I sometimes wonder how many of the abusive people, be they male or female are actually psychopaths or sociopaths?

Robert – Refuge shelters are not a solution to the problem, they are only to give victims a sanctuary and protection – the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff to pick up the pieces of people who have been pushed over, when what is needed is a fence at the top of the cliff. DV is still a problem because it is still tolerated by our society and not sufficiently condemned by our society. People find it easier to `go into denial’ that it is occurring to the extent it is, or rationalise it that the victim provoked the attacker, or was in some other way to blame, or that the violent attacker momentarily lost control when in fact it is a continuous pattern of behaviour. What also needs to be considered that perpetrators of DV have Jekyll & Hyde characters, being the friendly outgoing character in social situations and the violent monster in private behind closed doors (see Anti-social Personality Disorder). It also needs allegations of DV to be competently handled by statutory authorities and offenders severely punished by Courts and placed on a National Register of Violent Offenders. Then we may see some beginning to the end of this ugly stain and shame on our society.
Of course parents should be treated equally before the law, but the Needs, Wishes, and Rights of children should be the paramount consideration – that is not happening under the present law nor in the Courts. The major reason for that is that both parents are treated as being on trial and proceedings run as an adversarial contest as in a criminal court, with lawyers creating situations of `High conflict’ with legal tactics and ploys played to ensure one or other side is the winner. Is that the way to determine the future care and safety of children.?. If it is, then we are a far less civilised country than we would claim to be. It is degrading and demeaning to us all that children are treated as mere shared possessions of parents and are given so little regard and value.

"Domestic Violence Claims" can be misused undetected!

I tried to help my wife with her paranoia, fears of persecution, claims that neighbors steal her cloth and so on. Finally I followed our GP's advice to get her assessed by the CAT Team.

After the first assessment she was brought to the hospital as involuntary patient by the police. During the second assessment my wife promised to return for further treatment and she left the hospital as voluntary patient.

She went straight to "Berry Street" and accused me of domestic violence. My agreement to assess her against her will was domestic violence she said later.

With Berry Street's help she disappeared together with the kids.

Then an unknown private DVS helped her which also cancelled my notification to the Child Protection Center that the kids are in danger if she drives them around under the influence of persecution which was the CAT teams reasoning to assess her quickly.

Isn't DHS amazing! One branch expected her to return for medication while another helped her to hide. All efforts to interlink DHS services were blocked with the response: We cannot accept your information without the consent of your wife!

FOI's do not apply for outsourced DHS services and DVS involved kept secter by police and DHS. No complaint can be written to address the problems and to improve the services. Later my wife told me in China: "This DVS is more secret that ASIO" and obviously she is right. Everyone could get ASIO's contact address.

One year later got an apology from the chief psychiatrist because the hospital did not follow his guidelines to work together with families and carers.

Domestic Violence Services should assess their clients claims, need to have staff with psychiatric education and they should contact the accused via a mediator or an ombudsman to make sure that they do the right thing.

I doubt that quality control exists making DHS supported outsourced services use funds correctly and follow guidelines.

Advice: Make a written contract with MHS before ever getting them involved or it may back fire!
DHS sucks.

ChrisH

“Clearly the Court had little option in the interim” – Of course the Court had other options. Suspending contact with the father immediately until the allegations were competently investigated. Dismissing the psychologist for advancing unscientific theories and which are not supported by the relevant professional community would be another, and appointing a professional with experience in working with children. But of course, decisions are taken from a legalistic viewpoint, and not from a child safety viewpoint. I suppose you would have been quite happy for your child to be given into the care of this man, and would be unconcerned at what would be likely to transpire, as was later proven.

Shared Parenting had been floated many years before it was put into law, and was implemented by some Judges who did not have the benefit of contrary expert advice from child development experts. The Shared Parenting law was simply an affirmation of what had been happening already.

Keeping and viewing Child pornography is a form of paedophilia. Child protection experts would tell you that it is either a part of paedophiliac behaviour or is a preliminary stage before the actual abuse occurs. This was proven by studies of testamentary evidence of convicted paedophiles.
No the Family Court is not a Court of morality, but it does have to take into account any immoral behaviours of parties to proceedings in determining the future care of children.
The reforms simply extend the definition of domestic violence into those areas of domestic violence which had previously not been considered in law but were well known among professionals working with DV victims and children. It is only recently that research has shown how children suffer severe abuse and trauma during domestic violence, and that they must be provided with protection from such events.
The reforms do not differentiate between the genders of the DV abuser and the victim, it is only FR groups that have distorted it to be prejudicial to men, although they conversely state that just as many men suffer DV so they can use this law accordingly.

Chaz I very much agree with your post of Tuesday, 14 June 2011 8:18:26 PM.

Especially the second paragraph, the adverserial nature of the existing system is rotten to the core. It encourages people to use dishonest tactics, it set's people up for a winner takes all scenario where those who don't want to act fairly and in the best interests of the children need to constantly consider the implications to themselves of decisions.

I don't see how making unsubstantiated allegations more powerfull will in any way reduce that.

We need some fundamental changes to the whole system but that's not what I'm seeing proposed. What I am seeing is claims that children are a lot more at risk under shared care than they were before and call's to act more on unproven allegations. I'm seeing a complete unwillingness to talk about safeguards, rather the "childrens interests" mantra get's gragged out to try and trump any fair treatment of parents concerns as though it had to be an either/or scenario. Both should be accomodated, where there is a genuine conflict with no valid middle ground then it's time to look at who's need is the more important, not as the starting place.

R0bert

ChazP: Just to clarify J&W

1. The Father had been under supervised contact for 2 years because of unfounded allegations. The Mother absconded with child interstate rather than allow supervised contact outside her home.

2. The independent child expert opinion was that the Mother’s irrational fears were a risk to the child. There is no mention of PAS and pre-2006 there was no requirement to facilitate a relationship with the other parent

3. Your solution of removing the Father, the court appointed independent psychologist, the law, the unsubstantiated grooming evidence, etc… seems a bit obsessive.

Protecting the child is not leaving that child in the care of the mentally ill, the vindictive or the opportunistic while their allegations are fully investigated as proposed by the “guilty until proven innocent” family violence amendments. It can take years before the allegations can be tested in trial by which time it becomes irrelevant whether they are proved or false. It is not in the child’s interests to destabilize the established living arrangements.

The Family Violence Bill reverts family law back to snatch the child; conceal the child; keep the child away from the other parent as much as possible with the objective to establish for as long as possible the pattern of being the sole caretaker for the children. False allegations guarantee protracted and inflamed litigation with fear and conflict inevitably entrenched thereafter.

Such reform does not protect children it protects the profits of a multi-billion dollar divorce-family violence industry which is channelled back into the ALP/Green re-election campaign. The government poses as champions of motherhood and family for the green female vote while knowing the majority of children will be put at risk.

The re-election contribution is repaid with reform ensuring litigated divorce, reduced funding for mediated settlement, bankruptcy reform and funding to address the increased family violence and child abuse this manufactures. Research grants confirm these problems requiring more reform and assistance for “victims”.