The case for the proposed reforms has been more than adequately made in the government ordered reviews of the workings of the 2006 Act and the information made known to many Federal MP's by their own constituents, and it is time to move on from this tedious and repetitive debate, and consider the next round of reforms. e.g. that parents must demonstrate to Courts that they have an existing `meaningful relationship' with their child(ren), that they have done and can continue to meet each of their child's physical, emotional, social, educational, financial,and spiritual needs, that they can provide safety and protection for their child(ren) from harms. It is not only domestic violence and other forms of child abuse which harms children, but incompetent and inadequate parenting skills. It is time that a `Parent' was defined as much more than a participant in a coital act, as they are currently defined in the 2006 Act.

ChapZ, sadly history will hopefully reveal some of the more truthful facts.

You alleged that fathers rights activists are more interested in maintaining their position of power and privilege. I guess you have heard of the defense mechanism, projection.

You maintain that the fathers rights activists are not interested in the welfare of the children, yet fathers rights activist point out the children are at much more risk of abuse if they stay with their mothers.

sure there are incompetent parents of both genders. In fact, in the opinion of some or a lot of women, men are always incompetent, regardless. A male could have a masters in child care and still be regarded as being incompetent by many members of your gender.

Sure this a tedious and repetitive debate, but then people are not listening very well.

There is a phrase "Concrete thinker" that comes to mind when dealing with single mother activists.

I put it to you ChapZ, that single mother activists, rather than working collaboratively with the fathers (groups) that children are being put at continuing risk of abuse.

Regardless of you own personal experiences, arguements in this forum indicate, that these single mother have taken their own personal hatred and antagonism that they have towards their ex partner/s and then are transferring this to apply to all fathers, hence the nasty implication about 'power and control'.

Like I said before you are a dirty fighter!
<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>

It could be also like a little three year old stamping their feet, because they don't get their own way.

James well put.

R0bert

JamesH - "sure there are incompetent parents of both genders" - now you are beginning to understand what this is about. That it concerns protecting children irrespective of the gender of the abusive parent.
And - "single mother activists, rather than working collaboratively with the fathers (groups) that children are being put at continuing risk of abuse". But your earlier arguments have been that single mother activists have pressed for this proposed legislation (which is to protect children) so how can they be putting children at continuing risk?. I have tried working with FR groups but unfortunately their obsessiveness with male supremacism impedes their rational and reasoned thought processes and as their title clearly indicates, they are concerned with their own rights and interests and not those of their children.
And yes, they do like to spit their dummies and throw their toys out of their cots, as many postings from them here clearly demonstrate.
Shared Parenting/Care (as promoted by the Sharia Parenting Council) has been clearly shown to be disastrous for children.
"Infants struggle in shared care while rigid, shared parenting puts school aged children at risk. Children aged under four and school aged children could be put at risk developmentally through shared parenting arrangements following separation, two new La Trobe University/Family Transitions reports show.
Commissioned by the AG, the findings are the latest in a series of reports into the impacts on children of divorce. The implications of the findings show that greater thought needs to be taken by courts and mediators about parenting arrangements, particularly of very young children The findings show conclusively that rigid arrangements of any kind, often fuelled by acrimony and poor cooperation, and set out in court orders, are associated with higher depressive and anxiety symptoms in children and this form of living became something children often sought to change".
As for fighting dirty, when you have to wrestle with greasy pigs, you've got to get down in the dirt with them. No one wins, but the pigs enjoy it.

happy:"when these types of results are presented, father’s rights campaigners attack the credibility of the researchers claiming that they are “biased”."

Actually, I didn't claim that at all. I said that poor old Thea's effort is incomplete, inadequate and obsolete, while the Canadian (oh dear) report you referenced is not applicable because the Canadian legal framework and definitional underpinnings are too different to the australian one.

I backed up my view with evidence from both the reports themselves and contrasted them with a genuinely credible report from the Medical Journal of Australia.

OTOH, you've done little but hurl abuse. As I keep pointing out to you, repeating the same incorrect and incredible misinformation that has already been shown to be inadequate doesn't strengthen you case.

I asked you prior to my own reply if that was all you have. You disn't respond, so presumably you think the guff you linked to is the bees knees. I disagree, but it still supports my own case rather better than your own.

Perhaps you should stick to watching ACA or something of that nature. It's clear that evaluation of research is simply outside your skill set.