This is an excellent well-written article.

While there are mandatory pre-court procedures, there is a loop-hole that is exploited, mostly by fathers. A lawyer told me that about 75% of applicants to the Family Court are fathers, and that they routinely mark their petitions as "urgent". Therefore mediation or any pre-court procedure can be by-passed. This common tactic, implemented mostly by lawyers engaged by fathers, results in the mother being forced into court or if she decides it is too stressful (which is what the father's lawyer wishes to occur)and doesn't or can't cope with court, she must give in to the demands of the father. This is bullying tactics, and the family law court is complicit in it's implementation.

If couples do attempt mediation, and domestic violence is recognised the Family Relationship Centres will refuse to continue and the only option is Family Court. This is especially prevalent in the dynamic of abusive and manipulative fathers and protective mothers. The result is that the Family Relationship Centres have become a filter ensuring the majority of cases that arrive at the FLC steps, are couples where there is an abuser using power and control tactics, either over the ex, or the children, or as is becoming recognised more recently, over both. There is no protection left for the children, the FRC has ceased to assist and the FLC admits to having no powers to investigate abuse and violence.

In an attempt to get to the heart of "what is going on" a Family Assessment is conducted. Lawyers have lists of who understands, recognises and acknowledges power, control and violence issues and will write about it and those who don't. Depending on the client, depends on who they put forward. The result is that child protection takes 2nd or last priority.

With so-called false allegations by mothers. There is no evidence to say it is wide-spread. However, fathers initiating Affidavits that tend to paint a false picture a functional, involved, caring and nurturing father and home life, accompanied with false denials are rampant.

“To spend over $100,000 is common.”

I swore silently at the screen to that one Vanna. But surely the mother has to also pay? So this 80:20 thing is decided between parents out of court? Or does some initial court procedure place them generally with the mother? Do we need a fee free court whenever dealing with issues that affect children?

R0bert:” allowing for some protections over what people bring into a relationship, etc a 50/50 split of assets aquired during the relationship seems to be the most practical approach.”

Yep it does look that way. But this doesn’t happen - court (if involved) gives the home to the parent with the majority of the custody?

I’m starting to guess only the rich people are in court anyway fighting over children for large gains.

I also thought Child Support was like Family Assistance which is very flexible based on each overnight period a child is in your care - I think that one was back to Vanna.

Chiara you got a little bit scary there. It is true, all those things do happen and I agree children should not be forced anywhere. I would like to see the fears children have better addressed and separated from the will or rights of adults.

You will find many of the men agree with this but they are just very dubious about certain allegations and how court is run right now. No one has said they wish any child in the hands of an abusive adult.

Jewely wrote "Yep, it occurs to me that if DV was an issue it ended at separation."

This is not true and is a simplification. Abuse and violence escalates at the point of separation and about 25% of the most extreme of violence against mothers and children, such as murder, occur AFTER the relationship has ended.

Statistically, it is men, not women, who stalk the most, despite the popularity of "Fatal Attraction" from the 80s that firmly embedded the "deranged, wronged, rejected woman" as the ultimate stalker.

Mostly what I observe is that some fathers get stuck on revenge, anger and hatred and have difficulty letting go. For them, the prize becomes what they can "take" from their ex's. If children are involved, they'll use them. It is mostly these ex-couples that end up in Family Court. Unfortunately, the FLC fails to recognise that the priority for some fathers is not about INCREASING time with the children but about REDUCING the time with the mother - this is where the "involvement prior to separation" is important to establish, as one other commenter already pointed out.

For those fathers having difficulty getting past revenge, the pleasure lies in the taking.

Jewely wrote, "I’m starting to guess only the rich people are in court anyway fighting over children for large gains."

Again, this clearly not the case.

Spend some time in the hallways of the Family Law Court each morning, and you'll see that it's quite clear that many of the participants can ill-afford to be there. Many are on legal-aid, or at least many women are, as they juggle single parent pensions, maybe some part-time work with full-time parenting.

It is not a happy place and the only people with "rich" looks are the lawyers.

sorry, last post...not picking on you...

Jewely wrote "No one has said they wish any child in the hands of an abusive adult."

Well, actually some lawyers do. It tends to be done all rather circumspect by denying and minimising the harm the children have occured and saying the claims by the mother are "false".

I know of one case where sexual grooming behaviours, combined with many other abusive behaviours were occuring and the lawyer responded, "Well, people who experience sexual abuse grow up and learn to deal with it." In that case mother told that her concerns were "irrelevant". This type of advice from lawyers to concerned mothers is very, very common.

If that's not saying, "it's not important to keep children away from abusive adults" then I'm not sure what is.

Believe it or not, Australia does not have a zero tolerance to child abuse.

Shiver:”This is not true and is a simplification. Abuse and violence escalates at the point of separation and about 25% of the most extreme of violence against mothers and children, such as murder, occur AFTER the relationship has ended.”

I simplify most things Shivers, terrible habit but I like to start there anyway. It also did not occur to me to call it “domestic violence” once the parents are no longer in a domestic situation. Does Australian law continue to label it this way after a separation?

Does the Family Court need to acknowledge “extreme violence” when implementing laws?

And the lawyers are getting rich. A system of salary paid lawyers for all Family Court issues involving children then? I imagine the “Family” part does suggest children are always involved in this court? I’m sure many parents who have lost their children to state care might be given a chance of a fair go that way also.

Who runs or funds the FLC’s?

“Believe it or not, Australia does not have a zero tolerance to child abuse.”

Well now I need Houel here to explain his position against the broadening of the child abuse definitions. But I have had a few experiences of just how tolerant Australia is to the abuse of children in various forms.

I felt fully picked on… but I will be okay, I appreciate you responding. :)