A book that is long overdue, and I congratulate the authors on their courage and efforts in producing it.

For too long the whole environment of Family Law has been cloaked in secrecy, leading to too few men in particular not knowing anything about it.

That secrecy hid what are some of the most serious denials of human rights in this country’s modern history.

That secrecy hid the record of a society gradually moving towards a fatherless society, where fathers are just walking wallets and unable to be parents when they only see their children every second weekend.

That secrecy has also allowed the advocacy research and misinformation to proliferate, mainly from university academics, and their bigotry and discrimination has been completely and totally accepted by universities, until it has now reached the stage where it is almost impossible to find one positive word said by a university academic in this country about the male gender.

Congradulations to dads on the air, for it attempts to bring 'social justice' to the men of australia.

Thanks Johm, for an excellent summation of the duplicity and deceit that underlies so much of the justification and practice of Family Law in Australia. The current Government relies enormously on the support of white-collar unions run by women who learnt their politics in the heady days of the 70s and early 80s. To these women, any attempt to create fairness is a direct assault on their whole careers, since those have been based on nothing more than their commitment oto feminism and the preferment that it promises women.

No Labor Govt is going to risk losing their support. Anna Bligh remains as Premier of Qld only because of it and she is the current President of the ALP. The ALP relies massively on the women's vote and they will buy it with whatever it takes. They have taken their male members, many of whom face crippling child support and legal bills thanks to ALP Laws, for granted and they have lost them in huge numbers.

I would like to see Family Law made a key policy area for debate at the next election. There needs to be a genuine panel of experts, not a farcical group of vindictive single-mothers, feminist ideologues and self-servers trying to create a sinecure for themselves. Sadly, given the current state of federal politics that is about as likely as a Rudd resurrection.

In regards to Child Support, I have previously proposed a levy to be payable by all taxpayers. The tiny sum of $5 per week per taxpayer would raise enough money to cover all the transfers between parents that the CSA claims and it could be easily administred by the ATO and centrelink, removing the $500 million black hole that is the CSA.

I feel certain that parents capable of paying more would do so, as they do now, while removing the link between child support and time in care that causes so many problems.

I'll certainly be buying a copy of your book. Good luck.

And the legacy of the Family Law Act 2006 is:
Yazmina Acar – 2 yrs – stabbed by father; 3 Osborne Children killed by father who also killed himself; 2 Dillon children killed by father in car crash fireball; Domenic Xuan Yu 2 yrs killed with her mother by father; Darcey Freeman killed by father; Imran Zilic 3 years had his throat slit by his father and was thrown down a disused mineshaft; 10 year old girl brutally raped, bound, and killed by her father on Bribie Island on New Years Eve 2007; 3 Farquharson children driven into dam and killed by father as an act of revenge against mother on Father's Day.
And of course the many hundreds of children currently suffering all forms of abuses after being forced by Family Courts into `Shared Parenting’ arrangements.
How many more children are to be sacrificed on this altar of Father’s Rights and Sharia law so proudly proclaimed here, before changes are made?.
The book would have been better titled, "Licence to Abuse and Kill" - Family Law in Chaos.

ChatzP,
You forgot to mention how many mothers have killed children (not withstanding abortion).

That type of one-sided bigotry is a part of vilification and discrimination, (much admired in certain quarters I might add).

Comparing father's rights to Sharia law is also a part of vilification and discrimination, (much admired in certain quarters I might add).

With your one-sided bigotry, villification and discrimination, you should apply for a job in the Family Law Court or a university.

ChazP, your hatred of men and fathers is obvious. I suggest you have a good deep breath and think about what you're saying. The genuine statistics released by Governments, not collected in the toilet of the gender studies department at UniSA, is that the greatest risk of fatality of a child is created when the child is in a single=parent household, especially a single-mother household when the mother has repsrtnered. It increases dramatically when the single-mother has serial partners.

Yes, some fathers go off the rails, but very often they're pushed off by a system which treats them as second-class citizens with no rights but obligate responsibilities.

I suspect that you simply have no concept whatever of personal obligations, merely of entitlements. That's quite sad, but is no reason to change a law.

So Vama when you express biased and prejudiced views on father's rights and the Sharia Parenting laws thats fine, is it, but if I respond in similar fashion it is unfair and lacking objectivity and impartiality. Come on Vama get real, I'm not going to fall for that old chestnut. If you persist in putting one side of the argument and the accompanying exonerations and excuses (Waznamee!), then I have the right of reply to put the other side.
"You forgot to mention how many mothers have killed children" - where are all your examples?.

Antiseptic (RadFems under the bed) - You are absolutely right!.
Most of the children in those examples were living in single-parent households and mostly with their mothers, but some with their fathers. But their deaths were caused by their FATHERS!. If the figures you refer to made this clear then you would have some difficulties in justifying your assumptions then, about "when the child is living in a single parent household", would you not?. Or do you not understand this complexity of statistical information?.
And your method of correcting this situation is to have children constantly moving between TWO single parent households, or where their mothers or fathers are living with live-in lovers or girlfriends/boyfriends?. Your answer to solving a problem is to double it?. Your logic escapes me.
Don't you think that living in such a PingPong lifestyle and living out of a suitcase, would add even further to children's woes and worries?.

""You forgot to mention how many mothers have killed children" - where are all your examples?"

You could look through the reports of the NSW Child Death Review Team. I've posted links and some extracts to that recently. They give some coverage of fatal assault of children regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or their relationship.

Despite the claims to the contrary by some women I don't think that most of the men here are trying to create the impression that mothers are particularly dangerous, they harm kid's at greater rates than men because kid's spend more time in their care. What most are trying to do is redress the constant barrage of propaganda that makes out that men are predominately more dangerous in the home than women, the idea that maternal bias is a safer option for children than what should be a rebuttable presumption of shared care (if there is credible evidence that someone poses a serious risks to children the kid's safety should come first regardless of the gender of the adult).

Sometimes some over the top comments by a couple of posters, plenty of sarcastic comments by those who are thoroughly over the utter dishonesty shown by the maternal bias crowd and the complete silence (or occasionally endorsements) when blatant lies are told by others on your side (Chiara's child abuse claims, Cold North Wind's claims of an escalation in murder of women and children since the shared care changes were brought in and Liz's interesting version of DV stats being recent examples which come to mind).

R0bert

ChatzP,
I won't fall for the old chestnut of someone making any accusation they feel like regards father or males, and then fathers or males have to rescind the accusation.

I have seen whole courses in universities run along those lines.

You have a look through the statistics, and find how many mothers have killed their children, and if you can't find any, then you can portray fathers as being the only parent to kill their children.

Where did you get your education by the way?

Late in 1974, a group of concerned men and women put to Senator Lionel Murphy who was designing a legislation to substitute the decrepit ‘Divorce Law’, that, unless giving to one of the parents ‘custody of the child’ was stopped and the natural principle of - “equal duty of both parents towards fulfilling the needs of the child”- were adopted, his new “Marriage Law” would have opened the gates to a flood of divorces and would have increased the number of suffering children.

As the worst we feared arrived with the new legislation called “Matrimonial Law”, Parents scuttled to opposing camps, Mothers’ and Fathers’ and war continued.

As before, children and chattels remained for partition and our beautiful Lawyers booked seats at the best restaurants in town.

My fellow men, you deserve great praise for your efforts. But it will get you nowhere until you and your women stop claiming rights on the children and start thinking about your duties and only your duties towards them.

You must never forget King Solomon asking for a knife to cut the child in the middle in a dispute for its property.

No lawyers, no politicians, no children in danger.

After reading John Stapleton's post, I couldn't help but think what a self serving piece of writing, I thought at first it was written tongue in cheek. Instead of spending vast amounts of time (and money)on "Dads on Air" I would have been more interested in dads working their way around the idea of fixing their own problems.
Children know when they are being used as pawns.
Children should not only be and feel safe from their own parents but they must have piece of mind, and continuity with their living arangements, this would be the essence of their lives.
No wonder the courts have a bad time sorting out family problems, when all the time the parents are fighting the gender war.
This business of female v male simply must be removed from any court proceedings. But it seems to me that whatever the court rules on, it will be construed as gender bias.
The family Courts are strangers to you and your children, why should any parent expect complete strangers to sort out their problems when they can't or wont.
Also, please don't ask me to put in $5 to cover the short fall in any fund for divorced parents. If you won't pay to support your own children then perhaps you should have thought about that before you had them or maybe you should have tried to work out things with your partner before separating. Taxpayers in the general community already pay far too much tax without being involved in other peoples divorces or separations.
With all the pressures that children face to-day to have to put up with self serving parents, I could understand why they might choose not to live with either parent.

MAREELORRAINE,

It seems that you cannot think of anything positive to say about men or fathers, and believe that every problem is that fault of a male.

Therefore, I'm wondering where you received your education.

VANNA, You seem to be pre occupied with peoples education. I never mentioned I was against men. What I tried to say that in family custody confrontations, it would be better if the courts weren't pressured into gender selections, rather, what parent is better suited for the sake of the childrens future and safety.
From what I can see most men are only interested in their own future.

We are all distressed when we hear about children dying, but assuming that their deaths are the direct result of the shared parenting laws of 2006 and deciding how to change the law to save them is another matter.

The Dalton children were killed in 2004 and the Farquarson children in 2005. It is hard to see how laws made in 2006 could have caused this.

There were no allegations of abuse that were ignored in the family court case involving Darcey Freeman. In other cases, it is difficult to know what evidence the family court had at the time.

Yazmin Azar was killed in November 2010. Have recent reforms actually gone through? If so, using your logic, these reforms directly caused her death.

Expressing sadness at hurt kids is easy. Fixing the problem is harder. It seems to be too hard for you to even discuss in a productive manner.

Am looking forward to getting my hands a copy of Chaos at the Crossroads: Family Law Reform in Australia. While this is only one issue out of thousands of important issues males want to focus on, it is a pivitol one. Dinenfranchised fathers would say it is THE pivital one. What is special about this book, or at least from what I have been able to glean from the blurb, is that it gives a history of the problem of fathers and family law in one volume. Gathering historical material on a topic into one volume has the effect of increasing awareness of where the issue has been going over a span of time, which adds meat to the picture. Kudos to the author, am looking forward to reading it!

Good to see debate on these issues and I'd like to personally thank all the forum participants for their contributions.
In terms of the question of parents and the unpleasant question of which gender kills child more frequently, Chaos At The Crossroads relied on the latest figures from the National Homicide Monitoring Centre, the details for which are below. It is an unfortunate fact of life that both men and women kill their children during prolonged custody disputes. In regard to this, the current two year delays in the Family Court for a final hearing pose a significant problem. No one should under-estimate the damage resulting from the prolonged psychological torment parents endure as a result of the inappropriate legal procedures involved in questions of child custody. Here's the reference in the book:

"The latest official figures available for Australia from the National Homicide Monitoring
Program showed that for the year 2006-2007 there were 260 homicide incidents. Of the
victims, 185 were male and 81 were female. Of the offenders, 242 were male and 54
were female. Rates of intimate-partner homicide remained constant in 2006–07, with 22
percent of homicides occurring in this context. Of intimate-partner homicide, 23 males
and 42 females were victims.
Forty-three percent of homicides between intimates in 2006–07 had a domestic violence history with the police in some form prior to the homicide incident.
Twenty-seven children under the age of 15 years were killed in 2006–07, the
overwhelming majority by a parent (84%). Of these 24 per cent of perpetrators were the
biological father. The majority of perpetrators were mothers. A further 24 per cent were
live in boyfriends or new partners. Of the 14 offenders who committed suicide following
the 2006–07 homicide incidents, four involved child victims. In all four cases, the
offender was the custodial parent of the victim, two mothers and two fathers."

Here is the link to the Original Report from the National Homicide Monitoring Program:
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/F/B/%7BFFB9E49F-160F-43FC-B98D-6BC510DC2AFD%7Dmr01.pdf

ChazP; the question is this: what evidence do you have that these children's deaths are related to the family law act? None, because they are not. Gemma Gaye Killeen, who is before the WA magistrates court this very day for murdering her 2YO child, after seperating from her husband, is also not related to the family court act.
The majority of middle Australia fathers simply want to share their life with their children, as do the children want the fathers in their life. The only way to achieve this outcome for loving fathers and their children is by having a rebuttable presumption of joint residency. Any fathers or mothers who use violence should be dealt with by the law accordingly.

This information from Johm Stapleton justifies more than anything the purpose of the proposed legislative changes to the Family Law Act that allegations of domestic violence and child abuse should be given paramount importance and be throughly and competently investigated before decisions are taken regarding the custody and contact with children. That the safety and protection of the children should supercede any parental rights. Additionally that there must be careful assessment of the residential arrangements for each child and the pre-separation involvement of each parent in the child's development. Also that children's rights to contribute actively in the decision-making processes affecting their lives are hugely important. Parental rights cannot be allowed to supercede children's safety and protection.

Children are nobody's 'property'.

John,

A first-class article.

I think another reason the Labor rollback is a disaster for men is that it traps them in unhappy relationships. Men know that if they file for divorce they will pay an enormous emotional and financial cost. Men get the bill, women get the kids. This is borne out by the fact that most divorces are initiated by women. Women have everything to gain so they will not remain in unhappy marriages.

It's ironic that no fault divorce has ended in men's fault divorce.

People bandy about the numbers of children who are sadly and unfortunately murdered, and child safety.

Listening to the radio on drownings, at least 150 children drown each year. many more are left with significant brain injury from hypoxia.

Many more children are at risk of drowning, than risk from another parent. If child safety really was the issue, then this would be covered.

But child safety is not the real issue, the real issue is about female power and control and punishing the men who were unfortunate enough to provide the sperm that helped make these women pregnant.

I would suggest that these women, never really wanted men in their lives, except as a sperm donor and pay packet.

Chaz

The safety of children is presently treated as being of paramount importance. The 2006 laws made children safer than they have ever been. The fact that some children still die doesn't disprove that. We don't change road rules every time someone dies in a crash.

ChazP
Obviously you have never had a child removed from your love and care by a vindictive ex partner, who decided to commit perjury by falsely accusing you of some fictional abuse. Therefore you speak out of ignorance.

This occurs regularly, simply because it can be done with absolute impunity, thereby gaining valuable time to indoctrinate the child, who, with constant pressure, will turn against their own parent within a very short time.

It sounds more like you have been deeply involved with this child stealing industry, and are desparately trying to justify your involvement. Unfortunately for you, history is going to judge you harshly.

This book is destined to become standard reading for reformers, politicians and, of course, obstructionists in all countries and at the UN.

Australian family law reforms are the gold standard by which other countries assess their legislation. Australia serves as the international beacon of hope which is why it has been targeted by regressive forces internationally in order to roll back this “social experiment” under whatever political pretext, notwithstanding that 81% of Australians support the reforms.

This is a book whose importance transcends national boundaries for it has become evident to the international community that as goes Australia, so go the hopes of the global community for family law reform.

Congratulations to John Stapleton, and congratulations to all Australians whose native pragmatism brought the first instalment of common sense to family law.

George Piskor
Canada

Congratulations to John Stapleton for writing this much needed book about the continuing chaos in family law. No gender has a monopoly on vice and sadly more mothers kill their children than biological fathers. The gender violence on both sides must stop. The sad reality is that we are losing the battle to keep a civil society, because we are losing the battle for love.

You see love begins in the home and is cemented when a man and woman say "I do" and pledge their troth "till death us do part". I have been married for 35 years more my wife's credit than my own. If our marriage was based on Moral relativism and feelings we would have divorced long ago or finished up living apart as my parents did. But we were both determined to let love have her way. Five children and three grandchlidren later it is starting to pay off.

You see love is a decision. We need a love revolution a marriage revolution www.marriagerevolution.org.au if you will. Mother Teresa was right to say "World peace starts in the home", indeed it is the only place that world peace can start. While we pursue the greater cause of a love revolution we need to find a way to preserve the basic right of a child to an ongoing relationship with that child's mother and father.

Every child needs a mother and a father. To allow the most anti male amoral institution in Australia to continue to judge that right is moral lunacy of the highest order. The new family violence legislation proposed by the Gillard government while well intentioned will in the hands if the already morally bankrupt Family Law Court become a handy tool for the further destruction of families through the proliferation of unjust accusations.

Hopefully Johns book will help provoke a wide ranging moral debate about the need to reject moral relativism and build a society where mothers and fathers and children are treated with the dignity and love that they deserve.

ChazP wrote "Additionally that there must be careful assessment of the pre-separation involvement of each parent in the child's development."

Who on this list considers the above as code-speak for ignoring the full time wage earning that fathers contribute to thier child's development? is this not a way of saying that how the married parents seperated labour must always the case for eternity, even post separation?

This sinister phrasing, mooted to be included in new family law ammendments, is designed to say "once a money contributer, always a money contributer" and conversely, "once a full time hands-on carer, always the full time carer"

In other words if the dad wasworking to earn money for his child pre separation then he will be considered a deadbeat who didnt show much "hands on" care because he was "elsewhere". Due to not being a hands on dad, the courts will continue that by Court Order.

And some thought the 2006 ammendments lent themselves to misuse!

JamesH – you argument seems to be that because children die for other reasons, that the (preventable) deaths of children following parental separation is acceptable to you. I cannot share your moral indifference.
Benk Yes we do change the road rules when deaths reach unacceptable levels – have you not noticed the increase in speed cameras to curb dangerous driving causing deaths. The present Act permits children to be important only as a means of evading having to pay for them and for vengeful responses to rejection, and such reactions are unconscionably high.
EmilyG – Family Courts do not have the expertise nor resources to competently investigate allegations of domestic violence or child abuse which is why so many cases result in incorrect and inappropriate decisions. The proposals in the legislation are precisely designed to avoid the circumstances you describe. I do not act with any self-indulgent thought of how history may judge me, only to protect children from the horrendous abuses and deaths they now suffer under the current Sharia Parenting Laws. You on the other hand, do not sound like a loving caring parent concerned for your children, only a sore loser in a bitter battle.
George Piskor – the book will certainly provide more ammunition for the Patriarchalists and Male Supremacists who forced through the 2006 amendments in Australia in order to restore their position of power and domination over women and children which they enjoyed in Victorian times. (see Goods and Chattels legislation and No Votes for Women). The 2006 Act re-introduced such inhumane and degrading treatment of women and children.
If, as many of you claim, mothers abuse and kill children more often than fathers and are equally responsible for the domestic violence, why are you not supporting this proposed legislation which is designed to protect children regardless of the gender of the assailant?. You seem to be more concerned with apportioning blame than protecting children. Or is this just about protecting your own advantageous financial positions and children are of no concern.?

" in order to restore their position of power and domination over women and children which they enjoyed in Victorian times"

Oh dear ChazP.

You finally let it slip.

So its not about the children after all. Its about the perceived "power and control", a mantra repeated over and over by the feminist brigade, and instilled into younger minds during feminist brainwashing classes.

Taking fathers from their children was to break their "power and control".

How sick.

<JamesH – you argument seems to be that because children die for other reasons, that the (preventable) deaths of children following parental separation is acceptable to you. I cannot share your moral indifference. > ChapZ

Nice try, and typically distorting my point. Very much like how a politican operates.

Guilt tripping, done enough of it in my life, to say that your are a really dirty fighter, trying to hit below the belt.

I never said or implied that the deaths of children were acceptable, that is your distorted and rather sick interpretation.

Like I said that for custodial mothers, it has nothing to do with child safety, this focus on child welfare, is more about power and control, and children are a mere tool used by single mothers groups.

ChapZ, you wrote that the amount of child interaction that the father had pre separation, should be THE determining factor in how much contact that they should have.

This flies in the face of what happens in intact relationships, where the amount of interaction a parent has with a child fluctuates and is not static.

Google

"Kathleen Folbigg"

Thankyou

Chaz

Changes to road rules are based on evidence, not whatever you call your rants. Kids have never been safer than they are now.

ugh...the generalisations borne from childhood hurts, anger, frustration and individuals' partnering experiences [married or not]. These are only some of the reasons illustrating the complexities of family law court decisions and for those reasons 'no parents, lawyers, government agencies or groups' will ever be happy or satisfied achieving the objectives, they seek, to ensure that all children spend loving peaceful equal time with their biological or non-biological parents.

One shoe or legislation does not fit all as separated Mums and Dads have experienced.

Be honest and reflect back to the time of immediate reactions during the initial 18 months of your own separations. Q: Did your children feel or express safety and reassurance? Did your children witness violent outbursts and feel threatened? Were your children in a serious threatening situation whereby their lives were in real danger at the time whilst you were undergoing a life change or feeling totally rejected?

If one is not completely honest after reflecting and clearly recalling those feelings and anger at the time of their separation and reflecting upon the following incidents, then one is setting up our future childrens lives [ie future separating parents with their childrens lives] at REAL risk via some changes made to legislation.

Amending or changing legislation is excellent for children who are not at real immediate risk around a parent or parents, of violence and/or their death, particularly during the initial few years of separating parents.

However, changing legislation to suit and give the opportunity for parents who are violent and selfish, threatening to take their childrens lives and/or ex-partner's life, during the initial few years of a separation, will increase and encourage a controlling parent, during their initial grief, to be given the tools to carry out their threats more easily.

Nevertheless, I feel there is one major point that many parents [I have lived and experienced it] fail to identify and comprehend after the initial 12-18 months of separation however.

[Part II Posting forthcoming if allowed]

[Part II]

A residential parent must allow for the grieving process to be experienced by a parent who is not seeing their child/children, and grieving process to be worked through during the initial 18 months, of the parent coming to terms with the loss of their children, spouse and home environment.

I have experienced the whole situation in every shape way and form. Each family is different, however one thing I do know, and that is people have short and convenient memories, regarding the initial shock, bewilderment and grief symptoms exhibited during the initial 18 months of separation.

The point here being is that both parents must allow for the fact that the grieving angry parent on many occasions, will later take control of their anger and be safe around their children after the initial 12 or 18 month grieving period; time and timing are the key.

Thousands of teenage girls now in their twenties and thirties have missed out on knowing and receiving any love or acknowledgement from their separated Dads.

Best of wishes with the book and concepts John.

DOTA has been the main voice for justice in family issues for years - it is great to see print media also being used to highlight the inequities in the system around family law. I don't have much hope of a change for the better, however, as the discourse around family law (CSA etc) is dominated by irrational ideology. Extensive research within and outside Australia shows a number of common factors that should be considered in formulating changes in Family Law, but are ignored by Robert McClelland, our AG, as he seeks to placate the rabid ideology of feminism that influences sections of the once admirable Labour Party. Some of the main points have been covered in this Forum (i.e. data shows children are more at risk of harm - including homicide - by mothers than fathers; women do lie and fabricate allegations to achieve their goals). Other points that should have been considered include the findings that children (especially daughters) suffer psychologically and socially as a result of father absence; and that Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is found in 3 times as many women as men. BPD is characterised by violence, impulsivity, manipulation, and failed relationships. Many of the women (and some men) in "highly conflicted" couples in the Family Court probably suffer from BPD. Such women are also more likely to harm their children - why didn't Robert McClelland ask for a research report on this disorder? These 3 cases of mothers killing children all show signs of this disorder:

Mother who gassed children found guilty of murder of 3 children
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/mother-who-gassed-children-found-guilty-of-murder/story-e6freoof-1225832377694
The Courier-Mail 25/02/10

Mother took baby on fatal bridge leap&#8232;
&#8232;&#8232;http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25720825-5006785,00.html&#8232;&#8232;
The Australian&#8232; 2 July 2009&#8232;&#8232;

Sentencing of Dean Shillingsworth's mother will provide closure
http://macarthur-chronicle-campbelltown.whereilive.com.au/news/story/sentencing-of-dean-shillingsworth-s-mother-will-provide-closure/

Thanks to John Stapleton for being a heretic, and refusing to accept that the earth is flat, or the Family Court fair.

MHIRC

From the US Surgen Generals report into mental health.

"Some anxiety disorders, like panic disorder, appear to have a stronger genetic basis than others (National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH], 1998), although actual genes have not been identified. Other anxiety disorders are more rooted in stressful life events.

It is not clear why females have higher rates than males of most anxiety disorders, although some theories have suggested a role for the gonadal steroids. Other research on women’s responses to stress also suggests that women experience a wider range of life events (e.g., those happening to friends) as stressful as compared with men who react to a more limited range of stressful events, specifically those affecting themselves or close family members (Maciejewski et al., 1999)."

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter4/sec2_1.html

The above is well known by feminists when carrying out fear mongering amongst women.

They will try and play upon the natural fearfulness of women by suggesting that if the father sees the children he will abuse the children, or kill the children or carry out “power and control”.

The ultimate aim is to remove fathers from their children, and will use whatever brainwashing or manipulation necessary to do so.

MHIRC,

You have highlighted the problem. Whenever a woman kills her children the media claims she suffered from mental illness and then prevaracates about the impact of mental illness and how sad everything is. The mother is not seen as responsibilte for her actions - we make excuses. When a man kills his kids, he is seen as evil incarnate and an example of why men should not be trusted with children. No excuses are made - he is expected to take responsibility for his actions.

The fact that more women kill children than men doesn't matter. Society just doesn't want to hold women accountable for their actions like men. And of course, women only want responsibility when it suits them. They don't want to be like men - they want to maintain and strengthen their privileged position in society.

Now let me see if I can get this right.

Over the years, women have often complained about how they are portrayed in the media, things like sex object come to mind, and in particular complaints about photographs used by advertising and suggestive poses.

Now when us guys complain about how men and in particular fathers are portrayed by the media, people like ChapZ, Suzieonline and others often accuse of many of us as being misongynists.

They insist that it is the utmost importance to protect children, but they are only display interest in protecting children from abusive men, this in its self indicates that the real issue is not about protecting children from abuse, but more as a means of dissing men, under the guise of protecting children.

The continually negative potrayal of men, by these women and the propaganda, serves to continually alienate. Alienation is a bullying tactic.

Excellennt article.

Another reason why we shouldn't buckle under attempts by liars to roll back the shared parenting laws. It is a complete myth that the 2006 laws have resulted in an increase in domestic violence or child abuse. Quite the contrary. Children are being spared the entrenched conflict of drawn out custody disputes.

The laws should go further and provide for a rebuttable presumption of substantial time with each parent. As a general principle, childen need both parents. I can't imagine why anyone would disagree with this notion in the modern age. We're not in the 1950s anymore.

To accompany the 2006 changes, many - about 50, federal magistrates were selected for their capacity to trivialise mothering over fathers. Any father - irrespective of whether that person was cruel and vile to his children and convicted criminals. The downside for good mums has been accusations of being mentally ill for reporting what the kids have disclosed, and this week, infront of one such magistrate, a mother lost her kids without any trial, with no right to be presumed innocent until 'proved guilty' , and without warning. She was simply told to go to the court and bring the kids. It was based on a Family report that she has not yet seen. That FRW simply decided the mother was a liar, that the abuse of the children (severe knock em across a room, drag them around by the hair, kick them violence) was an invention. As well as that the kids were 'over-attached to her' and she needed to be separated from them to bond with daddy, because he seemed so nice during the interview. In this case the kids are just as scared of the step mother as the father.

So, only now may that mother try to get help. She may go to a single parent group. She aint no feminist - well not yet.

She had applied for AVO's in the past, twice. But she removed them to try again to make the marriage work. So she must be a liar hey!

I do not doubt at all that some decent men have not seen their kids enough, or at all. I know some women are very violent and abusive and look around, many young women are now acting violently, more so than ever before. But the blindness on this list to what has been happening since the 2006 changes is astonishing. I have heard men screaming at the Magistrate, who ignores it, then who belittles a mum if she cries. I guess all that security in courts isn't there to keep the judges safe from the mums.

"I have heard men screaming at the Magistrate, who ignores it, then who belittles a mum if she cries."

I'm having just a bit of trouble imagining that as a regular part of court life. Magistrates, judges etc aren't generally noted for their tolerance of being screamed at in court.

Just how often have you heard it happen? I've not spend any time in family court proceedings since 2006 so I can't comment first hand on that aspect. I can say that so far those pushing for these changes have offered no evidence that risk to kid's (or mothers) has been increased overall by the 2006 changes.

I could accept that in some cases magistrates have got so tired of the routine of accusations being raised in the context of a custody dispute that the have missed ones which needed to be taken more seriously.

I doubt that there are any easy answers to that, the proposed changes will most likely increase the flow of accusations because they will become easy access to custody.

R0bert

“..and sadly more mothers kill their children than biological fathers…”

You get a chocolate fish Warwick for slipping that one in while your battle for love rages on.

Vanna:“So its not about the children after all..”

None of it is Vanna.

Vanna:”Family Law has been cloaked in secrecy, leading to too few men in particular not knowing anything about it.”

Ignorance of the law is genderless.

Anti:“In regards to Child Support, I have previously proposed a levy to be payable by all taxpayers. The tiny sum of $5 per week per taxpayer would raise enough money to cover all the transfers between parents that the CSA claims and it could be easily administred by the ATO and centrelink, removing the $500 million black hole that is the CSA.”

Sorry honey, my ex failed to pay the last 16k of his child support but I refuse to make my hard working neighbor pay our children. Such is life.

“I suspect that you simply have no concept whatever of personal obligations, merely of entitlements. That's quite sad, but is no reason to change a law.”

Isn’t that what you just wanted?

James:”Like I said that for custodial mothers... is more about power and control, and children are a mere tool used by single mothers groups.”

Mums only want their kids in their care to have power and control over males?

James:”The continually negative potrayal of men, by these women and the propaganda, serves to continually alienate. Alienation is a bullying tactic.”

I don’t want this happening to my boys; I don’t want them receiving this message by society of what they are supposed to be like. But I equally do not want you going near my daughters with these messages.

R0bert:” I'm having just a bit of trouble imagining that as a regular part of court life. Magistrates, judges etc aren't generally noted for their tolerance of being screamed at in court.”

Weird things happen in court R0bert – I was told by a judge that I had to take responsibility for who my ex was. Nice concept but sorry, I refuse.

Jewely:"Ignorance of the law is genderless."

It may be, but for a bloke turning up at Family court there is almost no support unless he has lots of money. On the other habd there are court officers and volunteers specifically tasked with assisting women to obtain free advice.

Jewely:"I refuse to make my hard working neighbor pay our children. Such is life."

your hard-working neighbour is already paying. The responses from women to this are very revealing and amount to "I want the bastard to pay, so there". they don;t have anything to do with the children at all. You're quite sick.

Jewely:"Isn’t that what you just wanted?"

No, i want the law changed so that the children who have parents like you, who prioritie getting at their ex, still get the basics. People like me pay to support our children anyway and people like my ex are going to try to milk the system anyway. Instead of allowing the ex from hell to bugger the other person's life, I've suggested a way of separating them.

Of course, I don't have a handy income from the products of such conflicts...

Jewely,
Occasionally a child support agency somewhere in the world releases figures that show the number of women who are supposed to be paying child support that actually do pay child support.

Normally about 10% to 30% of women who are required to pay child support actually do pay child support, while about 50% to 80% of men required to pay child support actually do pay child support.

These figures are never mentioned by feminists, and I have never known a feminist to say that mothers are paying too little child support.

They seem to believe that the father only has to pay child support.

The children have to be removed from the father and the father has to pay money to the mother is the number one policy.

<. But I equally do not want you going near my daughters with these messages>

Nasty! Jewely

<I don’t want this happening to my boys>

But then how do we solve this paradox?

I am very interested to read DOTA's account of its activities. This group has been very influential and has had an instrumental role in promoting the idea of the absolute necessity for the equal division and distribution of children between their parents. How does a group persuade law-makers to legislate for specific proportionate child division and distribution? This is no small achievement. In fact one could argue that never has one group done so much to produce a system to control and determine the actions of separated parents. Imprisonments of parents under the Family Law Act are up and so are child abduction rates, fines, community orders, parenting program orders - the list goes on. This group has achieved so much that everyone should carefully study what it reveals, who discloses what activities. What were the spheres of influence? How did they operate? Who was responsible for what? People need to know.

mog, DOTA is a community radio program, set-up and run by a few volunteers using their own money and the donations of supporters. That is where it begins and ends.

On the other hand, the OSW has funded dozens of Mother's Rights and other misogynist women's groups to the tune of millions of dollars, much of which has been spent "lobbying" politicians and others.

Nice of you to point out the contrast, thanks.

You're quite right to call the achievements of DOTA impressive.

What's also impressive is the singular failure of such taxpayer-funded Mother's Rights groups to prove their case that fathers are inherently more dangerous.

Anti:”your hard-working neighbour is already paying. The responses from women to this are very revealing and amount to "I want the bastard to pay, so there". they don;t have anything to do with the children at all. You're quite sick.”

In this battle to not have men stereotyped you keep doing it to females. You are saying I am sick?

Anti:” No, i want the law changed so that the children who have parents like you, who prioritie getting at their ex”

You did it again – parents like me and telling me what is a priority for me? Kids don’t care – kids really don’t care about money.

Anti:” Of course, I don't have a handy income from the products of such conflicts...”

That’s why I think Family Court should be free and access to the law there should be free.

Hey Vanna, yeah I did see that a stat had been found about child support paying (or not as the case may be) mothers. I don’t know if that immediately can be translated into women having a certain attitude anymore than accusing the non-paying men of one.

James I didn’t mean the going near my daughters comment as nasty. Anymore than saying I didn’t want the other side near my sons. Sorry if it was unclear.

I have no idea how to stop both sides attacking the opposite gender and telling our children who they will be one day. Anti (I think) once said about posters in a police station all having pictures of women who have been bashed? I don’t want my sons seeing it and I don’t want my daughters being told they are the ones that get beaten up.

Jewely - you are correct - noone should tell your daughters that they are the ones that get beaten up - it would be patently false. Some 80% of violence victims are men.

Jewely, I'm calling all those women who prioritise getting at their ex above their children's welfare "sick". You seem to be placing yourself in that basket.

The fact is that the biggest single factor in post-separation conflict is financial. Tying two people together financially and linking their own financial welfare to the amount of time they have the kids in their care is simply disastrous. 40% of all CSA Collect payers are on benefits, costing the country enormously.

Break the link, give people breathing space, make sure the kids who need it get some support and stop hounding decent fathers who regard paying for their kids as a privilege.

The best way I can see to do that is a very easy and transparent levy on all taxpayers with no exceptions.

So far the only ones who disagree seem to be women who want to "make the bastard pay" and a few childless people who seem to resent the idea of spending money on anyone but themselves.

Gender Logic of the commentators
All women hate men
All women are money-hungry
All women lie
All women subordinate their children's welfare to revenge
All men are good
All men are truthful
All men are non-violent
All men are victims of evil women
All men are wonderful parents
And they believe it....

Anti:”Jewely, I'm calling all those women who prioritise getting at their ex above their children's welfare "sick". You seem to be placing yourself in that basket.”

Now how did you come to the conclusion that I do that?

Anti:”Break the link, give people breathing space, make sure the kids who need it get some support and stop hounding decent fathers who regard paying for their kids as a privilege.”

Why not just make Family Court Free? That way I figure tax payers help the whole family. Bastards and Bastettes should have to contribute to the raising of their children still which was why child support was invented. Actually I have no idea why child support was invented.

Silver:” Jewely - you are correct - noone should tell your daughters that they are the ones that get beaten up - it would be patently false. Some 80% of violence victims are men.”

Those stats should even out eventually now that women are allowed to join armies? :)

Aw Mog, hope you have your back to the wall and a blindfold on.

Not much mention about the children themselves. They are the meat in the sandwich. I attend meetings where I see the sad results of people who have lived in situations where they have been torn between their parents. I am talking about adults who have suffered most of their lives from the fallout. If people who have children attended some sort of basic parenting classes, where both parents could learn about the vunerability of a child's mind maybe that would be a start. Young minds are like putty and once a pattern has been established it takes years to undo if the pattern has been a bad one.

I myself have a couple of grandchildren whom I have not seen or heard of for over seven years. I came to terms with this, however my grandchildren were so poisoned by their mother and her family from babies that their father's relationship with them was ruined. There was no violence in the marriage but a domestic violence order was taken out and used to prevent any communication. From the day of the divorce my son has not spoken or seen his ex-wife. He did get to see his sons who live interstate a couple of times a year for a week for the first 10 years but it was always a strained relationship. The wife received a furnished paid for new home at the divorce and my son has not worked since as he said he could not see the sense in working for lost causes. My son now lives in a small house in the bush where he says he has some peace.
I devote my time to my other grandchildren.

Robert hasn't been in court since 2006 but demands more evidence of abusive magistrates and judges. Sorry Robert, I'm only up to eight cases personally, the rest are anecdotal and from all over the country. I would think one was one too many. Especially if the one was you.

The men's supporters seem to think only they turn up, ignorant and expecting justice, and they get no justice unless they can pay. And that their women's heads have been filled with stuff by the rabid feminists, who obviously tout their wares to these already strong, capable and focused women in order to beat the ex in court. Newsflash people. Women are similarly ignorant, and similarly expect to be heard and treated with justice. And I can't imagine what impact you think meeting a solicitor on the day is going to have - if there are in fact duty solicitor available at court. It's often after the court abuses them (and they do) that the women might seek help, just like the DOTA crew do. And any other grass-roots need for fighting judicial injustice is bound to create political activity - as it should.

MOG, that's very cheeky. Accurate, concise and reflecting what's really going on, but not supportive of the fertile imaginings of these 'experts' albeit way out of date, stuck in THEIR WAY and bearing little resemplance to what's happening today.

There was plenty of evidence submitted before these reforms were put forward. The women were focussed on 5% entrenched DV that get to court, and the MR's on any man who didn't get his own way.

Cotter,
I have noticed that you have had a lot of things to say about men and fathers, and I am wondering what school or university taught you to hate males.

You can give the name of that school or university.

I think the quote "Men begin and end marriage on their knees" says a lot about our feminist society.

When 90% of children post separation were living with their mothers without objection from feminists, I wonder if feminists would object if 90% of children post separation began living with their fathers.

Vanna, i have a lot to say about what's going on in courts across this land of the fair go, every day. The question you ask is ridulous and gendered. The people I work for (of my clients who are affected by Family breakup) want their children to have the very best chance at a life free from abuse and violence. These are the sorts of cases reflected in the submissions to Government.

It is not about getting rid of shared parenting per se. Although I can't quite see why the kids cant have a stable environment and the parents have to swap houses each mid-week etc. (Yes I know that's unworkable, but it's ok for kids?. History will judge this period harshly as more is learned about developing brains and the impact of attachment etc especially where abuse and violence continues because of court's decisions. Private violence is harf to prove

And hopefully for the last time I say it, you mistake my feminism for hatred of males. The search for a fair go for women and children does not equate to hatred of men, although I have no doubt that some feminists loathe some men. I don't know one who says she hates all men.

What I read here all too often is a narrow lens, often subjective, supported by selective stats, reiterated til the cows come home - basically -she done me wrong, she got my money and I shouldn't have to pay for my own kids. They are mine and she cant have them and single mothers are the root of all evil.

Taxpayers should pay for our kids to fix child support?

Where the women fail here, is that they cannot disclose their experiences without expecting to be sabotaged, because what women experience is all lies, and only mens issues count.

What Uni/unis? - let's just say I lecture in Law and social sciences as a guest speaker wherever they invite me and let you work it out.

cotter

Why not a fair go for all rather than just for women and children?

"she done me wrong, she got my money and I shouldn't have to pay for my own kids" - that will pop up sometimes but not nearly to the same degree as "he done me wrong, I haven't got all his money yet and I shouldn't have to pay for my own kids"

The objection to paying from many comes from a system that's all to willing to decide that is the only important part of parenting for men, they can be cut out of all the rest if the mum pushes hard enough but they should still pay. There are those who just don't pay, but that does not mean all take the same view.

You are very selective in what you chose to criticize or maybe so immersed in anti-male rhetoric that you don't notice it anymore.

Again for the record, I'm the full time parent (by agreement), I'm more than happy to pay for my child (while I'm not arbitrarily stopped from being a parent in other ways), she didn't get all my money but I did see how open to abuse the system was under the old approach. I've been through the stage of custody dispute and there was no concept of fairness or actual best interests of the child involved. It was a mix of maternal bias combined with who allowed their lawyer to play the dirtiest.

Layer upon layer of gender biased activists no doubt all convincing themselves that they were putting the child first when what they were really doing was conforming to the old view that women should be the mothers, fathers the providers without regard to the actual situation before them.

Some of the supporters of the changes have been quite open that it is about rolling back shared care. If you really want a fairer system maybe some effort to wind back the more extreme bitter women, at this stage you seem to be firmly sided with them.

R0bert

Cotter

Can you imagine a male perspective as extreme as yours being given equal time in an Australian university?

You don't display an open hatred of men, but you are quite happy to reinstate a legal system that disadvantaged many men. Hatred of men takes many forms.

Robert, and again you quite miss the point. The changes are to force? the courts to better understand that best interests of children should safety.

I'm tired of this circular argument where so many people with no real idea of what actually goes on call any alternate view anti-male (benk says I'm not man hating but still extreme) when half my clients are males asking for assistance themselves or women finding out info for husbands, sons, grandsons etc

I could only wish for more people with my views about the disgraceful legal systems - thats local, district, supreme, federal magistrates, Family Court and children's courts were out there, spruking my stuff.

Then perhaps the new wave of lawyers might be less driven by the almighty dollar and do some fair play in our country

Cotter,
90% of children post seperation were living with the mother. I tend to think there is a gender issue there, but you are saying that "women and children" should be given a "fair go".

The laws were introduced under the pretence of "no child should live in poverty", now resulting in more children living on welfare and in poverty than ever before.

One giant feminist stuff up.

yes, well, Vanna, blame those feminists. If only women understood their inferior status and remained in the kitchen none of this would have happened. Laughing all the way to comedy factory.

Melaine Philips wrote a commentery on Saying the Unsayable, in which she said that efforts to lift single mothers out of poverty just results in greater numbers of them.

So this results in increasing cost to the taxpayer.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=471

James the solo mum thing bothers me... they aren’t a stable group. Every few seconds a female becomes a solo mother while another becomes a non-solo mother.

How does the woman who a minute ago was considered all good and stat-free suddenly become a bad mother? By the time the stats have been published half of the stat makers no longer fit the criteria.

I will admit now I do not understand stats and am inclined to overthink everything.

Cotter,
Well we have never heard from feminists what they would think of 90% of children post seperation living with their father.

I think they would oppose it, so the Family Law system becomes one of taking children from a parent because of the gender of that parent, combined with feminist villification and denigration of males and fathers, combined with solicitors taking as much money from anyone they can

BTW, most kitchens seem to have an automatic dish washer (male invention), and open a women's magazine and you will find page after page of receipes (in amongst the diet pages).

Jewely, stats are to be taken with a huge grain of salt, firstly when stats are published they are already out of date, secondly there are perhaps thousands of different ways of adding.

The methods of mathmatics depends very much on what certian people want to show. Data can be added, excluded, extrapolated, estimated, or not even collected.

have a look around this website
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313222509/www.nojustice.info/statistics.htm

And James that sums up how the C$A operate.

Merry Christmas to all the parasites that assume the system works.

styx

Styx, Melaine Phillips wrote about how the "best interests of a child" is used to shift wealth from those who earn it.

stx you are absolutely right about the parasites who manipulate the system, especially the 620,000 fathers who do not pay child support to maintain their children and leave the taxpayers to carry the burden while they swan around on their trailbikes, JetSkis, Surfboards, Powerboats, Lancers etc etc. I see them every day in Noosa and other parts of Qnsld. It is long overdue that such parasites were brought to account and the taxpayers relieved of carrying their financial responsibilities for them.

"I see them every day in Noosa and other parts of Qnsld." - it must be real handy having those men wearing wetsuit's with "Deadbeat dad" written across the back. If it wasn't for that I suspect that it would be a bit hard to spot which jet ski riders paid child support and which didn't.

I wonder why they don't make separated/divorced mum's wear something similar, I generally have to know someone for a while to get a real idea how much they actually contribute towards their children.

R0bert

R0bert:” I wonder why they don't make separated/divorced mum's wear something similar, I generally have to know someone for a while to get a real idea how much they actually contribute towards their children.”

Where I came from we did... t’shirt, black skinny jeans and sheepskin slippers. Suburb was called “nappy valley” to all locals, state housing everywhere. The freakish kids in the hood had two parents that lived at home and got funny looks all the time from the other children who would often ask why their dad was there and gave them funny looks like there must be trouble at their house… err… which there often was.

All the dads were on the dole so no fault no foul was the rule. Never met a dad with a jetski but I aint from that kind of neighborhood I guess.

Happy New Year R0bert and peeps!

Happy New year, you grumpy lot.

Now for example, when a couple is intact and from my understanding, that there are ways and means of reducing the level of income taxation, used by the wealthy (which I aren't) such things are totally acceptable.

Now the couple separates and the ex wants child support, but they cant find out where the money is, this then becomes unacceptable.

I think most people who get to be wealthy are not silly about how they deal with their money or who they give their money too.

Sure there are people who avoid paying taxation and child support etc. But the vast majority of us don't have that advantage.

The most contentious issue is the level of socalled 'support', and most separated mums find it is not the road to wealth and happiness as they thought. ')

ChapZ, I wouldn't mind a jetski, powerboat, trail bike and a merc. How do I do it?

Unless I win lotto, there are two chances, buckleys and none.

Not wealthy enough to be able to use, the tax avoidance techniques.

James, I've got the powerboat and a BMW and my boy has a motor bike, but we lack a jetski, sadly. I'll have to work on that.

Total outlay for the lot was about $15000 over 3 years, plus a lot of effort. I do enjoy being a part of the bloated plutocracy and so cheaply, too...

Jetski? Alright for gays and lifesavers I suppose.

Here is a better toy and it surfs Bars, including Noosa.
http://www.cruisecraft.com.au/outsider685.htm

Nice corny, is that yours? You must be a much more bloated plutocrat than me. Mine's more like this

http://www.cruisecraft.com.au/explorer530.htm

but it's an old '88 model Sportsmancraft V173 and it's now nice and shiny new. Hopefully sometime this year the old Johnny 120 will get the heave for a nice new Merc 150 with a long leg so I can raise the transom and make her a bit more comfortable across the bar. She'll also be getting another 100 l or so of fuel capacity, to take her up to just over 200 l, or about 6 hours range. I'd love to go four stroke, but not at the price they command.

The infamous historical figure Joseph Georbells who should need NO introduction said "tell a lie often enough and people will believe it"; he went on to say something like; 'the absolute enemy of the lie is the truth, which must be stamped out whenever it arises'.

John Stapleton's book will make the propagandists and lesbian feminists of the Family Law Rort system shudder. It is a document that should be read by all men going through the Family Court charade where the secrecy speaks for itself, and even put onto the reading lists of schools and universities for wide discussion.

I note the ad hominem attacks against the author in this forum and deplore them!

maxxwell

Lies damn lies and statistics; morgue figures (ie. real dead bodies) show twice as many child deaths from mothers and women. that doesn't include the blizzad of abortions performed EVERY day (400?+ in NSW), signed and sealed by women.

Domestic Violence hospital admission statistics have been rebadged as 'Violence Against Women' although half the victims are male (approx). And so the Local Court's workload has multiplied as a result of false and tactical false DV allegations which are so helpful in Family Law. Who is violent, the innocent man or the Process Abusing women?

The Child Support statistics are 90% of payees are men, and thus they are enslaved for most of their working lives.

Oh there will be a backlash; and the perpetrators will be remembered in time.

Maxxwell

so its those radical leftist feminists impregnating themselves with the turkey baster that creates all those abortions? A man has to pay for a living child 'all of his life'? That's what deciding to breed and caring for the progeny may bring with it. Otherwise, you dont have to pay all their lives, just til the child becomes an adult. I guess the mothers should be made to pay by themselves.

Fellas, if you are woried about costs, stop breeding, try contaception, teach your sons and daughters that if they become parents, it lasts a really long time.

Many abortions are forced by men, so play nice maxxwell.

Yeah yeah, i know, no man is violent, its all thoses damn feminists.

And only women use process in courts? That's not a very balanced view.

OK Cotter,

That is a classic example of femminist nazi half truth and distracting red herring. I know a bit about medico-legal law; vis 'Informed Consent'. Please give one example since 1976 of an abortion that has been carried out in NSW, without a written consent form signed by the so called "mother" involved! It is a very distressing and ugly procedure and would never be done without the correct paperwork...

I can give plenty of examples of one night stands that wind up in Child Support tyranny. The wonderous thing is the issue of DNA testing and paternity fraud as exemplified by the Liam McGill case making it legal; aswell the Federal Law Reform Commissioner (Rosalind Croucher) seeking to make unauthorized testing a criminal offense. The truth is that an extraordinary proportion of paternity tests prove the supposed father is not the biological father, but he is villified for even wondering.

I wonder what Islam would make of the situation in Australia and indeed in the Feminist dominated Western World? I think they might have a lot ot say in due course...

On that score, I had the pleasure of giving both Phillip Ruddoch (Federal Attorney General) and Cardinal Pell exerpts of a book called "The Lesbian Mother's Legal Handbook", which had a chapter in it written by founding Chief Judge of the Family Court of Australia whilst she was at the height of her powers in 1986. It speaks for itself!

Oh yes, the absolute enemy of propaganda is the truth!!

Maxxwell