“@Bowspearer – it is neither the professional role nor the statutory responsibility of psychologists to investigate child abuse and domestic violence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
Where in the child protection laws of any State does it give powers to psychologists to investigate child abuse and domestic violence.?. Please give references. There is a vast difference between `recognising' child abuse and actually proving it has occurred to a legal standard of proof of `a balance of probabilities' at the extreme end of that scale (Briginshaw and Briginshaw). What Family Courts are accepting, despite clear standards regarding expert testimony, is uninformed,inexpert, and amateurish testimony of psychologists and psychiatrists.
Psychologists may occasionally encounter child abuse in the course of their work, but if they do so then they are mandatorily required under State laws to report their concerns to those legally appointed services. Failure to do so could result in disciplinary action by their registration body, as acting beyond the confines of their role and responsibilities as determined by those bodies. I note that you resport now to sarcastic asides and insulting invective, clesar indicators that the individual is aware they are losing the debate.
@Rocsop – “The words “consider” and “investigate” are not synonyms.” – of course they are not synonyms, but how do you competently `consider’ without first obtaining the facts being carefully and forensically investigated by someone with the competence and legal duty to do so. But then Rocsop, you never allow the facts to get in the way of irrational and ill-informed opinions.
Chief Justice Bryant is correct that Family Courts do not have the role or investigatory capacity or role in investigating child abuse and violence, that is why when such matters are raised they should be referring such matters for investigation by the statutory authorities appointed by the State to thoroughly investigate such matters in order to obtain the facts for them to CONSIDER, before making findings and determinations. Your knowledge of the law is more about naval-gazing semantics than its application in a reasoned and logical manner

@Douglas – “Is a gender-based approach to tackling family violence fair or sensible?”. No it is not Douglas and as Father’s Rights supporters repeatedly claim that mothers inflict far more child abuse and domestic violence than fathers, then the proposals will be particularly discriminatory against mothers. One can only hope that as the proposed legislation is gender neutral, that it will not be unfairly, unjustly and disciminatorily applied to mothers in the same way the Sharia Parenting laws have been applied e.g. imprisonment, heavy fines, forced to pay full Court costs, and to have their children removed from them and that they will not be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment and other abuses by Judges and lawyers during Court proceedings.
@Septic - mothers are frequently warned by DoCS/DHS etc to stop contact when they allege abuse is occurring but of course because DoCS workers wont testify that they have issued such warnings, then Courts do not accept such reasons for mothers stopping contact.

@Chaz- for starters, using wikipedia as a reference point for anything definitive when other sources are available is as weak an argumentative tool that anyone can possibly wield. Furthermore, psychologists are trained in the assessment and treatment of psychological disorders from a range of causes, including trauma. If you’re making such an utterly ignorant argument, then clearly you haven’t heard of things like the DSM.
Therefore your argument about the expertise of psychologists, especially child psychologists is equivalent to claiming that a neurosurgeon is unqualified to practice general medicine, and is nothing short of ludicrously illogical and ignorant.

Furthermore, I pointed out that you had continuously acted as a child abuse enabler, because that is exactly what your posts have amounted to.

You have constantly perpetuated the myth that a female abuser is nothing but a pseudo-urban myth while wilfully ignoring the latent corruption in the recommendations of Family Court Judges who refuse to acknowledge the need for greater judicial accountability and covering for every single abusive mother who might be caught out by false allegations, by claiming that they're all just "perpetual victims".

You have clearly demonstrated that you only have an interest in ending child abuse in terms of how it will benefit the genocidal agenda of radical feminism (anyone who wishes to dispute this would be wise to read the SCUM manifesto before doing so).

Simultaneously, you have depravedly accused male survivors of female abusers such as myself of being blatant liars, while comparing the legally recognised need for both parents to be in the child's life where possible, to such depraved and draconian laws as women being stoned for dressing in a certain way of doing things such as committing adultery.

My calling you out for what you are wasn't a sign of losing an argument at all, it was a conclusively proven and glaring indictment on your character based on your consistently expressed beliefs through numerous posts.

If you don't like the fact then you would be wise to take a long hard look in the mirror, recognise your own vile bigotry, and correct it.

[Deleted for abuse and posted suspended.]

ChazP:"mothers are frequently warned by DoCS/DHS etc to stop contact when they allege abuse is occurring but of course because DoCS workers wont testify that they have issued such warnings,"

They won't testify because they don't do it and if they were to do it they would be in breach of the law. Glad to clear that up for you dear. Please don't hesitate if you've any other areas of confusion.

ChazP:"Courts do not accept such reasons for mothers stopping contact."

Because if a mother makes such a claim about DOCS, she would be telling a fib. In any other court she would be held to account for perjury.

See, it's not hard to understand, is it?

A bit more of this educational process and you might start to grasp a little of the reality of how this stuff orks. No, no need for thanks, it's a public service.

[Deleted for abuse.]