@Douglas- to answer your first question; yes, I'm afraid it did. It was a story which made the news here a while back. In a nutshell, this 15 y.o. boy was raped by his friend's mother at the friend's slumber party. The mother fell pregnant and kept the child. Now while the mother was charged and found guilty for the rape; because the underage boy was the biological father of the child, the courts ordered that he should have to pay child support.

As for the rest of your post; for the most paqrt, I agree but it's almost putting the cart before the horse. I completely agree that it is the solution to the problem. However society cannot solve the problem until they admit to it existing.

This is why I argue that it has to begin with greater accountability for judges. If judges were challenged on unlawful rulings they had blatantly and knowingly made enough times, then the scope of the problem and thus public awareness of the problem, could be achieved. From there, certainly that solution could begin to be implemented, but not before such a point was reached.

bospearer "If judges were challenged on unlawful rulings they had blatantly and knowingly made enough times"

I recieved informal advice from a barister who represented me at one point that the ruling given by the magistrate was probably not legitimate (in terms of her authority to make that particular ruling not just my disagreeing with it). I attempted to find out if there was any kind of review process taking the view that if the advice I'd recieved was correct it should be a simple matter for the courts to determine. The response was that I would need to lodge an appeal if I wanted something done.

That lack of any kind of review process able to deal with a simple check to see if a ruling was lawful or not is yet another failure with a deeply flawed system.

R0bert

[Deleted for abuse.]

1/2
@Chaz- the issue was not what legal powers child psychologist have been granted, but whether they are experts in recognising child abuse to the point where they could be regarded as expert witnesses in courts. We both know the answer to that is a definitive “yes”, despite your pathetic attempt at spin.

Furthermore, in matters of determining state of mind and causes of said state of mind within individuals, the courts have a long history of drawing on psychologists to give expert testimony after assessing the individuals in question. Furthermore, in the recent case which Justice Austin presided over, a child psychologist had been utilised by the courts and their testimony was taken as being highly credible. This is no different to any legal case in modern history where judgements on both an individual's state of mind, and the causes of it, have needed to be determined by the courts. On a slight tangent to this, this same case proves that even with shared parenting, which was supposed to prevent parents using false allegations to gain sole custody of children; that abusive parents can still make fraudulent claims of abuse against a non-abusive parent, psychologically abuse their children, then be granted sole custody by the courts. Thus your claims about shared parenting really don’t stack up.

Furthermore, your arguing that the recommendations of Family Court judges regarding the FL Act are altruistic, when what was noticeably absent from said recommendations was not only greater accountability for judges, but avenues for prosecution of judges where they knowingly make rulings which facilitate criminal acts, in this case child abuse, shows how you really couldn't care less about abused children.

(to be continued)

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]