Chaz:”The only axe I have to grind JamesH is the safety and protection of children in Family Law proceedings as do Nicholson and Chisholm, and yes I will continue to fight tooth and nail to achieve that goal. If it involves trying to educate the ineducable who blather in such threads as this, then that is a cross I shall continue to have to bear.”

Where are you on the safety and protection of any children Chaz?

Whose children and where are these children… in theory you mean?

Anti – hot and dry here.

Hope everyone had an awesome Christmas day!

ChazP: continue to spiel your statistical quotes along with theories regarding sociopaths, it undoubtedly is assisting other Australians regarding that subject.

Do not shoot the messenger who is NOT the Judge, CSA, DOCS, or any other law enforcement agency that dictated Adam must spend 50% of his time in shared custody residing with his father.

Adam is living with his father and the suggestions and strategies on offer [as previously stated] are for the 'interim' period, to assist Adam's safety, health, happiness and wellbeing. Many more strategies would be forthcoming, from experience and work practice, however the family refused my offers of contacting me personally, quite understandable given the circumstances involving Cotter's grandson.

Best wishes with your sociopathic postings relating to the Family Law Act Chaz; entirely different from individuals exhibiting traits of a mysoginistic nature and background

Cotter, it is my advise in response to your comment relating to Adam's father attempting to run his mother and self off the road, to ensure that either of the following occurs in future;

(a) Inform Adam's mother to pull over to the side of the road if followed at any time, switch on her car alarm [with or without Adam present]and hold up a digital camera to photograph Adam's father's vehicle. Drive off with the vehicle locked.

(b) Drive to the police station and report the incident and request the first or second warning. Notify DOCS. Do not involve Adam as a witness at any stage. Do not take Adam to the police station. Do not talk about the incident with family members in front of Adam. This makes it easier for Adam when being quizzed by his father when he stays with his father.

In summary, if physical violence was inflicted upon Adam's mother in front of Adam during the marriage/partnership in later years on numerous occasions, it is most likely that Adam's father will transfer the physical and emotional abuse to Adam regularly. Ie Adam's father has acknowledged that he has lost his power over Adam's mother, does not care that the world knows of the physical abuse he inflicted, he feels that his world has ended by the loss of control, therefore he may ultimately revenge Adam's mother using using Adam.

On the other hand, if the physical violence was inflicted upon Adam's mother in another room or setting away from Adam on most occasions, his father may decide to build on his relationship with his son, demonstrating what a great father he is to Adam, to work colleagues, friends and families.

Something indicates that this case has not been down the court road via charges at all: as a result of Adam's mother engulfed in fear, believing every threat from Adam's father?

Please let me know urgently if I am correct.

we are unique:"Something indicates that this case has not been down the court road via charges at all: as a result of Adam's mother engulfed in fear, believing every threat from Adam's father?"

The complaint is that she did go down the Court road and nobody believed her.

That is unbelievable.

We are uniqe:"Best wishes with your sociopathic postings relating to the Family Law Act Chaz;"

Yes, I wish Chaz all the best with her sociopathic postings too. I'm sure we all do...

Sociopathology has been studied throughout history since at least the early 19th century.
Diagnostic manuals which have been used by psychologists and psychiatrists through the years, the antisocial personality disorder refers to an individual "in which there is a history of continuous and chronic antisocial behaviour in which the rights of others are violated". The World Health Organization labelled this disorder in the ICD10 as dissocial personality disorder. These terms group the psychopath and sociopath into a single personality disorder that can be tested and measured.
It is characterized by an individual's disregard for social rules, norms, and cultural codes, as well as impulsive behavior, and indifference to the rights and feelings of others.
Sociopaths are very egocentric individuals that lack a sense of personal responsibility and morality. They may be impulsive, manipulative, reckless, quarrelsome, and consistent liars. Sociopaths are usually unable to sustain relationships and have a total lack of remorse for their actions. The sociopath may also be very prone to aggressive, hostile, and sometimes violent behaviour. This aggression may or may not lead to criminal behaviour and often takes the form of domestic violence.
One of the primary causes of sociopathic behaviour is believed to be neurological abnormalities mainly in the frontal lobe of the brain. This area of the brain is responsible for "self-control, planning, judgment, the balance of individual versus social needs, and many other essential functions underlying effective social intercourse".
One thing never varies: all sociopaths share three common characteristics. They are all very egocentric individuals with no empathy for others, and they are incapable of feeling remorse or guilt. Many sociopaths appear to be very normal, calm, and educated on the exterior, but on the interior, they are incapable of experiencing any form of emotional content. They rarely come in contact with the law, but when they do, they are often able to talk themselves out of trouble using their verbal skills. Despite this verbal eloquence, the words often have no real emotional meaning for the sociopath.
But then these `Poor Dads' are just blokes provoked into anger, aren't they boys.

ChapZ says that she is really concern about the safety of children in relation to the family court and the only solution she proposes is that fathers who are accused of abuse should be DENIED having a relationship with those children.

Now if people were really concerned about the 'safety of children' would it not be more advisable to examine all the factors that may contribute to putting children at risk.

Mind you her concern would seem to only to extend to children who may or may not be at risk of abuse by their father. Children who are at risk of abuse by their mothers or her partners do not matter, because it doesn't serve her purpose.

As to Richard Garners "Parental Alienation Syndrome" it would seem to be another aspect of Maternal Gatekeeping, and from the reading I have done, her assertion that his theory has been rejected by the American Psychological Association is not true.

"An APA 1996 Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family noted the lack of data to support so-called "parental alienation syndrome", and raised concern about the term's use. However, we have no official position on the purported syndrome."
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2008/01/pas-syndrome.aspx

Lack of data can mean that data has not been collected or that nobody is doing any research. Politically this is hot topic, so it is doubtful that research would be conducted, just in case the findings would support Garner.

There are now after thirty odd years of divorce, perhaps a large number of young adults to would make some interesting research findings, if the correct questions are asked, but then when researchers make findings that do not support feminists, they do experience things like death threats, or threats to their employment or family.