There is a tactic that is very effective and that is to accuse, in this instance fathers rights groups of having misleading research, when in actual fact, feminist research by it's very nature is misleading and biased.

there are a number of defense mechanisms at play the include the following, projection, denial, transference, distortion,

and

"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true"

Let me add, dealing with a person who had drug and alcohol problems is another matter, although the behaviour of the addict does affect all members of the family and as such the whole family unit is not healthy, and even if the addict changes their behaviour or dies, the family left behind still has the toxic behaviours bought about by the addicts addiction.

I am feeling terribly brave…

Vanna: Women do not want fathers near their own children for financial gain.

Chaz: Women do not want the abusive fathers near their own children.

Vanna: Women think all men are abusive.

Chaz: No just most.

Vanna: Well most women are liars.

Chaz: Most women are abused.

Vanna: Children are abused in their mothers homes.

Chaz: Because men abused them.

Vanna: But they are not the fathers.

Chaz: But the women and children are the victims of men.

Vanna: And they use that to keep the fathers away from their own children.

Chaz: No just the abusive ones.

We got it guys, cheers.

So this 80:20 thing has become the norm until a parent (usually the father) contests it and they fast track it for some reason to avoid these family centers? And I have no idea what they are.

What should court be doing instead?

Nice one Rogindon, did give me a laugh.

Jewely,

I haven't said any of the above. You wouldn't be trying to misconstrue or misrepresent the situation, or misinform?

You wouldn't be feminist would you?

But what I will say is that the Family Law Court has no jury.

You can ask yourself how likely is it that a law system eventually becomes totally corrupt and unreliable and wretched, if it has no jury.

Rogindon: "And I'm so relieved that taxpayer's money is being used to ....... educate people like me.". and the taxpayers are all clammering for their money back.!
Jewely - "What should (the) court(s) be doing instead?" - that is what this discussion has been about Jewely - Duh!. So you've slept through the whole class again. Again the taxpayers are going to be demanding a lot of money back, but as English seems to be your second language you may get a rebate. Stick to watching Oprah for your updates on world events.

Vanna:“I haven't said any of the above. You wouldn't be trying to misconstrue or misrepresent the situation, or misinform?”

That was more me using your name to represent a common theme of messages and Chaz to represent the common replies. It is how I have understood these debates so far. It was on the right basic track though…? I wasn’t attempting to make either argument the right one.

Vanna:” You wouldn't be feminist would you?”

Honestly I wouldn’t know. I think feminist is one of those things that you can get labeled even by being in support of only parts of it. I could probably get just as easily labeled as a misogynist, a communist, heretic, capitalist, nihilist, I guess it depends what percentage of a person is for or against an idea or against another one?

http://www.labelgame.org/label.html

Jury is a whole other discussion Vanna. I don’t like them or trust them or believe one’s peers are on the whole particularly immune to being lead or tricked or persuaded not on truth but purely on who has the cleverest lawyer, maybe a professionally trained and retained by salary anti-bs jury.

Thanks for the reminder Chaz, I had almost forgotten that not obtaining a better education and staying home to raise children is spat on.

I meant what court should be doing initially about the 80:20 split for two years.

I won't dignify Chiara's rant with a response. She clearly needs help that is beyond the scope of this site to provide.

shivers:"Many are on legal-aid, or at least many women are"

And therein lies the rub. women can access legal aid wth almost no strings if they are a cupporting parent on the dole, which is where so many immediately head upon separation. Men, on the other hand are far less likely, for 2 reasons: they are probably in work and they probably don;t get to have much time with the kids. Oh yeah, they aren;t eligible for funding under the Women's Legal Aid Service budget, most of which is spent in Family Court matters.

Fathers have 3 choices: accept whatever hse wants (cheapest, but he won't get to have much to do with the kids and he'll pay through the nose for CS); pay a lawyer (by far the most expensive and he'll probably not do much better than if he simply gives in); self-represent (cheap but difficult and risky - while some achieve excellent outcomes it is not a foregone conclusion).

So she gets paid to take him to court when she'd only be sitting home watching Days of Our Lives while the kid took care of itself - I wonder why they were all lined up like that?

shivers:"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"."

That is how the law works: you make a claim, I deny it and say "where's your proof". You disappear in a puff of logic. See?