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and reflecting what's really going on, but not supportive of the fertile imaginings of these 'experts' albeit way out of date, stuck in THEIR WAY and bearing little resemplance to what's happening today.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