"Some women do lie about a lot of things in family custody disputes (as do some men)"

True RObert, but how many times do any of the usual protesters on OLO ever acknowledge that men lie in child custody cases. If you took on board some of the nonsense on here you would think only women lie in the Court system. Most marriages end with mutual agreements it is only ever the difficult ones that end up in Court.

Do you think an abusive husband (or wife) is going to stand in front of a judge and say "Yes Your Honour, I have beaten my wife and kids" or "Yes Your Honour I have molested my children".

There seems to be a growing trend to put parents' rights before children but the objective should always be children first. They are the most powerless in this relationship. I believe shared parenting should be the standard but where there is any form of abuse from either parent the children should be protected until further investigation can uncover the truth. False claims about violence should also be treated as abuse because the impact is clearly negative for children.

Men also lie to gain custody. I know of one case where during some marital tension a husband threatened his wife with taking the kids if she divorced him because she had just got over an illness and he was going to use that to say she was unfit. The illness had nothing to do with her ability as a mother and she was fully recovered but with ongoing testing to check if the cancer had returned.

Some of the other stories would make your hair stand on end. Fact is the first priority should be children and there should be greater scrutiny of any alleged claims.

Too much violence and abuse is being 'dumbed down' in the interests of gender political correctness.

Pelican - that is the most sensible and rational contribution I have read on this thread.
Your comment, "Fact is the first priority should be children and there should be greater scrutiny of any alleged claims" is right on the button.
In addition to this proposed legistation, how can we better ensure that children are protected from abuse and death following Family Court proceedings?. How can allegations of domestic violence and child abuse be competently investigated by the statutory authorities with the powers to do so in every case, rather than merely relying on the lay opinions of proferssionals such as psychiatrists/psychologists who are not empowered to investigate such allegations, nor have they the expertise to do so. What arrangments need to be made for children and young people to give direct evidence orally and/or by statutory declaration to Courts and ensure Family Court judges give due weighting to their views when making decisions regarding their futures?.
How do we stop parents treating their children merely as their property and each fighting for the biggest share when the child is legally chopped-up by the Court?. These are the questions which need to be asked, rather than this petty squabbling over the irreconcilable and irresolvable issue of which parents are most to blame for domestic violence and child abuse. How can politicians, Judges, lawyers, psychiatrists/psychologists be convinced of their primary and paramount duty to protect children and young people from harm and exploitation, rather than expose them to such harm by the laws they pass and the decisions they make.?.
These are the issues which should dominate this debate, and not this petty squabbling about which parents cause most/least harm to their children.

JamesH <"Usually the dead give away is when they start accusing male posters as being misogynistic."

I only ever, rarely, call anyone misogynistic on this forum. It usually follows after someone calls women 'feminazis's', or makes generalised statements about 'all' women.

JamesH <"If for example a father threatens the mother with "You'll never see your kids again" that is manipulation and therefore DV. If a mother threatens the same thing, "Oh! she is protecting the kids." "

I am sorry to sound negative James, but history has shown that if a father says those words, then he often means to physically harm the kids, where if a mother says those words, she is taking the kids and running away with them.

Both cases are legally wrong, but I know which kids I would rather be...

Pelican, you are totally right with your' wise observations.
I too would hate to see the current trend continue, where gender issues over-ride the well-being of the children in the contentious family court arguments.

I am just as angry with a woman who lies in the family court, as I am with a man. The ones that suffer the most in these situations are the children.

SUZIEONLINE - "The ones that suffer the most in these situations are the children.". Quite correct Suzie, so lets stop arguing about adult's issues and THEIR rights. What more do you feel needs to be done (in addition to the proposed amended legislation) to prevent children suffering and to give them a much greater voice in Family Court proceedings?. Children and young people can't vote, so have no influence with politicians, so how do we as caring, concerned adults, bring pressures to bear on politicians to protect children from the `suffering' you state so forcefully. Instead of arguing about parents RIGHTS to a `Share' in their chopped-up child, talk about how the Needs, Wishes, and Rights of children should be placed front and centre.
There are 270,000 parents in Australia and 25,500 who have fled overseas, and who choose not to have contact with their child or to pay Child Support towards their care. Should those children have the reciprocal right to enforce a contact arrangement through the Family Courts with the absent parent, and the right to take legal proceedings to recover financial contributions towards their care.?. If both parents are toxic and dangerous to their wellbeing, should they have the right to engage legal counsel to legally disengage from both parents and to suggest where they most want to live, perhaps with an aunt or uncle or grandparent?. Should children have the right to appoint their own legal representative in situations where a parent may want to take them to live interstate or abroad?. If a child is taken abroad by a parent against the other parent's wishes, should the child have the right to appoint and instruct legal representation under the Hague Convention, to apply to remain in that country with the absconding parent, rather than be forced to return to the non-caring parent, and rather than it become merely an `ownership' dispute and squabble between the parents?. A lot of questions to address if children's rights under international laws are to be implemented in the spirit and intent of such laws.

Yes, that all sounds good in theory ChazP, but all this would depend on the age of the children of course.

Many children still love and want to be with, what others see as, 'toxic parents.'

I would be hesitant to put the burden on young children, or even young teenagers, to make a 'choice' about whether or not to stay with a 'toxic ' parent.
I agree they should have their own legal representation to help them make the best choice.

In the cases where both parents are suitable for the kids to live with, I believe that the older children, at least, should be given a choice about where they want to live.
Most of the kids with divorced parents that I knew, hated the week on, week off arrangement with each parent.
This arrangement only suited one or both parents, not the kids.

There should be no blanket rule of 50/50 shared care as a starting point. That rule has failed on so many levels.

If there are any proved instances of domestic violence, child abuse or neglect in the past, then I don't think the kids should stay unsupervised with those parents.

I fully endorse the right of the courts to forcefully take financial contributions owed to children by one or both parents, when they refuse to pay for any reason.

I believe that if a family member or child is a proven domestic violence victim in the past, that if an AVO is taken out against the perpetrator again, then they should be jailed until forced to take anger management classes, and that they wear a 'leg bracelet' when they come out of jail so the police know where they are.

The current 'protection' that an AVO is supposed to give is a joke.

Funny how Suzie and Chapz are sooo concerned about the welfare of the child, as long as the child is at risk from the father.

Yet statistics show that children are at much less risk under their fathers care, than with their mother.

In a discussion paper "Who kills whom and why by Jenny Morgan, Law School, University of Melbourne, she examines the murders of 90 children in Victoria over a ten year period from 1985-95. 58 children were killed either by parents or step-parents. She found that men and women were almost equally responsible for the murder of children, mothers killed 22 and men killed 24.

Of the 24 children who were murdered by men 62.5% were murdered by their step-father.

37 or 80% of children who were murdered, were either murdered by their mother or stepfather.

Fathers who murdered their biological children accounted for just 9 murders or 20%.

Fatal assault is defined as being usually an assault committed with the intention of punishing the child rather than killing them.

Typically they (suzie and Chapz) demonstrate characteristics of what is known to be maternal gatekeeping.

Isn't it amazing how feminist talk about equality, yet when it comes to 'allowing' fathers equal rights it is denied because a very small minority of fathers are not suitable parents.