<But idealising children and wrapping them in cotton wool is a detrimental strategy. It deprives them of opportunities to contribute and fails to prepare them for the trials that await them. The challenge for adults in the 21st century will be to find ways to include children in decision-making, rather than consign them to a zone of protected, precious irrelevance.>
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/childhood-is-no-innocent-fixation/story-e6frg6zo-1225980659479

Thoughtful article.

Nice work ChazP and Cotter!!
Posted by Usual Suspect, Thursday, 24 July 2008 10:05:21 AM

I see that both yourself and Cotter have met and interacted well over previous years ChazP, one could almost declare you are a 'team'!!

...and attempted to set a few people up in the process of furthering your hidden agendas.

I suggest ChazP you take yourselves away from the Court Rooms and feminist group movements, mix with children and mothers nationally as I do professionally and personally.

My suggestion to you ChazP : Be constructive, Lobby the government for amendments to the Family Law Acts instead of running around in circles targetting people who have lived the lives with the oppressors you continually for years have fruitlessly described.

Get over yourself [and the copying of info available to Australians at their fingertips], as someone stated to you back in 2008.

Christmas and New Year of course brings out the worst in some corrupted poor-in-spirit souls furthering their 'own' revengeful filled personal agendas...

That's what worries me about the concept of shared parenting. Nothing could be better for children than to have two parents who decide the children's welfare is more important that their own - which is a desirable concept pre deciding/choosing to have children.

But what of the far too many cases of entrenched violence that preceeds divorce, not just happens after seperation. On finances,

can't we work out a system that says how much it costs an adult to live, how much it costs for a child and multiples. Why is it that the men's groups are only quoted reacting from the hip pocket, rather than working constructively to teach boys to be good and fair men and good parents who can rise above personal pain in their interests, learning to budget etc.

Why do the children's econmic needs take second place to angry dads' costing and fear some of his money might help her, the woman he once loved, to care for their children?

Regards Cotter
Posted by Cotter, Friday, 17 June 2005 3:37:59 PM

Working on sociopath, mysoginist and family law act issues since 2005 Cotter, ChazP and Jacksun.

Nevertheless, none of you have managed to lobby and insist government make changes or amendments to lower the age of decisionmaking for Australian children with separating parents?

However you all shoot down in flames and(pass the buck blaming other Australians)for their genuine, good hearted and wise contributions regarding false scenarios you post, to further your anti sociopath causes born out of revenge against ex-partners. Either be constructive or seek years overdue psychological assistance all of you. Shocking to hold grudges against your sociopath exes years later.

I notice that Jacksun [your relative] was posting primarily on the same issues along with yourself and ChazP under another name years ago. The three of you regularly supporting one another.

Either be constructive and lobby government, or make appointments to visit a psychologist or psychiatrist all of you.

Shocking to hold grudges against your "sociopathic exes" 5-10 years later.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/mother-wins-custody-battle-after-terrifying-children-about-father-20110103-19dwr.html

<Her paranoia ''invaded the children's day-to-day lives''.

The children grew to fear their father might kidnap them after their mother kept them at home to prevent their abduction from school.>

Yep only in Australia can a mother be rewarded for abusive behaviour, she committed domextic violence, yet winds up with sole custody of the children.

There will be two extremely damaged young adults in future because of this woman.

We are unque, the cotters and ChazPs are highly representative of some of those in the murkier end of the Family Law swamp - the bit that's infested by leeches and mosquitos where nobody sensible wants to go. They've been digging in there for decades, making themselves as nice a nest as they can, living off the rotten remains of failed relationships.

Any effort to cut back some of the undergrowth will bring clouds of such parasites, protesting loudly that their lifestyle is being threatened. Pay them no mind, just remember the aerogard.

James, that woman is in Brisbane. I wonder if she's another friend of cotter's? It sounds like that would be right up her alley.

The judge's remarks do give the lie to the claim by Mother's Rights advocates that the court is biased toward fathers and indeed, the Court's claim to be a place of justice:

"Justice Austin was aware the man would be disappointed but said the court's priority was not achieving a just result for the parents, but serving the children's best interests."

I still think his Honour got it wrong and I hope the father doesn't give up here but appeals to the full bench. Rewarding bad behaviour is a particularly dangerous justiciary principle.

The mother is obviously not right in the head - what will his honour do when the kids end up missing out on an education, or have to be taken from the mpother because her mental illness makes her incapable of caring for them? Perhaps his honour should look into the research on the effects of child neglect and abuse that was published recently?