This spiral of more funding to address the "needs" created by the previous funding illustrates how the divorce-family violence juggernaut, and with it the crisis of family dissolution and fatherless children - with all the social devastation this entails - will continue to expand until we learn to ignore hysterical people whom the government pays to cry wolf.

Litigated divorce dropped 22% after the weak shared reform was enacted in 2006. It dropped 50% in countries which have implemented a presumption of equal shared care after divorce. It is clear that strengthening shared parenting reform rather than winding it back with self-perpetuating family violence myth will protect children. It is simply commonsense that it is in a child’s best interests to be protected by two fit and loving parents to the maximum extent practicable. Further there are 20 years of legitimate peer reviewed research supporting shared parenting as the way to go.

There is no point in flogging a dead "family court" horse with more power and money as recommended by former family court judge Chisholm.

Thanks to ChazP and Howard Beale for actually debating the issues.

There is no easy solution, I agree the adversarial style of law is not suited to family disputes. It generates a climate of blame rather than focusing on the best interests of the children. This is why I have challenged certain posters who remain fixated on fault, their own bitterness and desire for revenge.

Keep the dialogue open - we have made progress since the 50's attitudes, however we still have a long way to go.

My previous flippant posts were a response to the extreme comments being made by some posters here who never change their opinions. I apologise for such irreverence, but simply cannot take some comments seriously.

Ammonite, that was not a challenge. It was gross misrepresention of others positions based on your own issues.

I'd like the focus on fault taken out of the equation but while one group insists on making the issue about bad fathers rather than the merit's of the parents regardless of their gender that's not realistic.

The article highlighted the problems when governments play that same gender game.

R0bert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVcCZyhWcLY

Occasionally a politician says something useful.

HB- Criminal convictions are not unfounded allegations, nor is a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS.
"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."
I think you are very confused between civil and criminal law. The purpose of the FL Courts are to determine the care & welfare of the child - no one is on trial for a criminal offence (same mistake was made in Briginshaw & Briginshaw which created a Third Standard of evidential proof which does not exist). Determinations on the care & welfare of the child should be on a `Balance of Probabilities' i.e. "more likely than not" or 51% proven. Family Courts are only required to examine, `Has this child suffered abuse which may have to be considerd in determinations regarding the child's care and welfare'. The Family Court has no powers to determine guilt of an criminal offence so nothing is determined "in trial" in the way you imply.
Tragically, people may feel themselves on trial in the civil court of the FC but this has been brought about by the adversarial nature of proceedings and the practices of lawyers in destroying the credibility of evidence. It is these two factors which have created the atmosphere of `Blame', and have lost sight of the central purpose - the care and welfare of the child and in particular whether a child may be exposed to unacceptable risk of harm.
Expert witnesses must be qualified and have the expertise to which they profess, before they are allowed in a Court Room. At the moment such `Expertise' as is used in FCs is exactly like asking a paramedic to give an opinion about a possible cancerous brain tumour.

Robert

I am not challenging or bothering with you at all. At best you appear to be sitting on the fence at worse your silence with some of the more odious comments about women implies tacit agreement.

If we do agree about anything such as on adversarial system not conducive to helping children, it is mired down in your negative perceptions from your past.

As Pelican and others have repeatedly pointed out the vast majority of men (and women) work out their differences without the aid of the family courts - this is very positive. When disputes do reach the courts, most are then dealt with leaving a tiny minority of people - men and women - who will never be satisfied, never compromise for the benefit of their children and never stop hating the other sex.

The rest of us move on - however that doesn't mean we do not hurt when vilified by people who know nothing about us.