Ammonite : My statement regarding the fact that males mainly report emotional and psychological abuse, and say it is a temporary condition, has been shown by research. No I will not point to such research, as I have repeatedly requested the evidence for the assertions that the Shared Parenting laws have somehow affected the number child killings in NSW, and the documentary evidence that `hundreds’ of fathers have killed themselves [LFAA] because they were refused contact with their children, two of the main claims of FR groups in opposing the reforming legislation.
SamJ If you work in child protection you will be aware that children suffer immense abuse both directly and indirectly, during incidents of violence in the home. These reforms do not and could not, “combat the problem of domestic violence”. That would require much greater attention to the problem by statutory and community services, and lots more resources to do so. Family Law could never do so, no matter how it is framed.
The purpose of the reforms are to ensure that children and young people are protected from harm and exploitation (their Right under international and Australian laws) when determinations are made in Family Courts regarding their future care and welfare. This is to be done by identifying all of the possible ways in which domestic violence occurs, even financial abuse by failure to pay child maintenance.
The definitions to be used in the reforms closely align with those which have been used in Victoria for some years, but every State has its own definitions just as it has its own Child Protection laws, definitions of child abuse, and different methods of collating statistics. A single Commonwealth definition of domestic violence is urgently necessary, just as there is a need for a single Commonwealth Child Protection law. Child protection should not be a matter of a Postcode lottery dependent on which State a child happens to live in.Domestic violence involves a persecutor/aggressor and vulnerable victims. It is not about intra-familial interactions, but about power and control by a stronger character seeking absolute domination over those victims.

Dear ChazP

I don't wish to engage in a slanging match, but I have made a study of people who psychologically bully and the perps are very much evenly divided between men and women. Even the average GP knows psychological scarring is as permanent if not more so than physical wounds.

Below is link to an article published in 1986, it is just as relevant today. In fact the shame of it is that it was published so long ago and is still relevant.

Robert

How is that women are only more physically violent than men in the home? Wouldn't this 'trait' have shown up across society? Pub brawls, rape, equal numbers of homicide?

This is where you and I part company. I do not paint women as angels any more than I believe all men are physically violent - this is a minority of people we are discussing not the majority of women and men who manage their lives reasonably well.

Women are better equipped for psychological abuse than immediate violence, however, some men use both methods of abuse as do some women. Psychological or physical we wind up with damaged children and this is where many people seem to lose the plot.

It is not about who 'wins' custody. It is about the well being of every child.

Ammonite I think that men and women are pretty similar in regards to the frequency of violence in the home. Most of the material I've seen suggests that at the extreme end of the scale women receive more serious injuries than men, that makes sense men are generally stronger. At the same time there are some correlations between mutual violence and the seriousness of injuries.

I think roles are different in and outside the home. Men have largely been socialised to provide for and protect in the home, outside it's compete and prove yourself. Clearly there are exceptions. Most men don't get social credit for beating up someone obviously smaller than themselves (again there are exceptions).

As I've said previously I think that other factors are far bigger predictors of in home violence, child abuse etc, than gender.

"It is not about who 'wins' custody. It is about the well being of every child." - agreed but taken to the extreme that becomes an excuse for some pretty awful treatment of people. There are those that use similar arguments to attack working mum's, the right to leave an abusive relationship etc. There is no magic formula for the perfect life for every child, the raising of children will always be juggling act between the needs of the child and the needs of the adult's responsible for them.

Child residency does matter, it matters because people don't often do well when they are forced out of their kid's lives, it matters because often two parents do bring some good things to a child's life that one can't on their own (and there are exceptions), it matters because the winner takes all combined with a damaging child support system can make it hard for either parent to move on with their lives.

There was another thread sometime back which started based on plan's to introduce into family law some statements about men being primarily responsible for DV (profiling), that combined with the proposed treatment of allegations creates a very dangerous combination.

R0bert

This is a good example to illustrate how Shared Parenting laws affect the lives of children. A drug-addicted, violent father in prison given contact with a five year old.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/toddler-forced-to-visit-prison/story-fn7x8me2-1226031641323

How much more toxic and dangerous does a parent have to be before denied contact and even custody of their children under the Shared Parenting laws?. This clearly demostrates that parental rights under the Shared Parenting laws are treated as inalienable and little, if any, concern is given to the rights of the child to be protected from harm.
But I suppose, that the FR groups would argue that this father would be a suicide risk if he was denied contact, or that child killings would increase, or he would go `planking' on Sydney Harbour Bridge when he got out.

Oooops, apologies ChazP, didn't paste link to article:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1986-09-18/news/8602250353_1_abuse-child-development-parents

Robert

It is the 21st century and women are as active outside the domestic sphere as they are in it. As a result there has been a rise in criminal behaviour by women - no argument from me. However, men still commit the bulk of violence, mostly towards other men. Why you and other men who post here try to 'prove' women as physically MORE violent is beyond my understanding. If you care about yourself and your brothers and children in general you would be working WITH women rather than trying to alienate the sexes from each other.

There is so much wrong with the current family laws which are more about tearing children apart (50/50 custody) than solving fundamental issues. Many men do not know how to verbalise their feelings and use physical force instead. If this is not of concern to you, it should be. It is precisely these problems that Michael Flood has tried to identify and resolve and you dismiss such men.

The way we socialise both men and women in their childhood does not work for some (the minority we are discussing here) unfortunately the ramifications of this minority generates huge ripples into the wider community. Sad but true.

ChazP and Robert

I have presented a discussion thread on Narcissism, while it is not specifically about this topic it does look at the effects of bullies on people's lives.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4516

"Why you and other men who post here try to 'prove' women as physically MORE violent is beyond my understanding" - Ammonite again you misrepresent what I and others are saying. You add the MORE, either you are being deliberatly dishonest or you are so tied to your paradimes that you read into what others are posting what's just not there.

Do you understand the difference between rough equivalence and MORE?

R0bert