Antiseptic – typically of Father’s Rights proponents using a highly selective and inaccurate extrapolation of data and statistics. The figures in fact refer to NSW and not to the whole of Australia and between 1991 and 2005. Of the 151 child homicide offenders, 69 were committed by a natural parent. There was no data on which parent committed the homicides but as there was a ratio of 2:1 male to female offenders in the overall statistics, then it may be reasonably assumed that the same ratio would apply. i.e. 46 Fathers and 23 mothers committed acts of child homicide.
You notably did not include the findings of the researchers who stated for example, e.g. “Our study confirmed the findings of previous research that most homicide offenders are men...”. and “Some homicide-suicides and retaliatory killings involving children occur without warning, but child welfare agencies and the police should be notified of domestic violence AND OF ANY SPECIFIC THREATS TO THE MOTHER AND CHILDREN.”. Some cases might be prevented by improved arrangements for non-custodial parents.”
Note also should be taken from this Report that 36% of child deaths occurred as a consequence of corporal punishment of children and as FR proponents so often claim that mothers gain custody of children in Family Law cases, it would also be reasonable to assume that many such child deaths by mothers would occur in this way, rather than by retaliatory and vengeful acts, as in the case of fathers. If corporal punishment of children in the home was banned in Australia then the report predicts that many of these child deaths would be prevented, as has occurred in New Zealand and Sweden.
Antiseptic you dared to claim that academic researchers were inaccurate in their data and biased against fathers, but I would suggest it is your own capacity for analysis of data and statistics that is woefully lacking.
“The best outcome is for parents to share care as the children see fit.” – Woo Hoo.!. Well said Antiseptic.

Robet – “We’ve pointed out...etc”. No you haven’t. The Sharia Parenting Council has completely rejected out of hand the proposed legislation!. Ipso Facto the Sharia PC condones Domestic Violence and Child Abuse as they have so clearly admitted in the past.
As you readily admit, any claimed decrease in child abuse `substantiations’ has not been affected by the 2006 Sharia Parenting Act, so why do you constantly repeating it.
There have been no `False’ claims of domestic violence or child abuse in the Family Courts as such Courts have neither the competent expertise nor the resources to investigate such claims by children(Chief Justice Bryant), so how could they possibly have been shown to be `false’, if they have not been competently investigated?. Such claims have failed because of the flaws and failings of the system and at worst are merely ‘Unproven’. This is the major reason why so many protective mothers abscond interstate and overseas to escape the violence and abuse, when their children’s disclosures and complaints are not investigated.
What representative mother’s groups have the Sharia PC tried to engage in discussions with, as you claim?. The protective mother’s groups which I know of met a brick wall when they approached the FR groups and have received far more sympathy and understanding of their evidence and arguments from Lib/Nats MPs than from the Sharia PC.
Kids should also be protected from ex-partners who would use them for continuing abuse and harassment by former partners who are embittered by rejection by their partners and children and merely use the law to evade their financial responsibilities. (620,000 fathers at the last count).
I agree with you entirely that those who investigate children's allegations of abuse and claims of domestic violence should be qualified, trained and LEGALLY MANDATED to do so. Not the hack 'Hired Gun' psychiatrists ($11,000 per report)who postulate on such matters despite those matters being outside their range of expertise.

ChapZ <– typically of Father’s Rights proponents using a highly selective and inaccurate extrapolation of data and statistics>

That is the definitely the pot calling the kettle black!

But then I guess you haven't bothered with manufacturing research and perception are not facts.

What about Dammed Lies, Statistics and Lenore Weitzman.

Or the fact that our own ABS staff raised a number of concerns about the research methods to do with the first advocacy research on womens safety.

happy:"the father’s rights agenda caused the child protection crisis in the first place "

Oh this ought to be good. Do enlighten us with your "cedible sources" for this rather startling piece of new research, won't you?

happy:"The problems have been raised by a slew of reports from commissioned academics and researchers; these date back to 1995."

And the ones that actually examone the subject impartially and fully, such as the MJA and the WA child protection studies, show that fathers being involved in their children;s lives as much as possible after separation is the most protective thing to do for children. Until very recently, most police forces didn't even record whether a perpetrator was the child's natural or defacto father, meaning that there was no way to disentangle the stats. As more complete data becomes available it has become clear that fathers are NOT the ones doing the violence. That myth beloved of Maternal Rights activists is simply not true. Instead it is mothers who can't cope alone or the boyfriends they bring home and the drugs they use that are the real problems.

You don't really care about kids getting hurt though, do you? It's really all about Mum being able to "make the bastard pay", isn't it.

The only "research" to disagree is advocacy stuff and isn't worth the paper it's written on. At its worst, such as the stuff coming from the Bagshaw factory, it's simply dishonest, making use of selectedly limited surveys or self-selected "studies" of women who claim to be abuse victims, from which they then try to extrapolate to recommendations about the behaviour of perpetrators.
Your quote from McInnes is typical:"With mothers reporting..." and then goes on to make a claim about fathers. I reject such gynocentrism as self-serving and a waste of time and money. Actually, that pretty well sums up McInnes et al generally.

Erin Pizzey made clear the sort of thing these women do and it wasn't very flattering. Liz45, ChazP would be classics of the type Pizzey described.

happy:"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."

Patricia, I can't talk to my ex - she simply won't respond. it's her version of "power and control", otherwise known as "passive-aggression". She won't even respond to emails or text messages and I won't talk to her in person without witnesses present because she has a history of trying to seek spurious DVOs.

I'm about to take her to Court for the first time ever (everything else was initiated by her until the Legal Aid ran out - more "power and control" stuff) because my children missed 30 days each of school last year while in her care. Why? Because she, in her neurosis, decided that they needed "counselling", so she took them from school each Friday morning for a whole semester. No one else thinks they need counselling; not the schools, not the kids (my daughter said "I didn't know I needed it until I went"), not other relatives, not even the counsellor I suspect.

I wasn't consulted and I wasn't even informed. I only found out because the kids told me. She wanted "power and control" you see and if I criticise the decision that would be "abuse".

Wake up to yourself, Patricia. You're not unintelligent, but you're very misguided. Unfortunately, I suspect an excess of feminist ideology and a lack of critical analysis, which is a toxic mix at the best of times.

so no one is interested in discussing defining the real issues - and you want to maintain the lie that most women lie about violence, the court believes they lie, yet they walk away with the booty of a bloke's hard-earned capital, and the kids. To make them pay.

Nothing could be further from the truth for far too many if my sister is any example.

Perhaps if you could think about the ones like my sister and her son, her husband a giant of a man, her a tiny light-framed woman, think about how we felt seeing her lying in that hospital bed, battered and broken, the boy with a perforated ear drum,and bruises but both too afraid to say what he had done to them until much later. Too late for police action, too late for evidence collecting, too scared to try to get an AVO. Since she didn't identify him (present and looming) on admission, any version corrected later in safety shows she is a liar. (because she couldn't and didn't say 'He bashed us and kicked us') Well, that's what the court found - she's the liar. Now they have shared parenting - under threat she'd lose him all together if she didn't agree. He breaks the orders all the time, hasn't stopped abusing and threatening, the kid is a nervous wreck, but mum isn't allowed to get him any help because Dad wont give permission. Her lawyers will not contravene him, because she ultimately had to agree to shared care - which negates the only 'recorded damage' and the boy's word doesn't count, if he was brave enough to say anything. He's nearly ten. My nephew has become sullen, a loner at school, self-harming, aggressive and is constantly told by his father it's his mothers fault and her family.

When we bury him, due to suicide, drugs, or whatever, will he count as a Family Court death?