Next, let's look at the Canadian (oh dear) study you mentioned. I have a copy of that report, as it happens.

It is a considerably more detailed study than dear old Thea's rather limited effort, but it has a few teemsy flaws.

Firstly, it is Canadian. the Canadian legal framework is a great deal different to the Australian one and is extremely gynocentric. Substantiation is much easier in Canada because the definitions are so broad as to include almost all normal human interactions that involve any kind of conflict or disagreement.

Secondly, the definitional expansion that has taken place in Canada makes it meaningless to compare Canadian data with Austrlian or any other data sets.The study itself acknowledges the problem:

"Definitional confusion is a common source of misunderstanding in the debate about the problem of false allegations of abuse. Rates on unsubstantiated abuse typically reported by child welfare services
range from 30 to 70%."

So, I'm sorry, Patricia, you'll have to do better than that if you want credibility, I'm afraid.

You might like to look at this link for a clearer view of the Australian situation.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs1/rs1.html

Just under 30% of investigated claims were sunstantiated, but less than half the claims were thought worthy of investigation. IOW just about 15% of all claims were substatiated, or 1 in 6.

happy:"an inquisitorial jurisdiction encompassing the recommendations of the Family Law Council 2002. "

How does an inquisatorial Court fit into the Westminster framework, do you think? And who shall pay if the allegation is unsubstantiated? Will the falsely accused be reimbursed for costs?

happy:"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. "

Patricia, repeating the same misinformation doesn't make it magically correct. One of the great difficulties in understanding the trends in child homicide is the lack of data collected by crime reporting agencies. However, the report below does

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/190_01_050109/nie10592_fm.html

[cont]

From that report:
"Most child homicides are the result of the physical abuse of children, while others are associated with severe mental illness, anger arising from the breakdown of relationships, and a range of less common factors."

and

"Fatal child abuse was the most common cause of death (59 of 165 victims). After excluding teenage homicides, the mean ages of both offenders and victims were significantly younger than those of the offenders and victims in other child homicides (offenders, 25.0 years v 30.5 years; t = &#8722; 3.84; P < 0.001; and victims, 1.5 years v 6.7 years; t = &#8722; 7.3; P < 0.001). The offender was often the child’s mother or de-facto partner."

and

"Conclusions:

Earlier identification and treatment of psychotic illness in mothers, and changes in the way methadone is provided to opiate-dependent parents, might result in a small overall reduction in the number of child deaths. More lives could be saved by measures that reduce the incidence of child abuse, including the prohibition of corporal punishment of children."

Are you beginning to understand what "credible" means yet, Patricia?

happy:"“...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,"

I suggest to you that Dr Sullivan's attitude is poorly informed.

I'm afraid your generalisations from extremes aren't convincing, Patricia.

happy:"I recommend you rethink your use of vitriol as it just happens to be one of the tactics of choice used by abusers"

and I suggest you rethink your use of distortions and lies, which are the tactics of choice of idiots bereft of any capacity to understand reality. Have a lovely day, won't you dear?

Antiseptic,
Posted by happy, Thursday, 16 December 2010 12:12:50 PM “... 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 instead have to be vilified by these campaigners because they didn’t produce the desired results that support the father’s rights agenda.”

Thus, you have confirmed my earlier assertion and you appear to be a father’s rights campaigner- not an adult who is prepared to put the interests and wellbeing of abused children first. You are more interested in promoting an environment that advantages those people in the Family Court cases, mostly men, which have been accused of abusing their own families.

You used ten “put-downs” in this your latest post in relation to academically trained researchers and Justice Nicholson, and me.

You cannot propose, seriously propose, that Nick Trocme, (University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work, Toronto, Ont., Canada) and Nicholas Bala (Queen's University, Faculty of Law, Kingston, cannot produce credible research. You only put them down by describing the research with “oh dear” in a condescending tone and proposing a totally irrelevant point that it was carried out in Canada, a Western liberal democracy congruent with the jurisdiction in Australia, because they didn’t give you the results you would like, not because they’re not credible!

You use the derogatory terms “old Thea” “her girlfriends” and “teensy flaws” for Professor Brown, her colleagues and the research because they didn’t produce the results you preferred, NOT because the Australian Institute of Criminology uses substandard professors or inferior research.

You refer to Justice Nicholson as having a court that was not “well-regarded” but my question is- by whom? Certainly not by father’s rights campaigners, to whom it appears very much so that it is your colouring.

It is people with the attitudes that you seem to hold that can take credit for the situation where children are being sent to an abusive parent under a family court order, many of whom are abusive fathers but ALSO some abusive mothers. That is why father’s rights groups cannot help women OR men who are the protective parents. You stand for the men that abuse their own families and by default for the women who should not have the children. Well Done!

Your insult to me that I cannot think critically, you accuse me of lying and distorting, betrays your own modus operandi- ‘when confronted, attack personally’. It just happens to be the method habitually engaged by perpetrators of intimate and social violence.

The research you referenced is about child deaths and the connection to drug abuse mothers in the general population- not the Family Court. It therefore appears that you are the one not critically reading. Thanks to the type of agenda you appear to subscribe to, these are the sort of mothers that are advantaged by a family law environment that minimises child abuse and narrows its definition- the problem Nicholson J. and Brown et al identified

Your suggestion that Dr Sullivan's attitude is “poorly informed” is purely because he stated something that didn’t suit your frame of reference. Not because he said something that is not true. As a leading child abuse specialist and part of a scan team, I and anyone who is genuinely sincere tend to put more weight on his words than someone that promotes the sort of attitude and agenda you do.

You appear to be more concerned with the ‘falsely accused’ adults who happen to be men, and disparage the research that shows that these are mostly not false claims because you don’t like to admit the truth-not because the research is not credible. Therefore, you do not appear to be genuinely concerned with the plight and suffering of children that are sent to further abuse or death AFTER a Family Court order sent them there. You stand for the “poor”, “victimised” self-promoting “good” and so-called falsely accused fathers. It is an adult-centric posture. I wonder why?

You don’t fool me.

Happy - "Thus, you have confirmed my earlier assertion and you appear to be a father’s rights campaigner- not an adult who is prepared to put the interests and wellbeing of abused children first. You are more interested in promoting an environment that advantages those people in the Family Court cases, mostly men, which have been accused of abusing their own families".
That Happy, is the absolute truth which they cannot bear to hear.
If the FR extremists were at all concerned about the safety and protection of children after parental separation, then they would be unreservedly and unconditionally supporting this proposed legislation, not least, because they claim that mothers are worse perpetrators of child abuse and more guilty of domestic violence than fathers. So they don't want to protect children from such mothers either.
Their concerns are not about children but about protecting the position of privilege that fathers gained in the 2006 Act and which enabled abusers, aided by the absence of competent investigation into DV and child abuse allegations, to gain control over children for their abusive purposes.
The FR group's submissions to the ALRC were concerned only with finance and assets and made no mention of children's needs and rights and no doubt the Sharia Parenting Council will fight determinedly for their privileged position to continue.