Chaz:”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.?.”

Hmm… and if they are victimized? Maybe not our OLO men specifically but men in general in Aussie, this is okay and they should just man up and accept it?

Because if they are, if this is happening Chaz then it does have an impact on the children. If a woman is chosen as the primary carer of children as standard in court based on the public’s perception of them that has been augmented towards being unfavorable because of certain agendas then I’m against it. More than against it, I plan to be disgusted by it…but I’m not convinced yet.

Anti can be fully abusive, bless him it’s just his way at times. Hot days I’ve heard make him grumpy. R0bert on the other hand I don’t understand you having a go at in any way at all. Benk has had his moments. Honestly - so what?

How are they supposed to say it or get their message through? There may be less females and less and less as time here goes on and I can see bullying does occur often (it is Accidental Bullying)… again so what? I cannot blame the men for there being more of them with similar opinions than there are females. Vanna should shutup if Benk already left a similar message to a female in reply? That is not fair.

Focusing on the children is about protecting them and we woman do not protect children by conclusions based on personal experiences with men and you can men can flip that and reverse it at will.

JamesH,
The problems with child protection issues and the proposed amendments to the Act are not issues that have been exclusively raised by “single mother activists”. The problems have been raised by a slew of reports from commissioned academics and researchers; these date back to 1995. Single mothers activists cannot collaborate with fathers rights campaigners because the father’s rights agenda caused the child protection crisis in the first place (duh), and single mothers don’t get the public funding that these undeserving “victims” of family law get.
You have assumed that Chaz is operating from a ‘personal experience’ with no actual evidence for that. How would you know what Chaz’s personal experience is? The fact remains that you don’t but merely assume that anyone that disagrees with you must be a single mother. Your assumptions are betraying you.
You painted single mothers as taking “their own personal hatred and antagonism that they have towards their ex partner/s and then are transferring this to apply to all fathers” but recent research indicates that, “Father’s desires to see their children and their availability for contact had a much greater impact on whether contact took place. With mothers reporting twice as many fathers cancelling or not attending planned contact.” ...and “The research findings signal the inadequacy of contemporary family law approaches to post-separation parenting which construct resident mothers as withholders of contact and fathers as the passive victims of biased family law and ‘vengeful’ practices.” McInnes E, AJFL, Vol. 21, 1, pp.34.
It seems to me that the hatred and antagonism is emanating from the father’s rights groups because if they were truly concerned for the state of fatherlessness in Australia, they wouldn’t be addressing it by focussing on changing the law to advantage those accused of abuse in a jurisdiction that is screened for violence before couples can file.

(Con't)
Anyone who does not engage in domestic violence would have no problem with the recognition of ‘power and control’ as the dynamic of DV. To refer to 'power and control’ as a “nasty implication” is like saying that ‘intention’ is a “nasty implication” on the accused rather than an element in the crime of murder.
It seems to me that it’s the father’s rights groups that are the ones acting like little three year olds stamping their feet because they don't get their own way. I base this on the fact that any reasonable adult would agree that in a comparison of rights between fathers accused of abuse in the family court and abused and at-risk children, the adult and mature response is to prioritise the safety of children, not the delicate sensibilities of accused fathers in a court where real, serious and severe child abuse is the core business.

Antiseptic-
"Fifty-one women were responsible, or jointly responsible, for 53 deaths and 100 men were responsible, or jointly responsible, for 106 deaths."
This was from the eMJA report link you posted. What do you make of those stats? Do you seriously believe that this is the basis for changing the FL ACT?

Further, it reported that “The 15 patients who had not received treatment were almost all mothers, over the age of 29, and many were from non-English-speaking backgrounds.”
Do you thus suggest that the Family Law Act be amended so that a presumption is enacted against all mothers over the age of 29 from non-English-speaking backgrounds?

You cannot use your own personal contact arrangement as the basis for family law. Given that the cases arrive after screening for violence, you are in no position to analyse or postulate on FL or any cases in the Family Court on the basis that you talk between yourselves to figure things out. Try doing that with a partner who prefers power and control.

Robert,
You posted- “We need to find way's to reduce the conflicts involved in this process, not increase them.”
That’s not what the Family law Council found. They said that, “There is no greater problem in family law today than the problems of adequately addressing child protection concerns in proceedings under the Family Law Act. Since 2002, the amendments to the Family law Act have done little to address the “this serious [child protection] problem and gap in services.”
Do you propose that you are in a better position than the FLC to analyse the problems in the FC? I don’t think so. Surely you cannot be so self-inflated. Did the FLC find that “reducing conflict” was the most important problem? No.

You posted, “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.”

Wrong again, the issues are not about “kids and parents needs”. They are about the need to protect children from abuse by a parent because the core business of the Family Court is child abuse. Remember that the issue of child protection was raised again after more children died after they went to the care of a parent after a FC order sent them to the parent that murdered them.

“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.”
True, they instead want a system that focussing on protecting children. By the way, dictators have very effective ways of reducing conflict too.

Happy:“Father’s desires to see their children and their availability for contact had a much greater impact on whether contact took place. With mothers reporting twice as many fathers cancelling or not attending planned contact.”

Cause they are fully woosey. Sorry guys but when faced with the loss of your children and the overwhelming grief and hurt you are coping with I have noticed you men shut down... easier to not front up and cope with it than deal with the pain on the whole.

Happy now happy? It is a closely guarded secret but women fight better when it isn’t a physical competition, we get angrier and nastier and if we believe a man has been mean to us then that man (father or not) best not go near our little ones. Instinct is a hell of thing to challenge in any rationale way. Our children are us; we forget to separate them in protective mode.

Let’s not confuse the core business of family court having anything to do with what is in the best interests of children in this country.

This system is not about protecting children and any mothers group living that fantasy needs to disband based on a new law I would like to introduce if made dictator here where idiots are not allowed to congregate.

Happy, sadly much of the so-called peer reviewed research articles are as honest as political promises.

The vast majority of research (social) conducted in the past, needs to be sent the shreader.

Research is a tool, used correctly it can provide useful insights and is the beginning not an end point.

Often socalled research refuses to look too deeply into what is going on. Often what maybe seen as being apparent, hides what is really going on.

Typically once women stop being the victims the research stops.

One only needs to look at the leading questions to do with DV to realise how biased these things can be, unless that is the bias actually matches your own personal beliefs, biases and prejudices.

The other point is that some researchers rather than improving their research just learn how to hide their advocacy more effectively.