happy:"I DO NOT get any funding from anyone in any way, shape or form."

I'm glad to hear it.

happy:"Denying that it is true does not negate its truth either."

Perhaps not, but demonstrating that it is untrue by providing proper statistics from Government Agencies like the ABS and the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and many others does negate its truth.

That has been done comprehensively. Denying reality does not negate its existence.

Fathers are not the main risk to their children, their "single" mothers and/or their new boyfriends are. Even then, it's disproportionately an issue in poverty-stricken communities such as exist in the public housing areas of our cities and large towns, as well as many Aboriginal communities.

happy:"Given the research, most of these accusations against fathers are not unfair, they are true."

No, that is a lie, I am afraid. I don't normally resort to the word, but that is so egregious as to demand it. The real research, not the advocacy stuff which is all you read, shows that the rate of genuine offending is very low, despite the constant broadening of definitions by the less-reputable sections of Mother's Rights advocacy, which seem to have the ear of the less-reputable members of the Labor Party at the moment. The fact that an influential politician had a single mum and didn't like his dad should not be the basis of lawmaking.

Nor should research start from a premise and select evidence to support it, while ignoring evidence that contradicts it.

Scab-picking is an old beggars trick, used to make minor injuries look much worse in an effort to create repugnance, gain sympathy and distract the target's eye from the otherwise healthy state of the beggar. It is directly analogous to the tactics used by Mother's Rights groups in their efforts to get a handout of more systemic bias against fathers.

It won't wash as a justification for law reform.

happy's version of a quote "the family law act which directly discriminates against fathers" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11331#192618

Leaving out the context is a useful trick for the less than honest.

The original sentence which put's my comment in context.

"No mention of the work going on to add profiling into DV acts and possibly to the family law act which directly discriminates against fathers." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11331#191902

Again happy please find a single reference where I've stated (or genuinely implied) that I "believe that ALL the fathers in FC cases are innocent good fathers"

Some fathers are absolute scoundrels as are some mothers. I'm more than willing to acknowledge that. I'm quite willing to see kid's protected from either, what I don't want is gender based assumptions used to decide who is the good parent and who is the bad.

R0bert

Robert,
I refuse to allow you to brand me as dishonest, and that is exactly what you called me when you claimed that I was quote “Leaving out the context is a useful trick for the less than honest.”
The preceding phrase did not change my use if it as a quote responding to your challenge when you stated that “I'd be interested to see one instance where any of us have made that claim.” I showed three.
You wrote “"No mention of the work going on to add profiling into DV acts and possibly to the family law act which directly discriminates against fathers."
Note, you wrote “directly discriminates against fathers” not, directly discriminates against ‘certain’ fathers or ‘positive’ fathers. “Against fathers” is by implication fathers generally.
The fact remains that the empirical research has conclusively demonstrated that the majority of allegations in FC made by mothers and children are true and the most likely person to make a false allegation of abuse (in this case neglect) is non-custodial fathers.
The sort of legislative amendments made to the Family Law Act (such as the ‘friendly parent” provisions, costs re ‘false’ allegations and the inclusion of the word “reasonable “ before fear in the definition of family violence) were all designed on the basis of lobbying by fathers rights campaigners. These did nothing to address safety for children from either parent. It just minimised the actual abuse and violence in cases in the FC, to the detriment of the abused children and their protective parents, be they either mothers OR fathers.
While we can both agree that gender based assumptions should not be used, like it or not, the majority of protective parents in the FC just happen to be mothers.

It saddens me to read such one sided misinformed information ms Merkin obviously lives in the world where all men are violent and women are all abused. The day when these self imposed experts actually provide the correct statistics about both men and women that are violent and abusive, will be the day that as a passionate collective group, men and women together unite to stop any violence against each other and especially children. Then that day we will have some hope of moving foward. Reading ms Merkins one sided incorrect articles once again displays to me that we are a long way from solving the many problems in the court system, in incorrect accusations against men and women and depriving children of seeing both of the parents.

happy and I meant discriminate against fathers generally. If profiling is introduced into the acts which states that men are primarily responsible for DV it will be direct discrimination.

I think my use of phrasing is consistent with discussion of discrimination against a group. It does not imply that all members are innocent. I really doubt that you don't understand that, again it's a dishonest ploy to paint those who disagree as extremists. I don't need to brand you as dishonest, you have done that yourself with your repeated misrepresentation of the clearly put position of myself and others.

I've repeatedly acknowledged that some men are absolute mongrels and some women cop a horrific time, what I'm opposing is a system where those who are not mongrels get prejudged on the basis of their gender as though they were.

Those of you supporting the changes has so far been unwilling to discuss any concept of safeguards to prevent harm from false claims. That does not mean every claim is false, just that there needs to be protections to safeguard against abuse.

R0bert

RObert,
The results of credible studies here and overseas have consistently established that “false allegations” are NOT the problem in the FC. The problem in the FC is “false denials”. There are already safeguards to prevent harm from false claims - it’s called principles of evidence law.
False denials in a court that has no regulated or independent investigatory role to properly interrogate these allegations has led to a jurisdiction where there can be no guarantee that abused children are protected. It has been established that children have been killed as a result of a court order that sent those children to a parent that killed them. The question of child abuse after court orders is not reviewed or examined and so is an unknown. Children abuse is unacceptable, but when it happens or could be happening under a court order, it is deplorable.
Your claim and focus on safeguards to prevent harm from false claims of abuse is not a focus on children that may have been abused. It is a focus on those that have been accused of abuse. Those that have been accused are either guilty or not guilty. In light of the fact that it has been established that children have been handed over to parents where there has been NO proper investigation of claims of abuse and some have been killed as a result, it is clear that some are guilty. It is encumbered on ALL adults; it is our obligation, to focus on abused children, not accused adults, whether male or female. The focus needs to be on abused children because their costs are the greatest, they are the ones that suffer the most and they are the most vulnerable