Antiseptic - and your own acidic, misguided, and proctalgic sarcasm doesn't count as abusive then?. But then, you would not be able to see that from your lofty perch. You and Benk and RObert in the Sharia Parenting Council are really struggling for arguments to oppose legislation specifically designed to protect children from abuse and exploitation, so instead you merely try to turn the debate into a (poorly argued) academic grubfest.
So far your only arguments against the proposed legislation is that it is unkind and prejudiced against us `Poor victimised Dads'. Poor you!. Try to put children's needs before your own for a change, or is that just too hard.?.

Chaz your reading comprehension and or honesty is clearly lacking.

We've pointed out that during the period that the shared care changes have been in place there has been an overall drop in substantiated child abuse in Australia (not necessarily because of those changes). The rate of substantiated child abuse occurring in male lead single parent homes has not increased despite more children living in those homes. Eg there is no real indication that more children are being placed with abusive parents than happened under the old maternal bias system.

It's been pointed out that much of the material available suggests that for most kid's ongoing conflict between parents is one of the big factors yet the mothers want's advocates are pushing for yet more conflict.

We've tried to engage in discussions on how the proposed changes could have adequate safeguards put in place to prevent abuse by false claims but the mothers want's advocates have refused to engage in that in any way other than dismissing any need for them.
Some suggestions on that front
- changes in parent/child contact put in place while allegations are investigated should not have any impact on long term outcomes if the allegations are not substantiated
- the acussed should still have access to the things he or she needs to carry on with life and defend themselves against the allegations (access to somewhere to live, clothes, tool's of trade, finances etc etc).
- those involved in the investigation/reporting process be carefully screened to ensure that they are capable and willing to do so impartially and without gender bias.

Kid's should as far as possible be protected from abusive parents but they should also be protected from those who would use them to get back at ex's or for personal gain. They should also be protected from government run programs likely to maximise ongoing conflict. What the mothers want's advocates are pushing for ignores many of the abuses occurring against children.

R0bert

The Medical Journal of Australia report

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/190_01_050109/nie10592_fm.html#0_i1092653

says that child homicide is committed by the natural parent in about 44% of cases. It says that in the period 1991-2995 there were 151 offenders identified, of whom 100 were male and 51 were female. Almost all the females, or about 30% of the total number of offenders were the child's mother. That means that less than 20% of offenders were the child's biological father, while around 50% were unrelated males, most often associated with the mother.

The fact is that creating a situation post-separation in which the parents are in conflict is bound to produce more child deaths, if that is your metric of choice. It exposes children to greater risk of "psychotic" (women have to be seen as mad, not bad) mothers if the father is not around to offer protection. It exposes them to greater risk of "retaliatory" parents prepared to kill to hurt the other parent. It exposes them to much greater risk of abuse and neglect leading to death in some cases.

The best outcome is for parents to share care as the children see fit. My kids are free to spend time with either parent as they wish, which works out well because it allows them space to sort out the usual teen angst, sibling rivalry stuff. Both parents can see if there are problems going on and can intervene as necessary, preferably by talking to the other parent about it.

HO HUM. Same old lack of respect for an opinion. Same old suspects - whatever happened to him by the way?
Patricia Merkin must be castigated because she has an opinion that disagrees with those superior M/R dragoons. Yes anti, that's probably not the right word, so dont quote the dictionary to me - but you lot do drag on and let the blokes down.

Consider this. what if we decided what you all think of as child abuse? What do you lot reckon is OK for a child to 'experience'?
Is it sexual involvement with a parent? Is it being belted? where and how hard, and how often? Dragged by the ear? Sunburned repeatedly? dehydrated? fed rubbish frequently? Locked in a room or cupboard? Pushed so hard to succeed that the child has mental problems, drugs and alcohol exposure? Exposed to people who are frankly unhealthy for the child? Made to go to events that scare them? being left alone?

Re comments about expanding the definitions of DV to include abuse and the suggestion that 100% of husbands had been so abused. I always thought the idea behind the term DV wasn't occassional bouts of bad temper where someone called you an expletive bastard, but where one person was in control and the other was forced to comply or be punished, with increasingly violent strategies to overcome resistance. Fellas, I'm sure there were days when you were 'told' to get to thy shed, but seriously, ever been thrown into a cupboard, forced to sleep outside in winter because you'd said no to sex? My sister was a DV victim. and at no time was she able to 'fight back' or argue without being punished.

I forgot to say - this isn't about the stats - the endless blame around do mothers or fathers hurt their spouses and kids more. it starts with one. any one. cos if you are that one, or its your sister, or your nephew or your child, then it matters.

If only you lot could see that instead of throwing around stats which exclude the one, this one, this situation, then its crap, and irrelevant. As for stats, isn't the change directed to a really small percentage that end up in FC and not shared parenting itself?

So why the drama by you people who seem to have managed to sort out parenting. How many of you were falsely accused....although when you are resisting taking the whole actual DV picture into your minds, you do set up any claim of falsely accused to thorough scrutiny.

Now that's not saying it doesn't happen. It probably does. But the entire criminal system works on the idea of never admitting anything, so it seems false denials are very, very common, as a princile of 'justice' for the actually guilty.

Jackson, "As for stats, isn't the change directed to a really small percentage that end up in FC and not shared parenting itself?"

Some of those supporting these changes have made it really clear that shared parenting is the target. It's also fair to say that the legislative framework impacts on what a lot of people will decide on out of court. If the courts are unlikely to allow grant shared parenting if mum does not want it then people trying to reach residency arrangements outside court are less likely to reach agreement to do it if mum is not keen. She can dig her heals in safe in the knowledge that if a residency dispute goes to court they will probably back her.

The stats do matter because this is being argued that the changes have specifically put kid's in harms way. Possibly correct in some cases but any system involving large numbers of people in conflict will do so in one way or another. What we need to decide is what alternative reduces the risk to the greatest number of kid's and gives us the best options for the rest. Claims of abuse should be investigated but doing so should carry some safeguards to prevent false (or unsubstantiated) claims being used successfully to force certain outcomes - eg patterns of post separation residency and contact being established while the investigation is underway being one of the issues.

We need to find way's to reduce the conflicts involved in this process, not increase them. We need to reduce the personal stakes around residency decisions so that there is more freedom for them to be adjusted over time to suit kid's and parents need's.

The unwillingness of the mothers want's advocates to discuss safeguards makes it clear that they don't want a system that in any way reduces conflict.

R0bert