(Con't)
Your concern and proposal to focus on “false claims” is not only misinformed, but is by definition focused on those ALSO that are guilty of abusing their children. It also happens to be the focus of the “fathers rights” campaigners, who look and sound like those who have either been accused or wish to defend those that have been accused of child abuse and domestic violence. Those that have been accused can of course be expected to deny and minimise their abuse. Those that defend them can of course be expected to believe that their son, partner, friend, family member etc. are innocent. But those that are accused and those that are connected to the accused cannot provide a reliable standard by which to measure the truth of the allegations or how to respond to allegations. The reliable standard is in evidence principles. To engage those a proper investigation has to be done. It cannot be done in a court that has no role or independent agency to carry them out.
By far the majority of people that have been accused of abuse in the FC are fathers, and a small number of accused parents are mothers. Given that the research has established that non-custodial fathers more frequently prompt false allegations of neglect against mothers (the most common type of false claim) and the person most likely to be telling the truth about abuse and custodial mothers and their children, your focus on false claims is by inference means that your focus is on accused fathers. As such, your focus is wrong.
It also happens to be congruent with father’s rights campaigners, and does not protect abused children.
It more often protects abusive parents. In the FC, these by a majority are fathers, and in a minority are mothers.

happy:"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”."

And these "credible studies" would be...?

I say you're quite wrong and operating from logical premises that are badly flawed.

happy:"a jurisdiction where there can be no guarantee that abused children are protected. "

and what do you propose would be the mechanism by which such a guarantee could be made? We're all ears, I'm sure.

happy:"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."

And your point is? Many more children are killed by their mother or her associates than by their fathers. Do you propose we examine every mother for fitness to be a parent if the father alleges otherwise?

Don't bother answering that one, Patricia, I know the answer already. People such as yourself who like to generalise from extremes have no wish to make a better system, just a desire to "make the bastards pay". The kids are only of concern if there's any chance they might go to Dad. Even worse that they might prefer to go to Dad...

happy:"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. "

And if you were the one to be falsely accused? How would you feel about it then, do you think?

Antiseptic,
These "credible studies" would be:
‘False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate’ Nick Trocme, (University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work, Toronto, Ont., Canada) Nicholas Bala (Queen's University, Faculty of Law, Kingston, Ont., Canada, Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 29, Issue 12, December 2005, Pages 1333-1345

“Results of this analysis show that neglect is the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment, while anonymous reporters and noncustodial parents (usually fathers) most frequently make intentionally false reports. Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the CIS-98, custodial parents (usually mothers) and children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.”

Child Abuse and the Family Court, by Brown, Frederico, Hewitt & Sheehan, Report No 91, June 1998, Australian Institute of Criminology.
“The study challenges the community belief that false allegations of child abuse are more common in Family Court cases than in other situations.” At p. 1.
“Family violence, of different forms, was a prominent one. However, when these issues were brought to the Court, the Court took them into a system which gave no explicit recognition to these particular problems. Instead, the Court assumed the families could proceed through a normal legal process, one which would occur through a series of formal hearings, involve many delays, and not necessarily focus on the issue presented — the issue of possible violence to children.” At p. 5.

There is nothing “illogical” or “badly flawed” about my information. Of course, when these types of results are presented, father’s rights campaigners attack the credibility of the researchers claiming that they are “biased”. This attack is mounted because acknowledged academics and researchers instaed have to be vilified by these campaigner because they didn’t produce the desired results that support the father’s rights agenda.

The excerpts above are included in the following annotated review-
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/ap.html

Read them with an open mind because they challenge your presumptions. Are you big enough to be genuinely honest, or not? Or will you prefer to merely attack the messengers?
Hmmm?

(Con’t)
Antiseptic, you posted-
“happy: a jurisdiction where there can be no guarantee that abused children are protected. What do I propose would be the mechanism by which such a guarantee could be made?”

Listen up-
The proposed mechanism is easily addressed- an inquisitorial jurisdiction encompassing the recommendations of the Family Law Council 2002.

You posted-
“Many more children are killed by their mother or her associates than by their fathers."

I stated in an earlier post- “

The excuse that mothers more often are the so-called abusers of children is a common myth by people who advocate for the so-called "father's rights" agenda. In fact, one prominent men's rights person claimed that research conducted by NSPPC in 2005 proved that mothers were the greatest dangers to children.

Look back and read the rest of you dare- Posted by happy, Thursday, 9 December 2010 1:48:08 PM


Further-
“...with small children we worry much, much more about fathers than mothers.
If a mother rang up and said I’m getting to the edge we’d arrange for the mother to come in and be seen fairly quickly.”
If a father rang up and said the same, we’d call for an ambulance.”
Dr Kerry Sullivan, interview with Martin Powley regarding fathers, mothers and child abuse, 28/10/2004, ABC Radio.

There is nothing extreme in my position. I primarily advocate for children that have been, are and are at risk of abuse. I advocate for mothers AND fathers that are the protective parents.

Any fathers and mothers that are ‘falsely accused’ suffer fewer and less severe costs than children that are abused or killed. That this occurs outside of the jurisdiction of the FC is terrible. When it occurs because those children were sent into the care of a parent after a FC order is unacceptable and worse.

Your vitriolic undercurrents are palpable and I assert that your posture is part of the problem, not the solution. I recommend you rethink your use of vitriol as it just happens to be one of the tactics of choice used by abusers

Is that it, Patricia? Your argument is complete? I'd like to be sure you've had every opportunity to state your case before I reply.

As some 17 hours have passed since my last post and you haven't posted anything else, I'll assume you've finished presenting your list of "credible studies", which sadly, are not really very credible at all. I suggest you may benefit from some training in crtitical thinking. You're obviously not stupid, but judgement is not your strong point.

The first one you cited was the old 1998 Thea Brown "research" backed by Nicholson's Family court. The Nicholson court was not a well-regarded jurisdiction. Unfortunately, he allowed it to become something of an international joke, which CJ Bryant has had to work very hard to change and has made great strides in doing so, to her credit.

The Brown effort was all about advocacy and expanding definitions, not about seeking better outcomes for those appearing before the Court. It was also about the situation prior to either of the last two major reforms to the FLA.

A couple of extracts:"During the study described here, the Family Law Reform Act of 1995 was implemented.It did not affect the study but its changes should be noted. It sought to improve the position of children by encouraging parents to care cooperatively for their children after divorce by jointly making parenting plans. It changed old notions of custody and access to new ones of residence and contact. It assisted in removing jurisdictional conflicts between
magistrates’ court orders on domestic violence and family court orders regarding contact." I think we all know what a great success the FLRA 1995 wasn't.

More from Brown, et al:"As anticipated, the study found that the proportion of child abuse cases within the total of children’s
matters cases in the Family Court was small, some 5 per cent."

and

"abuse of children was described in 80 per cent of the cases. However, it was not presented as an issue to the court.
The abuse was not recognised by the parents or professionals as
abuse."

So, IOW, noone except Thea and her girlfriends thought what they were seeing was abuse. Classic advocacy stuff, but hardly "credible".

[cont]