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.