Benk:”The campaign is about promoting the interests of mothers, not kids.”

I didn’t see that. Or I’m not sure how it would pan out that way unless the child did have their say and stated they did not want to see their father or were scared of their father but I didn’t pick up on any reference about gender. I saw it as promoting the interests of the kids. I am going to head back and read it though and find R0berts post..

Anti:”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.

I should have been clearer. Children being forced to see parents that HAVE abused them is further abuse on a child who does not want to see their abuser.

Children being afraid is not where we should set the bar is it? Adult victims often do not want to be forced into the company of their attacker, why would we do it to a child?

In any system that makes the welfare of the child a priority isn’t the first consideration the child and the wishes of the child? I think in general children’s opinions are rather undervalued. Child being generally from 0 – 18 years old.

Anti:”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.”

Hahaha. Nice one throwing that in their Anti.

Jewely, like everything there has to be balance. It's only in the last few months my son has reached the point that he has decided that he would rather live with me than with his mother. His preference's were not in his own best interests, they were a result of a preference not to have boundaries enforced and some differences in personalities and the way homes are run.

I can see benefit in improving the way allegations of abuse (and DV are handled) but I'm not seeing anything from those pushing these changes to suggest that they want to do so in a fair manner. There have been pre-ambles in some state legislation relating to DV nominating men as the most likely perpetrators and a push to put that into the family law act. There has been no willingness to discuss safeguards against false claims or removal of incentives to make false claims.

It's been promoted in terms of dismantling the shared care changes brought in based on the idea that children are being placed at risk. Possibly true but no more than under maternal bias or a system where a non-male parent making an allegation of abuse or DV might be able to use those claims to establish patterns of post separation residency.

It's difficult to find current national official stats on fatal assault of children or intimate partners. The stuff I have seen suggests rates are slightly lower than they were before the changes were bought in and there was no evidence of a jump in either. The rates of substantiated child abuse have dropped 4% over a similar period and the proportion of substantiated abuse in single parent male lead households has not climbed despite more kids living in those households.

I put some of the material at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11307#191415

and an earlier series of posts starting at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#189898

R0bert

Hey R0bert I am unsure if I was directed to this post of yours or not.

R0bert:”They will point out that PAS is technically not a syndrome while pretend that parents are unable to impact on the attitudes of children.”

PAS isn’t really anything is it? Sounds catchy but as a “syndrome” doesn’t it imply it is on some mass scale?

R0bert:”They don't seem to want to talk about the impacts on children on increasing the opportunity for adversaial behaviour in family law.”

Weird thing about most children is… if they love a parent they start to resent anyone speaking negatively about them.

Families breaking up is such a huge horror for so many children, usually both parents are not who they usually are. You suggested awhile ago a bit more distance in time for emotions to settle or any accusations to be swiftly investigated, which made sense.

R0bert:”They don't seem to want to talk about any safeguards to prevent abuse via false claims.”

False claims in court are perjury? Or there is a process to deal with them already? I have no idea… blah, will go try find out.

Dane:”Great quote. I love how financial support doesn't count. So men who are responsible and work hard to support their families are penalised because of their lack of 'emotional' connection with their children.
I guess men who are on the dole but at are at least at home should retain custody because of their continued 'emotional' connection?

Funny one Dane but children through a lot of history in our society children were just rapt when dad came through the door. They bragged about their dads and would absolutely make it clear how much of an emotional connection existed. It isn’t always quantity that creates connections and many children found it shameful if both parents were home - out of work.


R0bert just spotted your new post...

I remember my parents saying (never eventuated) that they were going to divorce and who did I want to live with. Not being afraid of either of them my only thoughts were along the lines of dad would be more fun but I didn’t think he knew how to use the washing machine or cook a meal so my vote went the way of my mother.

But if a child is genuinely afraid I don’t think their clothes or food would be foremost in their thoughts.

False claims are probably 50% of community service hotline calls. Reading about the Swedish thing and Assange on the Crikey site this bit was interesting:

“But then neither Arden nor Wilén complained to the police but rather “sought advice”, a technique in Sweden enabling citizens to avoid just punishment for making false complaints.”

So the Swedish have some kind of filtering process. Not sure if it worked in that particular case though.

What exactly is a “male lead” household? Would a solo mother’s house be a “female lead”? But it is sounding hopeful for the children although 4% sounds like a very small number. Stats I usually read as small lies accompanied by bigger lies.

Mostly what I gather from them is that step mothers are the safest parents.
Poor people kill more often than rich.
0-4 year olds are easier to kill.
So we can conclude that all children at birth should be removed from parents and handed to a non-relative wealthy female until 4 years old.

Jewely "False claims in court are perjury? Or there is a process to deal with them already? I have no idea… blah, will go try find out."

From what I've read they are rarely if ever treated that way even when proven to be deliberately false in family law.

It also get's a lot more difficult when you think about how hard it can be to tell the difference between lack of evidence and a deliberate false claim. Just as I don't want to see accused parents having their lives ripped to pieces on the basis of false claims I'd not like to see concerned parents unable to make claims if the proof was not overwhelming.

Where it's clear that the claim is deliberately false then there should be consequences, where a claim is unproven we need to avoid rewarding the accuser and punishing the accused (or visa versa).

There is no one size fit's all answer but there are things we could do to reduce the motivation and risks around false accusations. A number of them have been raised during these discussions.

R0bert

Jewely "Would a solo mother’s house be a “female lead”? But it is sounding hopeful for the children although 4% sounds like a very small number"

Yes to the first. The household type is not necessarily saying who was the abuser but it's about as close as I can find in that type of stat.

4% is not gigantic but it's a lot better than an increased rate which is what those wanting to undo shared care are implying or in some cases claiming.

I've not found any better breakdowns of the data, the drop is not necessarily related to shared care (maybe the NT intervention is working better than expected) but it is significant that the proportion of substantiated abuse in male lead households has not risen overall (down in some states, up elsewhere) despite more kid's living in those households.

I'd like to see more analysis of the before and after data before any changes are made.

I suspect whatever we do the system will never be perfect, that wealthy relative might just be a nutter. I do think that there needs to be really good cause to dismantle any changes which have coincided with a drop in substantiated abuse.

R0bert