Robert - How can it be fair to a child who is given into the custody of a parent convicted on multiple occasions of child sex abuse, or to a parent who has violently assaulted the other parent on multiple occasions in the child's presence, or that a child is shuttled back and forth on a week-about basis, living out of suitcases and having no friends in either place?. How can it be fair to a child to be given into the custody of a parent who has sexually abused them, and their pleas for protection are ignored?. If they runaway and refuse to return to such parent, they are seized (bodily) by the Federal Police, and forced to return, or are placed with State Child Protection authorities and imprisoned against their will?. Three children are currently being held in such limbo in WA and others in similar situations elsewhere.
Thats the `fairness' that currently exists Robert, and you and the Lib/Nats want it to continue because parents must be given their `Rights' under the current Family Law.

Refer us to a judgement on Austlii in which the Family Court has given custody
1. to a convicted paedophile.
2. to a parent convicted of assault witnessed by the child

Otherwise spare us bald, unsubstantiated attempts to incite public hysteria.

A child needs emotional security more than geographical stability – this means secure to give and receive love from both fit and loving parents and stability derived from those relationships. It seems a selfish argument to deny such bonds on the grounds that it inconveniences a parent packing & transporting a suitcase once a week.

Further the law requires that a parenting arrangement must be practicable, in particular, in regard to distance. Therefore there is no reason why a child cannot be with his/her friends at both homes.

If a parent/child contravenes a court order there must be consequences otherwise there is no point in having the order. Further a parenting order is obtained after evidence is presented and tested usually over 5 days of trial. One cannot be sure, without knowing the circumstances, that if a child refuses contact or runs away that the other parent is not inappropriately influencing, if not psychologically harming, the child into acting to that parents wishes.

The best interests of the child cannot be determined by the accusing parent. Further any parent has the opportunity to go back to the Court if the parenting arrangements are not working.

Parents do not have rights under the existent or proposed law – your argument is nonsense.

Chaz in what was does treating parents fairly or taking account of their needs lead to a worsening of the number of kid's who end up in the care of abusive parents?

I've never opposed legitimate investigation of claims of abuse nor of protecting kid's while those claims are investigated.

I have said that mechanisms should be in place to ensure that process does not create advantage to the person making the claim - eg isolate the kid's from the other parent then use that isolation to establish residency patterns etc.

I have said that child protection should be treated the same regardless of the relationship status of the parents. If there is sufficient cause to remove a child from the care of a parent it should apply if the parents are together or apart, not suddenly require a whole lot less evidence because the parents are seperated.

A denial of basic safeguards in a system to protect all involved does not make the most vulnerable any safer, it just makes the system more prone to abuse by those who think that they can get away with it.

R0bert

This type of arguement just keeps going around in circles.

To say that the presumption of shared parenting has led to children being harmed is extremely misleading.

Children have been harmed by their parents (carers) since the dawn of time. In the past children were removed from the parents and put into institutions, and still harm happened to them.

Some parents are prepared to set boundaries on behaviour, whilst others do not. there are consquences later on with people who are raised without learning about boundaries, as there are when the boundaries are too strict.

ChapZ is more concerned about the 25,000 odd parents who have fled the country rather pay child support and money they do not pay. My concern is that these children have been denied ongoing relationship with their fathers.

It is highly proabable that if child support was calculated on the basis of 50/50 and that these dads had more contact, there would not be 25,000 parents overseas.

It would appear that certain females regard children as their property, that they are not going to share with anyone.

The arguement they use, is that contact should be based on previous child care. Yet as we all know children do grow up and become less dependent, so as time goes on, the dynamics change. So to only use the basis of previous care as a gauge for future contact, does not recognise that even within intact families the dynamics are fluid and chop and change week to week, year to year.

Even within an intact family children will have conflict with parental authority even if that authority is female.

Yup

The fault is with the women.

Best start working on the technology for men to have babies now.

Man abused wife over two decades: court
June 14, 2011 - 1:54PM
AAP
A man allegedly dragged his wife out of their home by her hair, ripped her clothes off, wrapped an electrical lead around her neck and fired two shots when she managed to run away, a Sydney jury has been told. Crown prosecutor Lou Lungo was on Tuesday outlining the first of 10 incidents over which the man is on trial at Sydney's Downing Centre District Court. The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has pleaded not guilty to 25 charges - five of them alternatives - relating to his wife and covering incidents between 1977 and 1997. They include attempting to strangle her with intent to murder, raping her and using an electrical cattle prod with intent to cause her actual bodily harm. When he allegedly left the home, she tried to unload his rifle and lock the back door but he was too strong and pushed the door on his return. "The accused grabbed the gun and raised it towards her face," the court was told. "He pushed the muzzle up to her forehead between her eyes." Mr Lungo said the husband later took hold of the woman's hair and dragged her out of the house."I expect (she) will tell you the accused dragged her outside and ripped her clothing off her and was screaming abuse at her."He picked up an electrical extension lead ... she will tell you he wrapped the lead around her neck twice and started shaking her with it. "She was lying on her stomach and he was on top with his knee in her back. "She had her fingers between the cord and her throat to stop herself being strangled.".When the couple's son came outside to ask what was happening, the naked woman managed to run away to a neighbour's house and heard two shots fired coming from her yard.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/man-abused-wife-over-two-decades-court-20110614-1g1bw.html
I suppose Father's Rights extremists will argue that she must have provoked him.