 / 2 Roscop - “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”.
Psychologists and psychiatrists have neither the training, qualifications, nor the experience in investigating child abuse. Their respective professional roles are to study the behaviours and mental functioning of individuals, and to diagnose and treat mental illness. Nowhere in their professional practice rules does it say they should investigate domestic violence and child abuse. The involvement of a child protection authority is extremely rare in Family Court cases. In general they refuse to become involved and cannot be made to do so. (see current case in Tasmania). They take the view that the Family Law Act 2006 (Federal law) supercedes State laws on child protection. But they frequently give instructions to mothers that they have substantiated the children’s allegations of abuse during contact or shared custody by the father and that she should stop contact (thereby contravening the FC Orders) or they will remove the children because she is failing to protect them. The mother then stops contact. The father brings action against her for contravening the Orders, the child protection authorities refuse to attend court and give testimony of their instructions and the mother loses custody of the children. In other words they present mothers with a classic Catch 22.
Psychologists and psychiatrists are mandatorily required under State child protection laws to report any disclosures or allegations of child abuse to the statutory authorities, but frequently fail to do so and there appears to be no enforcement of mandatory reporting requirements..

@Chaz.P - the notion that child psychologists are not experts in recognising child abuse is nothing short of ludicrous and completely causes you to lose all credibility.

Furthermore, for someone who is so focused on legal experts, I would point you to the early poineer of the Western model of the judiciary Cicero. In every single one of ythe cases he was involved in, and they were numerous, he would ask a simple question, "Qui bono?" or who benefits?

Now as has already been demonstrated, a legal situation where children can be placed in sole custody of abusive parents, while justified as being "In the best interests of the child" by judges who may do so with complete impunity, does not benefit children in any way, shape or form.

However judges being able to act illegally with complete impunity completely benefits them. Therefore it should come as no surprise that judges would direct law reforms away from addressing the issue of judicial accountabilty.

So then why would you as a member of the SCUM sisterhood (afterall that is the manifesto of you and your ilk, is it not) be interested in these reforms? The answer is that quite simply put, they benefit misandrist and abussive women such as yourself. The fact that you would resort to panic mongering by trying to compare a stopgap against abussive parents using the legal system as a weapon and psychologically abusing their children by reducing them to mere leverage, to radical Islamic laws which stoneonly proves how hollow and fraudulent your claims about caring about abused children truly are.

ChapZ - “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]”… No, they don’t that responsibility and Sect 60CG doesn’t say anything of the kind. Section 60CG of the Family Law Act says the family court has to consider the risk of family violence, not investigate allegations. The words “consider” and “investigate” are not synonyms.

In a keynote address given by Deputy Chief Justice Faulks (page 10) he quotes Chief Justice Bryant saying “[Australian] family courts are not forensic bodies. They do not have an independent investigatory capacity or role when violence or abuse is alleged … Family courts are reliant upon other agencies, particularly child welfare departments and police, to undertake investigations into matters that may be relevant to the proceedings before it.”

Do you know the meaning of word “do not have” and “or role”?

ChapZ your understanding of the English language when expressed in its simplest form is abysmal and shows that when it comes to debating issues like this one you are well out of your depth.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s60cg.html
http://law.anu.edu.au/coast/events/FamLaw/audio_papers/faulks.pdf

An open question for people to ask of themselves, and to reveal their thoughts on if they wish. In the past few postings there has highlighted one case of a man potentially being a danger to a child and one case of a woman being a danger to a child. I am NOT suggesting any pointless arguments over which is worse (get on with your stupidities if you want but that is not my message). I am going to REVERSE the genders:

1) A disabled girl has been left in the care of her convicted pedophile stepmother. The woman was convicted over the abuse of a two-year-old and five-year-old. The 11-year-old girl will now be cared for by the sex offender.

2) Justice Austin acknowledged the psychological abuse a father was subjecting his children to yet gave him sole custody of them, justifying it as being “in the best interests of the child”.

Those two cases have just had the genders of the carers reversed. Does that really make it any better? Is justice served any better just because of the gender change?

If either of these are wrong, does it really matter what sexual organs anyone - adult or child - has?

Is a gender-based approach to tackling family violence fair or sensible?

Suzieonline - "What if she refuses sex?" That's nothing to get upset about. Just seems to me that she over values herself and has therefore passed her "use by date".

In the online world of today you'll be pleased to discover just how easy it is to find a keener and more loving woman elsewhere. As a bloke and as time goes on you'll be wondering why you didn't explore outside the relationship sooner.

Benk <" Nothing that has been posted supports your claim that any male posters here might attack their partners."

I beg to differ Benk. Where exactly have I ever said anyone on this forum attacks their partner? How on earth would I know that?
Some posters have said they have had AVO's taken out against them, but have always blamed their female partners for this action, so again I ask you, how the hell would I know?

I find it amusing that many posters continue with the same lame reasons for all my arguments on domestic violence... that is that I apparently hate men.
It doesn't seem to matter that I have said over and over that I don't hate most men. I have a wonderful husband, father, brothers, nephew, male friends and male colleagues.

Yet, strangely enough, I never hear about the wonderful women in many of the male posters lives?
So who has more hatred on their minds then?

Anyway, I am bored now with the repetitive nature of this thread, so I will see you all on another thread