Jewely

No, the author didn't directly say that fathers were a threat to kids. Instead, they said that changes that meant more kids spending more time with their dads had put kids at risk. Isn't it interesting how some people can imply something in a way that allows then to deny having said it?

There is no debate about keeping kids away from people who have been revolting parents. The debate is about claims that aren't backed up with evidence or seem to be overstating the seriousness of an incident. These claims occur in a context where people have strong incentives to lie.

Regarding penalties for lying, the court uses the best interests of the children as the most important test. Once mum has made the allegations she will normally get the kids. If the allegations prove to be untrue, she cannot be punished, because it will disadvantage the kids. Best interests of the kids means the best interests of the parent with most custody.

In relation to the wants of the kids, surely you have met some kids who miss parents who have done a crap job of parenting. Giving autonomy to kids is nice to a point, but sometimes adults need to be the adult.

Benk,

There has only been a 4% increase in shared parenting, and it is questionable as to why the opposition and fuss.

I think the answer lies in the fact that there were few or no complaints when fathers were only seeing their children every second weekend.

That system was completely acceptable to feminists and their hangers-on, because fathers could not be parents to their children when they were only seeing their children every second weekend.

I just found an interesting piece on Shared Care

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/%289A5D88DBA63D32A661E6369859739356%29~Shared+Care+Parenting+Arrangements+since+the+2006+Family+Law+Reforms-+Final+version+16.6.2010.PDF/$file/Shared+Care+Parenting+Arrangements+since+the+2006+Family+Law+Reforms-+Final+version+16.6.2010.PDF

The Conclusion section
"Overall, this research paints a positive picture of shared care in terms both of parental satisfaction and children‘s wellbeing. However, it remains only a relatively small minority of parents who can share the care of the children and fewer still manage to sustain it for a substantial period of time. Much of the success of shared care derives from factors other than the care arrangement itself, and in particular, higher levels of cooperation and joint decision-making and a lower incidence of reported violence or safety concerns. There are nonetheless, some parents who share care who do not have a cooperative relationship, and some children whose experience of shared care is not positive. There is no reason to suggest that shared care is intrinsically better or worse than the more common pattern of primary maternal care, except for the fact that it is one form of care with which both parents are satisfied, and this may be a factor in reducing conflict over post-separation parenting arrangements."

I've not read it all yet and it's clear that there are difficulties with court ordered shared care because of the levels of conflict involved.

My own view is that the legislative context does set expectations for those who make decisions without the courts. I the courts rarely agree to shared care then it's much harder to get a partner who is not keen on it to agree to it.

R0bert

Jacksun dear, don't waste ur time here, it's a bunch of sad, sad ppl who thinks that sitting behind a computer instead of spending time with children, that's who you are getting ur advice from. they dun care, can't even spell ur user name correctly.

dey think they are making a change.

our chidren already hv it good, a lot better then a decade ago, and they are more aware and smarter then us, so if you try anything funny with them it will end up haunting u for the rest of your lives. they are going to be our future leaders, with a lot better ideas on how to change this. we will not be around, when they carry on our legacy. whatever happens to a child, it was meant to be. if you care enough, adopt one suffering child, and make a difference. show him/her love and care, and that, is spending time wisely.

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

A "syndrome" implies a pattern of symtomatic indicators. PAS is a "syndrome" because those perpetrating it show a common pattern of behaviours. It does not imply "some mass scale".

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

Oh dear, nice way to poison the well Jewely. The fact is that PAS is a problem when maternal gatekeeping prevents the father from seeing his children. If a child is excited and expectant about seeing their loving father only to be told time after time "dad rang, he couldn't be bothered coming to see you", while not knowing that dad had been told by mum that if he came she'd call the police and say he'd been violent? How long do you reckon it would take before the kid started "hating" dad"?

PAS works by stopping the child seeing their father, blaming the father for being neglectful, vilifying the father to the child and denigrating the father's love for the child. That sort of conditioning works very well on adults. What makes you think a child is so much better at fighting it?

Robert,
If the verdict is that we go back to the 80:20 formula, then there would ve a very good case for men to not have any children.

We live in a society with a culture of divorce and separation, and a culture of male and father vilification.

It is very much a feminist culture, and if a man wants to be paying for children he rarely sees and has no say in their upbringing, he has children.