Pelican:"Do you guys really believe there are no false claims of 'coaching' children in custody proceedings? "

No, who has suggested that? Do you really believe that a freshly-separated woman would not lie about her ex out of anger? Shakespeare got it right: "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". I doubt the human female has changed significantly since shakespeare's time, despite all the "social construction" of the past 40 years.

Pelican:"You are talking in broad generalisations about a minority of false claims made by mothers of abuse as though this is the norm and represents the majority. "

It represents a significant minority which is far larger than the number of fathers who abuse their children. One of the basic principles of law is that it is abhorrent to punish the innocent. Jury trials were invented and whole libraries of legal thought have been devoted to the subject. The proposed changes make the punishment of innocents a certain consequence.

The reason this is so is because the laws basically create two classes of persons - the child and the adult. Furthermore, they conflate the rights of the child with the rights of the mother, by a highly unbalanced and discriminatory preamble. A mother can make a false allegation and because the rights of the child have primacy by definition, then the precautionary principle demands that the law should override the rights of the father to be properly heard in his own defence.

This is a bad proposed law, make no mistake.

Suzeonline:"What of the male university lecturers who write papers denigrating men and/or aspects of domestic violence or fatherhood in general today?"

On the whole, the only ones who do that are the likes of the discredited Michaee Flood, who has tried to build a career in the Feminist sheltered workshop that passes for Sociology today. Sadly, despite the evidence, it appears his genitalia is of the wrong shape.

Here's an idea, why don't you see if you can duplicate R0bert's research? Nah, that'd require thinking, much better to just go and read one of Flood's fairt stories...

Glad to see that some here read Dr. Flood's fairt stories. Whatever a fairt is.Many commenting seem only to read - "how to avoid commenting on an article and push your own agenda" type tracts.

Cold North wind:"Whatever a fairt is"

Oh, clever you, you picked a spelling error. That should be enough for a new paper, eh? Make sure you credit MS spell-checker.

On reflection, no it's too close to a real fact, you'd have been better ignring it altogether, in true Canadian gender research style. You'll be kicked out of the grrrls club if you're not careful.

"Once upon a time, a fairy princess lived in a great high tower, with lots of other fairy princesses and no men at all...."

I read the article as suggesting children are listened to and that to date the courts have ignored or failed to ask what the children’s feelings were in regard to custody.

This also seems a common theme here through other departments and institutions that deal with child protection.

The parental rights are the focus with maybe the intention that this has some trickledown effect to any children in question.

Children forced to spend time with a parent who has abused them, even with supervision, return confused, anxious and displaying behaviors that seem to indicate that being in the abusers presence is similar to extending a situation for them where they are powerless and afraid.

Other children have forgotten, forgiven or grown older/bigger and are willing and wanting to reconnect.

Pelican

I don't know about other blokes, but my main concern is that family court proceedings have an adverserial nature, that pits the two parties against each other. Add to that the high stakes involved (people's kids and financial security) and the feelings that accompany a seperation and you create an atmosphere where people have a strong incentive to tell various types of lies. I believe that most people are selective about what they say, rather than outright liars. Most parents have a few anecdotes that make their ex look bad, even when their ex is normally a decent parent.

Rather than attempting to pull apart the web of half-truths, lies and genuine concerns, it might be more productive to change the environment, so people haver less incentive to lie. Child support is excessive and getting the kids shouldn't mean getting the house.

Jewely

Taken at face value the original article was about changing the system to value the protection of kids more. In reality, it is a part of a campain to unravel a system that has done nothing to endanger kids (see Robert's posts for more detail). The campain is about promoting the interests of mothers, not kids.

Jewely:"a situation for them where they are powerless and afraid. "

Kids spend a great deal of time in situations that make them feel powerless and afraid, from school to the doctor's surgery and many places between. That is not sufficient reason to allow them to avoid those places. In the absence of evidentiary substantiation, the default position must be equally-shared care. Children deserve it, fathers deserve it, even mothers deserve it if only they could get past the monetary gain to be had if they can convince a court their ex is violent.