"On January 29 2009, an unimaginable act took place on the West Gate Bridge in Melbourne"

"Unimaginable" because a father did it? Mothers kill more children than fathers; indeed on June 4, 2008, Gabriela Garcia, 35, jumped off the same West Gate Bridge with her 22-month-old son Oliver strapped to her chest. Garcia said in suicide notes that she feared losing custody of her son, although Oliver's father denied any intention to seek custody.

And the worst child abusers, especially sexual abuse of girls, are mothers' boyfriends. Yet the FCA, so ready to pander to women, fail to take any notice of that fact - I was advised that bringing up the mother's living situation would be held against me in my FCA trial that resulted in shared residency with the false accusations of DV and child abuse being shown to be no more than the malicious lies of a desperate woman concocted at the instigation of a contemptible lawyer.

Some time later, after a particularly brutal bashing by the mother's boyfriend, I obtained restraining orders against him on my daughter's behalf in both the Magistrates and FC. Cost me $8,000; money well spent, but what happens to little girls whose fathers are unable to protect them, to some extent anyway?

The howls of taxpayer-funded women's groups is more about getting Child Support as defacto alimony that it is about children's safety.

Maybe better asked as "The question is though, given the gendered nature of domestic violence research and given their preferences, who do these campaigners represent?"

Patricia says "Instead, we have a number of cases of children being killed after they have been made available to fathers and after the Court has made what was later realised was an unsafe order. "

Time to demonstrate that the overall risks to children have been increased by the changes which you are trying to reverse. You can drag up specific cases to reflect your own bias's but your silence on cases where mothers do the harm is telling. If there are increasing numbers of cases (and I've not seen the evidence of that) what else has dropped that you don't mention?

Shared care won't always work, the courts will get it wrong sometimes, parents of both genders will lie about all sorts of things (and in increasing numbers when the stakes are higher).

Violence will be a bigger risk when parties are placed under increased stress and left to feel that they never had a fair chance.

"Domestic violence is a behaviour whereby abusers use a variety of strategies to control and dominate their victims." - and that includes lying about the other party.

Protection of children will never be perfect, we can help by reducing the stakes and tension around seperation and divorce and ensuring that the needs of all parties involved are treated with respect and fairness. We need safeguards around any increased action based on accusations to ensure that the accuser can't gain tactical advantage from the accusations. Something the maternal bias crowd either dismiss outright or just refuse to acknowledge.

The real mischief in the Family Law act at the moment is the maternal bias crowd and their one sided attempts to portray harm to children as a male thing. Both genders do it, the tactics prefered by Patricia and others just increases the tensions and the likelyhood that people will be pushed past a breaking point.

R0bert

It's a pity that this issue quickly becomes part of the gender war in Australia. Both of the comments we see thus far, ably demonstrate this. One would think that the issue was not 'a growing body count amongst young children', but was 'who does more abuse, women or men?'

Some of the issues arising from this article are these. There is a growing body count amongst young children, where there is relationship breakdown between parents. Most of the dead are children (although a few adults also die and some of these are the perpetrating adults.) The majority of perpetrators, are male parents. It is not good enough to snipe about the women who kill children, they are in the minority. We are concerned about the dead children, and about how to prevent the killing of children by parents of either gender. We are also concerned by a Family Law Act which tends toward handing children to parents who have been identified as violent, along with punitive legal activity that presses parents (these appear to be mainly mothers) to not raise issues of abuse. It is this tendency that caused the death of Darcey Freeman.

Hi Ruthie,
"The majority of perpetrators, are male parents"
You better find us a statistic to back that up.
I suspect it is not true.

THe safest place for a child is with BOTH their NATURAL parents, even if this means shared-care.

If a child lives with only one NATURAL parent, the risk of abuse soars by 2600% Yep, you read it right - 2600%! THe most dangerous house for a child is with mum and 'mummies-new-boyfriend'.

Yes households with a "step-dad" and other male family members such as half-siblings and uncles are very high-risk households to children. Funny how the divorce court forces the kid's Natural father away, leaving the high risk of a "mummies-new-boyfriend".

Another way of looking at it is when the divorce court often orders dads free to live with any other child they like, as long as they are some-other-man's child. How perverse!

Sadly (and prefictably) the data behind these risks is not easilly available, even under FOI. The power of the feminist agenda is immense.

Children need BOTH Natural parents
Want the raw data from FOI? parttimeparent@pobox.com

Hi Rhys, and happy to help.

*1996 - January 25: Peter May shot and killed Lisa eleven, Andrew eight, and Natalie seven, he also killed his wife and her parents.
*1998 - October 23: Aaron DeBaugy 5,Ashlee and David seven, poisoned by carbon monoxide in their car
*1999 - August: WA four young children were gassed
*2000 - Rhonda Bartley (mother) was shot
*2001 - September: Mikaylah Green eleven weeks, Taylah Pringle eleven months and Jackson Merrott six, were smothered by their father,
*2002 - Ana Hardwick 35 is strangled by her former partner
*2002 - Kieren and Jordyn Rigg, 7 and 9 killed in a murder suicide
*2004 - April 26: Jessie Dalton nineteen months and Patrick Dalton thirteen weeks were smothered by father
*2005 - 4th September: Robert Farquharson killed his sons Jai ten, Tyler seven, and Bailey two,
*2008 - May 9: three year old Imran Zilic killed, after his father allegedly threw him down a mine
*2008 - January 3: Christopher McEwen allegedly raped and then killed his daughter Rhiannon McEwen on Bribie Island on New Years Eve.
2009 - Darcy Freeman, 4, thrown from bridge
*2011 - toddler died after father gave her horrific brain injuries
* A mother on Bribie Island gassed two of her three children, that may have taken place last year.
* A mother strapped her baby to herself and jumped off a bridge, an event referred to in this discussion.
* Kyla Rogers was gassed by and with her father, her mother and another man were also killed violently.
* Most recently a two year old named Hayley, who died because of injuries and if the injuries that killed were not given by the father, according to witnesses he had abused the child (news articles available online make a harrowing read.)

There is slowly emerging evidence that there is more than mischief in the family law system - there is also a number of professionals in the system with their own charges and convictions for child abuse who are able to (a) discount allegations of abuse and claim they are mother's delusions or revenge (b) ensure children are placed with child sex offenders in preference to protective parents (c) become part of the sharing of digitally recorded child sexs abuse through peer to peer files. Those with knowledge and evidence of these practices have reported them to police, identified specific children and specific professionals, showed recordings of children describing their abuse and naming other children. Behind the perpetrators are the ranks of legal system professioanls supporting the perpetrators and their conduct. Judges are placing children with convicted child sex offenders and the consequences are horrifying. If you doubt whether children are being ordered into convicted child sex abuse perpetrator care, use the terms 'unacceptable risk' and case after case will come up on a search of family court and federal magistrates courts judgements.

"*2011 - toddler died after father gave her horrific brain injuries
* A mother strapped her baby to herself and jumped off a bridge, an event referred to in this discussion.

2011? As I indicated, it happened on June 4, 2008. If you can't even get that right, why would anyone trust your "stats"?

I doubt your list is definitive - it is at the least restricted. Comprehensive research published in 2009 by Nielsen et al in the Medical Journal of Australia examined in detail all cases of child homicide in NSW between 1991 and 2005. It found that, in cases of family homicide/revenge/homicide-suicide like the tragic recent Kyla Rogers case, men were the perpetrators of child homicide in 10 cases, while women were the perpetrators in seven cases.

Without diminishing the seriousness and horror of a woman like Garcia killing her child (why did not that truly horrible person just kill herself? She is even worse than Freeman because she planned it while he had a brainsnap. I'm not excusing him - off with his head), very few children are killed (far, far more die in accidents and medical mishaps) and non-fatal abuse is, IMO, more relevant to the issue.

Because a few children die is not adequate reason to exclude hundreds of thousands of children from the love, discipline and protection of fathers (they are natural protectors of children, not mothers' boyfriends).

Fathers' girlfriends abuse at a far lesser rate than mothers' boyfriends, presumably because, like my case, mothers are more inclined to allow it. Look at the horrible recent SA torture of 5 children described by the Judge as ‘beyond comprehension’, and the QLD "boy in the box".

The same old tactic's. The author makes the issue of child abuse about men, a couple of us point out that's not the case, someone else get's upset because men are trying to make it about gender instead of the kids (ignoring that the author had already made it about gender) then comes in with either outright lies or a demonstration of how little she actually knows of the evidence.

Evidence that fathers kill their own kid's at a statistically significantly higher rate than than mothers (or abuse their kid's at statistically significantly higher rates) would require more than a small selected sample. It would require some backing from comprehensive studies by groups with some independence on the issue. An example would be the NSW Child Death Review team (http://kids.nsw.gov.au/kids/resources/publications/childdeathreview.cfm) annual reports which cover all child deaths in NSW. NSW is big enough that the patterns there should give some indication of national trends.

The National Child Protection Clearinghouse (http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/) also provides independant coverage of child abuse stats.

Go for it Ruthie, have a look at actual stats and see if your claim holds in any meaningful manner. While you are at it you might also have a look at trends in substantiated child abuse in Australia over the period that corresponds to the changes in family law. Not suggesting cause and effect but it's hard to argue an increase in abuse resulting from those changes.

The reality is despite how the maternal bias advocates may try and play it gender is not a significant factor in substantiated child abuse or child deaths. Issues such as substance abuse, mental illness, unemployment and other factors associated with disadvantage, family stress (eg marriage breakdown) etc are all significant factors, gender is not.

R0bert

"Fathers' girlfriends abuse at a far lesser rate than mothers' boyfriends, presumably because, like my case, mothers are more inclined to allow it."

So more boyfriends abuse children but fathers (also male) don't. Love this twisted logic when it suits an argument. Mothers are no more inclined to allow it than men would be if girlfriends indeed commit abuse. Why would they? Fathers are no better or worse than mothers. Why can't some people get it into their heads that it is individuals that abuse and very often it is men. If you cannot accept that we may as well take the ball and go home now. Ego is not more imporant that child protection.

Fact is both woman and men are capable of abuse and the benchmark should be shared parenting unless one partner is abusive or neglectful.

These spurious gender wars are not adding to the debate around family violence, merely creating more fear and suspicion between men and women allowing abusers to ride high on a PC agenda.

1) The incident at the West Gate Bridge sounds like the Darcy Freeman case. The facts are that it was never alleged in family court that the dad was a risk to his kids. Allegations about him were made to community services.

2) Claims about the "gendered nature of domestic violence" are simply wrong and cannot go unquestioned. At least a third and probanly closer to a half of DV is aimed at men. See the one in three website for more information.

3) The fact that some true allegations about men have been disregarded doesn't disprove that many unfounded allegations have been believed.

4) Many concocted allegations are made by men. Women who read this need to consider that false allegations can affect them too. No-one should be seperated from their kids on the basis of unproven allegations.

The list I provided came from the national newspapers. These are (most) of the children who have died as a result of the way the Family Law Act currently operates. I am not surprised by this, I know a mother who, attempting to protect her infant, was told “the court is only interested if the child is in hospital.” I would think that this would be a problem for a parent of any sex or gender. Children ought not to be hospitalised before the law considers them worth protecting.

I am of the opinion that the immediate cries of "women do violence too!" or "Men suffer too!" which accompany any effort to discuss issues relating to violence or indeed any aspect of life in which women in particular suffer, mischievously evade issues that underlie the problem. The use of various kinds of what seem to be reductio ad absurdum arguments (for example saying “women do it too!), pushes participants to begin discussing the women who do it too, attempting to prove their inclusiveness of men, leaving untouched the issue of women's suffering that is a result of entrenched, systemic dysfunction.

In this case the assumptions surround the problems faced by women in the face of the Family Law Act 2006, and the deaths of children that have arisen as a result of the created family law system. The fact that sometimes men are abused, or that sometimes women hurt children, does not excuse the dismissal of the fact that the family law system is failing women and children, where they face abuse. It does not prove that the system ought not to change. As far as I know, reductio ad absurdum proves nothing

"As far as I know, reductio ad absurdum proves nothing"

Then take a stand against the author's absurd starting proposition. Stand against those who want to make gender the issue. Ask about how well pre 2006 served fathers and their children. Have a look at the patterns of fatal child assaults over the period, have a look at the overall rates of substantiated abuse and see if you think overall it's better or worse.

Don't go supporting a back door attempt to bring back in maternal bias because in some cases the courts have got it wrong.

When I was growing up seat belt's were not required. In some cases seat belt's kill or cause injury. Would you like to see seat belt's taken away because in some cases they harm or accept that in the cases where they do harm was likely to happen anyway but most of the time they reduce the harm.

I'd like to see allegations properly investigated. I'd also like to see some safeguards put in place to minimise the impacts of misuse (don't allow an unsubstantiated allegation to be used to establish a pattern of residency etc). So far the maternal bias crowd have either dismissed the idea of safeguards out of hand or completely ignored the idea.

What the papers cover will be impacted by what else is happening in the world and how dramatic the incident is. If you want to understand the rates of abuse and fatal child assault then look at material such as I linked to earlier.

Your earlioer claim is false in any meaningful sense. Some years fathers will kill more kid's than mothers, in other years the reverse. As I said earlier there are a whole bunch of other factors which far outweigh gender when you are trying to work out risk to children.

Some material I prepared earlier
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#189900
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#189901
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#189902

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#190097
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#190099

R0bert

The various reviews commissioned by the government into the workings of the Shared Parenting laws have clearly and convincingly shown the very serious defects in those laws and particularly that they have failed abysmally in protecting children from harms inflicted by parents who have been given contact/custody. So many of these arguments are a rearguard action by those who want to retain those Shared Parenting laws, and allow the carnage to continue.
The more serious situation arises because the Family Courts do not have the powers, expertise, nor the resources to competently investigate domestic violence and child abuse.[Chief Justice Bryant and Dep Chief Justice Faulks] and as a consequence such allegations have been unproven. Unless this situation is changed and with it the tactical ploy of accusing the parent making such allegations of being `delusional' or `mentally ill' (usually based on a mere one hour office interview or less), or otherwise being `unfriendly', then it will still be impossible to prove child abuse perpetrated during domestic violence. Not only the law needs changing, but also the system entrusted to implement such laws, or even more children will die or be seriously abused. Quibbling about which gender of parent kills or abuses more children will not save a single child from such abuse or dying at the hands of a parent.

You're right ChazP, there is no point continuing gender wars when children are being killed and traumatized by wrong family court decisions.
All family court decisions should be made on a case by case basis, and NOT on a blanket rule of shared parenting 50/50.

Surely if more children are kept safe, then neither gender can argue with that?

I don't agree that by not offering an equal shared parenting arrangement, this will 'cause' some parents to become violent towards the other parent and/or their children.

In my experience, the violence was there in the first place, and thus the kids should be kept away from that parent unless under supervision.

What worries me the most is the inability of police/courts to keep people safe from violent family members.
It seems to me that if someone has threats made against them or the children, we have to wait until an actual injury occurs before anything is taken seriously.
Unfortunately, it is all too often fatally late by then...

Susie, "Surely if more children are kept safe, then neither gender can argue with that?"

Not if that was likely to happen but have a look at what the supporters of the changes tend to say about men and it's much more likely that this is a backdoor return to maternal bias. How focussed they are on male harm to children and how unwilling they are to discuss any form of safeguards to prevent accusations giving tactical advantage to the accuser. There is also proposals around to incorporate into family law statements about males being the primary perpetrators of DV. There was a thread on that some time back.

The type of winner takes it all approach favored by some is incredibly hard on the looser. Harming the kid's is an horrific choice but the reality is that if you push people hard enough on enough fronts some will crack and make extroardinarily bad choices.

Shared care should not be a blanket rule but neither should it be easily tossed aside by someone thinking that the kid's are theirs alone.

The focus should be on reducing conflicts for seperated families, not on providing an easy tactic for non-male people to get an easy advantage.

It's much more likely that the proposed changes will increase violence rather than reduce it.

R0bert

Robert

>> an easy tactic for non-male people to get an easy advantage. <<

NON-MALE?

Please excuse use of capitals, but what are non-male people? Eunuchs? Trans-gender? Bi-sexual?

Are they even human beings?

Thanks for the heads-up on where your bias truly lies.

Chazp, Suzeonline

I do believe from reading many posts that for some winning is more important than the welfare of children, which as Suze has pointed out needs to be assessed on a case by case system.

As for losing custody completely, or even reduction of custody to less than that of the other partner, as Suze as stated this does not bring on violence that was not already there to begin with

The fathers' rights claim that mothers are just as likely to kill their children after separation is not true. This crime is overwhelmingly linked to fathers - viz Dalton, Farquharson, Freeman, Zilic, Dillon, Osborne, Acar, Jonkers, May, Heath,Fraser, Rogers, Green and so on. Mothers who kill their children are overwhelmingly linked to the post-partum period and/or mental illness. It is nonsense to claim that therefore there is somehow no gender dimension to the contexts of children being killed by fathers and by mothers.
The family law system continually places children in the care of violent and abusive parents. There is a depressingly long list of child-contact time being used for child homicide by separated fathers. It would be wonderful if the decision-makers with blood on their wigs were held accountable for their decisions. They won't be of course but one hopes that the faces of the children they ordered to their deaths haunt them for the rest of their lives.

The article is about changes to legislation. From the article these include "The proposed broadening of the definition of domestic violence aims to improve the Court's ability to recognise cases where children are at risk with a parent of either gender by 'flagging' those risks."

Turning the issue into a parent gender war distracts from the most important point that children need protection from domestic violence which is

"the use of a variety of tactics over time in the history of a relationship, long before it arrives at the court. Domestic violence does not occur as a "one-off" and so men and women accused of domestic violence that have not been violent over the history of the relationship will have nothing to fear."

Thanks for that info slowenkein.
I totally agree that the madness of family domestic violence rarely starts after separation of parents.

ANY history of ANY kind of proven domestic violence, prior and/or since separation and ensuing custody disputes, should ring alarm bells for family court judges.

If the judges then grant any unsupervised custody of children to a violent parent of either gender, then they have only themselves to blame if the kids come to any harm.

Any new laws should include accountability for judges that make obviously poor decisions re custody arrangements simply because they want to seem politically correct and give 'equal' access to both parents.

Suze

Thank-you for including the word "proven" in your last post. No-one is disputing that people who have definitely hurt kids need to be kept away from them. The issue is the burden of proof. If it is set too low, kids end up with the parent who is the best liar and kids become entangled in this bitter war between feuding parents. If it is placed too high, real allegations are disregarded. Father's groups fought to ensure that allegations needed to be backed up with more evidence, so others simply broadened the definition of domestic violence to include more things and we are back where we started.

Ammonite

Robert was clearly arguing for the retention of a system that is as fair as we can make it and against changing it to unfairly benefit women. It cannot reasonably be argued that he is biased.

Robert wrote “We need safeguards around any increased action based on accusations to ensure that the accuser can't gain tactical advantage from the accusations. Something the maternal bias crowd either dismiss outright or just refuse to acknowledge.
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 30 June 2011 8:53:08 AM

RObert- the evidence has conclusively illustrated that the problem is not “accusations” by accusers that has led to increased action or advantages for the accuser. To the contrary- accusations have not been taken seriously or heeded. Instead they are minimised to the detriment sometimes where it has resulted in the death of children after a court order relevant to that child has been made. In fact, in 1994 the Australian Law Reform Commission reported that
“[they] received many submissions that evidence of violence against a spouse is often excluded or discounted at different stages of the legal system and that the Family Court often does not give proper weight to the existence and effects of violence.”

In addition, the report detailed information as follows:

9.24 Attitudes of lawyers. Submissions said that in some cases the Court is not made aware of the history of violence or that the woman opposes access because of violence. Lawyers appear to be reluctant to ask the Court to deny access as they believe such an argument would not succeed. Delegates at a recent conference noted a lack of reported Family Court judgments which deal with violence against women.
Reported cases are an important reference for legal practitioners and an increased reporting of judgments which deal with violence would help solicitors to develop a better understanding of the Court's attitude towards it.

The ALRC report also reported a mothers' experience that-
"On many occasions I was virtually being intimidated into allowing access which made me feel guilty and ashamed to stay with my initial decision or to say that I want to deny access.
Solicitors told me I had the right to ask for denial but whenever it became an issue (even before a hearing) I was told it would be impossible, that I should show the judge that I'm doing everything to enable the father access. I was constantly being trapped into agreeing with solicitors. Solicitors informed me that if I did not agree to some form of access the judge would decide and I might not be happy with this decision. . .
. . . Solicitors informed me that if he has sexually abused a child or if he is a mass murderer, then he might be denied access. Death threats meant nothing to solicitors. But for the woman in fear of her life and that of the children, she had to keep going until blood was shed.”

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/69/vol1/ALRC69.html
I would argue instead the information in this and most other reports demonstrate just how difficult the system has become against either gender when they want to express their fears for their children from harm by other parent. More often but not always, these protective parents are mothers.
In 2009, there were three more dead children after their mothers have tried to raise their fears about the father. I don’t believe that you can seriously claim that the problem is false accusations?? Do you have an objective basis for making your claim? What is your basis for stating that “the maternal bias crowd either dismiss outright or just refuse to acknowledge.” Perhaps you are dismissing the evidence and refusing to acknowledge the evidence.
I am the writer of this article and I am trained to analyse and critique argument. On what objective basis do you make your claim?

happy "I don’t believe that you can seriously claim that the problem is false accusations?"

Why does it have to be all or nothing? More thorough investigation of claims of abuse is essential but without safeguards in place it can easily become a tool to establish patterns of residency etc. The reality is that a lot of the time it's going to be hard to prove abuse or genuine risk (and even harder to prove innocense).

Some obviously want to err so far on the side of caution that any accusation would see the accused treated as guilty, others would want to see the same standards of proof that we'd require to send someone to jail. Neither really works to produce good outcomes when it's about child protection and warring parents.

Whatever we do kid's will be harmed, some mixes reduce that risk but we can never entirely remove it. I do believe the most effective thing we could do at the moment would be to work on taking away the winner takes all approach. In particular property settlements based on child residency at the time of seperation give both parents reason to fight for patterns of child residency that are not about the childrens best interests. There are plenty of other factors but that's one we could do differently.

Reduce the stakes and tension around seperation, child custody, property settlement, child support etc as much as we can. The proposed amendments leave in place all the incentives to fight over child residency, to make false claims, to deny legitimate ones etc whilst seemingly writing open checks for accusers and then expects people to behave better.

Do you really believe that without safeguards in place and increased control when accusations are made people won't be more inclined to make either completely false accusations or highly exagerated ones (especially given the nature of seperation)?

R0bert

RObert- “even harder to prove innocence” (sic). What do you base this claim on? The evidence is that it’s harder to be heard when a person is a victim and makes attempts to raise genuine fears of abuse. The legal system is geared towards the accused in both criminal and also it seems, in the Family Court.

This issue has nothing to do with “all or nothing”. It has everything to do with the fact that children have been killed after the courts have not recognised or distinguished a dangerous parent.

The erring is on the part of false denials, not false allegations.

I do not agree that “Reduc[ing] the stakes and tension around seperation, (sic) child custody, property settlement, child support etc as much as we can” is something that can be addressed in the legislation, and that “The proposed amendments leave in place all the incentives to fight over child residency, to make false claims, to deny legitimate ones etc “. Sorry, I think your analysis is wrong.

I repeat, the current and previous objective data indicates that the problem is child protection from abusive and dangerous parents. Most of those are fathers, some are mothers.

Note-
The findings in this research bore out that in the current social and political climate, the alleged perpetrator is protected from the piercing gaze of investigation or forensic assessment in order to preserve the ultimate imperative: the two biological parent, post-divorce family. This is emblazoned on the findings in this research as the mothers who raised concerns about their children came under intense scrutiny and the voices of their children became almost imperceptible.

Foote, W. 2006 Child sexual abuse allegations in the Family Court, PhD University of Sydney.

Furthermore RObert,
I don’t know where you get the notion that there is a problem of “open checks for accusers”. Every research conducted both here and overseas indicates that false allegations are in the vast minority, and importantly-

“Results of this analysis show that neglect is the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment, while anonymous reporters and noncustodial parents (usually fathers) most frequently make intentionally false reports. Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the CIS-98, custodial parents (usually mothers) and children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.” Bala, Trocme 2005.

I really believe that the objective and reliable evidence indicates strongly that safeguards should be in place to protect children and protective parents from their abusive and dangerous partners. Most of dangerous partners are men, and domestic violence is more often perpetrated by men. Some mothers are violent, but they are in the minority.

Given the evidence from the ABS that domestic violence is the most common reason for separation (2005), the expansion of the definition of DV is overdue.

Happy, what would you suggest we can change in the Family Law Act to ensure more violent parents are prevented from harming their children post-separation?

To my mind, too many children are still being killed...and of course, even one child death is too many.

I believe that the current laws are not strict enough, and those courts don't seem to have enough power or ability to weed out violent perpetrators of domestic violence effectively.

It seems to me that women and children facing the actions of a violent man do not have enough protection until AFTER something terrible has happened.

How can we stop this from happening?

Hi Suzieonline,
Thanks for your question. Without going into too much detail-
I believe changing the FLA is not enough. The current one could but still does not still adequately protect children. Here’s my 2 cents worth:
1. The adversarial nature surrounding FC be abandoned in favour of an inquisitorial jurisdiction;
2. States to refer their power to protect children to the Federal government for child protection cases involving the federal Family Law Act;
3. Implement the recommendations of the 2002 Family Law Council in establishing a separate Federal child protection agency to investigate allegations;
4. Establish an inter-disciplinary team in that agency to report to the FC regarding opinion evidence in respect to validity of allegations;
5. Remove separate representatives;
6. Redirect that funding towards expanding Magellan to include domestic violence and all forms of child abuse, not just the most serious sexual abuse cases;
7. Cease all public funding of father’s rights groups who seek to change the legislative and policy components in the FL jurisdiction rather than their addressing of the broader issues of men's violence & the social structures that prevent father involvement before separation.
E.g. according to the ABS, domestic violence is the number 1 cause of separation. Why are these men’s rights groups focussing instead on child support and changing the FL Act to suit those that are accused of abuse? Their agenda does not correlate with the cause.

Cheers.

Thanks for those suggestions Happy- and they all sound quite plausible to me.

The problem with many posters on this forum is they whinge and whine about all the problems facing the Family Courts and their decisions, but yet never seem to come up with many workable solutions that could be tried that would protect children following separation.

It seems that anytime anyone does bring up the domestic violence committed against predominantly women and children both before and after separation of parents, we are accused of being anti-male, or 'feminazis', or anti-fathers or worse!

In the few post-separation custody or property cases that are spiteful enough to come before the Family Courts, many fathers
(and some mothers) seem intent on revenge against the spouse who left them, and if that hurts the children in the process - then so be it.

This can't be left to go on anymore...whether some minority groups like it or not.

Happy gives away her bias with the following statement."7. Cease all public funding of father’s rights groups who seek to change the legislative and policy components in the FL jurisdiction rather than their addressing of the broader issues of men's violence & the social structures that prevent father involvement before separation."

Why do mens rights groups fight for fair access and custody of their children and reasonable child support payments? Because the vast majority of men love and protect their children and wish to continue doing so after divorce just the same as before divorce. Unfortuantly the author through her jaundiced world view percieves these efforts to acheive some fairness as merely a front to allow evil men to continue to abuse and kill children.

There are millions of fathers out there who love and care for their children. To base the system on the tiny handful of people who kill their children is simply absurd. In a country of 20,000,000 people there will always be occasional attrocities

Rhys Jones-
May I say “millions of fathers out there” are not the fathers that end up in the court. Father’s rights groups, as much as they may believe themselves to and like to think so, do not represent those millions of father’s out there. Consequently, changing the Family Law Act is irrelevant to “millions of fathers out there” and to most, any changes to the FLA is not an issue. The fathers that care about changing the FLA are mostly those that end up in the court. Of these, some are good dads, but some clearly are not. In fact, some have killed their children after they were not recognised as a risk to their children.
Why do the fathers’ rights groups oppose these protective measures for children? The only rational explanation could be because some have experienced being accused. If there were accusations of abuse, the only parents that will have to be concerned are those that have actually used abuse over the history of the relationship. If they did not, there is no corroboration. If they did use abuse during the relationship, it is no surprise to me that they will deny their own use of abuse and want to maintain a narrow definition of domestic violence

Furthermore, domestic violence involves different types of tactics. Sometimes it will be physically manifested with pushes, hits, actual bodily contact that may or may not leave marks. More often, verbal abuse is engaged with use of words tailored in attempts to intimidate, humiliate, personally denigrate and/or threaten the other person. Take care Rhys, some may consider that your post engages with this type of verbal abuse. You verbally belittled me by stating that I am “biased” and that I have a “jaundiced view” with nothing other than my disagreement with your position. These comments are personal attacks. Some people believe, and I agree, when there is no better counter argument, personal attacks may be implemented as the only response because there is nothing else left. Verbal attacks do harm, and the law recognises the harm words can inflict- for instance, defamation law. It may look like you are familiar with using words in an abusive manner. Please try to confine yourself to arguments that are devoid of emotional content that could be perceived as verbal abuse. It is difficult to hold credible positions when words that can be seen to be personal attacks are used. Moreover, when defending these groups, perhaps avoiding the types of behaviours they are accused of will strengthen your position, rather than expose you to incongruity in their defense.
The writer.

You stole my thunder, happy.

>> There are millions of fathers out there who love and care for their children. <<

These men are part of the majority of 80% of parents who manage to separate and arrange the best for their children.

This leave 20% who wind up in the Family Court system, 13% of cases are settled leaving 7% where parents are unable to arrange any form of agreement.

Listening to the usual complainants regarding custody issues on OLO, one could get the impression that a conspiracy of vengeful women are in control of the court system, police department, hospitals, schools and any institution which involves children.

Women barely represent 30% of leaders in public service and far less in private law firms.

As has been stated again and again, child custody must be in the best interest of the child - it is not about winning or losing. The non-custodial parent has emotional responsibilities as well as financial. That most of the 20% that wind up in the courts tend to give child custody to women is more a reflection of a traditional culture that sees women as primary carers. If men are to take their place as responsible parents, denigrating all women is not going to impress any court judge, male or female.

I'd refer those trying to understand the false assumptions behind much of this stuff to Jennifer Wilson's excellent article at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12275

R0bert

Children and domestic and family violence- Why the proposed changes are urgently necessary.
Almost one in four children in Australia have witnessed violence against their mothers or stepmothers (Crime Research Centre and Donovan Research, 2001, from National Plan Background Paper pg 20).
In 49% of cases where violence was perpetrated by a partner, there were children present. In approximately 27% of cases, the children had witnessed the violence. (2005, ABS Personal Safety Survey).
Violence perpetrated by a previous partner also affects the children living in the home. In 61% of cases where violence was perpetrated by a previous partner, there were children present. (2005, ABS Personal Safety Survey).
Research on the impact of DV on children (who are not also targets of abuse) has found that children under 8 find witnessing violence most traumatic34.
Witnessing or experiencing violence as a child increases sharply the risk of becoming a perpetrator or victim of violence in later life35.
Exposure of children to family violence causes long&#8208;term psychological, emotional, physical and behavioural problems. Children living with domestic violence have higher rates of: depression and anxiety; trauma symptoms; and behavioural and cognitive problems, than do children not living with domestic violence36
Being a victim of, or being exposed to domestic and family violence has serious impacts on children of all ages, but affects children of various ages in different ways. Infants are especially vulnerable, and toddlers can develop severe emotional, behavioural and social problems. Pre&#8208;school age children are likely to feel that the violence is their fault; primary school children learn that violence is the normal way to resolve conflict and demonstrate aggressive behaviour themselves, at the same time as experiencing difficulties with school work and depression Adolescents are likely to view the problem as being the fault of the victim, and the presence of parental conflict at this stage of development can be a predictor of violent delinquency.

ChazP sorry but you forgot to mention part of the detail. Obviously an oversight and not deliberate, you are not biased or anything. Heaven forbid that you would be left looking like you had tried to play the gender game in what is just about the kid's.

You have filled us in on the proportion of kid's who have "witnessed violence against their mothers or stepmothers"
Just to complete the picture - how many kid's have witnessed violence committed against their father's or stepfathers? How many are in homes where the mother lashes out physically or emotionally at her male partner even with kid's around?

I know accurate and credible figures on that will be important to you, after all it's about the kid's and not gender games isn't it.

R0bert

Robert - "how many kid's have witnessed violence committed against their father's or stepfathers? How many are in homes where the mother lashes out physically or emotionally at her male partner even with kid's around?. I know accurate and credible figures on that will be important to you, after all it's about the kid's and not gender games isn't it."
If there are such figures to support what you claim, Robert, then I'm quite sure you will be only too willing to provide them. Unless of course you are willing to pay me a substantial reward for doing your research for you but then, I would not be willing to go on a wild goose chase. It would be rather like searching for squid on Uluhru.
The major thrust of my contribution is the harm caused to children by domestic violence and its often lifelong serious harm inflicted on them. I note that this has no importance to you, as you launch immediately and singularly into your `Well what about us poor Dads' spiel. Do you think that sometime you may just offer a modicum of concern and compassion for children harmed by such violence and better still offer your alternative for protecting them under Family Laws, as you seem so determined in destroying what is being proposed?.

ChazP if the report that you got the original figures from was at all credible as a source of that sort of data then it would have the figures I've asked for. I suspect that it doesn't, everything about the proposal stinks of a stitch up by those pretending an interest in child protection while persuing an agenda of maternal bias.

You clearly and consistantly play the gender card in the examples you give then complain when called to task for it.

If you had the least concern for the wellbeing of children you would stop that disgusting pretense.

R0bert

Robert - if you had read and understood my posting you would have seen the highly credible source of the statistics. The reasons it does not include the figures you `suspect' is because they are at best negligible, and more accurately non-existent. You will find consistently that my postings begin with pointing out the harm caused to children who experience domestic violence and the long-lasting effects on those children. It is only when I am attacked as gender-biased by males who speculate and `suspect' the evidence, that I respond in a gender preferential way. It serves the purposes of male contributors to turn this debate into a high-conflict gender issue and to evade the issues regarding children's suffering. They cannot point to any word or phrase in the proposed amendments which is gender-biased, but can only offer conjectures and fanciful speculations that it will somehow be turned against males by the administrations of Family Court Judges. The amendments leave it open for any male to bring up issues of domestic violence against a female ex-partner, in exactly the same way as it can be for a female. Your arguments therefore make a presumption that Family Courts will be gender-biased against males. Perhaps you can give past cases judgements to support such a contention.
Notably you again make no reference to the suffering of children from the abuse during domestic violence or the need for them to be protected from their abusers. Perhaps you have another way of ensuring children can be protected from a toxic and abusive parent when that parent wants custody/contact with them after separation?. If so, then lets all hear it.

Chaz, trying to hold a sensible discussion with you is like trying to hold a sensible discussion with the dog about taking her bone away: there's no chance of a meeting of minds when one of the parties sees a nice, big juicy bone just itching to have the marrow sucked out and the other one is trying to make sure there's no mess, but it's certain that there'll be lots of whining as the bone is taken away and possibly the odd bit of snapping in the greedier and less-disciplined members of the species.

There are lots of such dogs in the Family Law industry, mostly hiding out in the maternal bias kennel and only emerging to growl whenever a human appears to be taking an interest in their bone supply. The only thing that varies is how much work they're prepared to put in to get their marrow out. It seems that some expect the bone to be nicely cut open for them, so all they have to do is suck it up. Of course, that sort should be selected out by any careful breeder, but obviously mistakes occur...

Antiseptic~ Your resorting to personally derogatory and insulting comments is a clear sign of intellectual deficiency. I suppose that anyone who is being `sensible' in your view, is someone who agrees with what you have to say. The Father's Inalienable Rights representatives had nothing to offer at yesterday's Senate Hearings either, except to suggest that if the proposed legislation is passed by Parliament, then thousands of fathers will kill themselves. In the past they have frequently been challenged to provide Coroner's Inquiry evidence of just ONE father who has killed himself because he was denied contact with his children, but have so far failed to do so. If there was ever a case of opinion which had no factual or statistical basis, then paternal suicide must take the Blue Riband. Except of course those fathers who have killed their kids in Revenge Killings and then killed themselves. And Barry Williams [LFAA] claimed that family violence only begins when fathers are denied contact with their children - you don't need to return to this planet Barry, you're not needed here. All round it was a pathetic performance by all concerned representing father's inalienable rights, especially the dear old grannie who runs the Men's Health group for inept fathers, who could offer nothing except, `We just want to keep things as they are'. Not a mention of children's needs or how they are suffering abuse and death as a direct consequence of the Shared Parenting laws. No mention of children who are being shuttled back and forth every week in Shared Care arrangements, attending different schools,trying to fit into two different households, living out of suitcases, and with different standards of care and rules.
Ping-Pong children whose lives are being destroyed by `Shared Care'.
Of course poor old Dad must have his rights upheld, after all it would cost him lots of money if he didn't grab his rights to time with his child.

Antiseptic, perpetrators of domestic violence are just bullies at home but bullies exist everywhere (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/859172/bullying-rife-in-workplaces-survey). History has tragic examples of the lengths taken both by international bullies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide) and ones closer to home
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Death-shows-NT-domestic-violence-problem/2006/10/23/1161455654945.html).
Bullies use a variety of tactics to control whomever or whatever they want to control. One of those tactics is the use of words to demean, humiliate and deride the other person. It is an affront to the other person’s humanity because no-one has the right or standing to diminish anyone’s humanity just because they don’t agree with you.
It is telling that you accuse Chaz (and by implication anyone that does not agree with you) that they cannot have a “sensible” written discussion. Immediately with the next words, you compare Chaz (and by implication anyone that does not agree with you) to a dog and “her” bone.
What have you possibly revealed other than exposing yourself by referring to Chaz and the opinion Chaz holds as “a dog” with “a bone itching to have the marrow sucked”, “trying to make sure there's no mess”, “certain that there'll be lots of whining”, and an “odd bit of snapping in the greedier and less-disciplined members of the species”?
Your use of the dehumanising and insulting personification comparing Chaz and those who disagree with you as “dogs” is nothing more than an affront to human rights.
The facts are that domestic violence is not a “juicy bone” but a serious social problem that actually ends up costing the entire Australian community not just billions in terms of hard dollars (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1328611.htm), but often in pure human costs when perpetrators kill their so-called “loved ones” for attempting to leave their control ((http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8250527/kylas-mother-lived-in-fear)
I would suggest you try and use arguments based on credible, best empirical evidence rather than employing de-humanising tactics if you want to be seen as credible. By your own words you have exposed yourself to the inference you might be seen as someone who uses the same tactics as a bully. Although you may deny it, the thing is- you have.

happy:"“dogs” "

You're quite right, Patricia, the generic term for female canines is "bitch". Thanks for pointing that out.

I rest my case.

Much mischief is being enacted here, dogs are male and so are Smurfs except for one. Some fathers actually understand:

http://www.maxbarry.com/2011/07/08/news.html

happy:"I rest my case."

Thank gawd for that. perhaps we can get on with some sensible discussion at last.

Ammonite:"dogs are male"

Yes dear, I already pointed that out. However, your author, no matter how challenged he seems to find himself with matters of animal gender, is quite wrong. Most people who meet my dog Max for the first time, for example, make the assumption that he's a bitch, presumably because he's friendly and has a nice shiny coat.

The more general point he's making is moot - the generic term for humans is "Man", while many constructions use "man" as the denoter of the holder of a position or title, such as "chairman", etc. This is all old stuff, agonised over interminably by very serious little possums who had not much better to do with the uni time that the Government was giving them for free.

None of it is relevant to a discussion about family law and let's face it, neither is your contribution, since you have no children and, by the sound of it, little prospect of acquiring any. That makes you at best a meddler in the affairs of others, at worst a Mother Grundy.

Patricia and Chaz are arguing for their livelihoods and will say whatever they think it takes to protect them. This is standard fare for maternal bias proponents, all of whom are seeking more money, more power, more, more more - all paid for by men. What a weak bunch of hypocrites.

Antiseptic ~ Its ok, sonny. We all know your mummy didn't love you and thats perfectly understandable, and no woman has ever done so. But you can get help with that, once you are able to accept it. You summarise yourself perfectly, sonny, when you say, "None of it is relevant to a discussion about family law and let's face it, neither is your contribution".
Now sit quietly while the grown-ups talk about serious things.

ChazP:"I know you are, but what am I?"

I think we've already covered that, don't you?

Septic ~ Its ok, sonny. Now go and play with your toys in the shed, while the grown-ups talk seriously and sensibly about important things. Its such a pity you don't have any friends to play with you in the shed, but you know the reasons for that, as we all do. And do please, try to get some help, sonny.

Antiseptic, my case was not that a sensible discussion is achievable- at present it is not. My argument is that you are contradicting yourself. This is due to your persistence with engaging in dehumanising language with people who disagree with you. The engagement of language that dehumanises others is an abuse of human rights- and it is nothing more than bullying.
Your use of “yes dear” is a condescending expression designed to demean the other person- in this case Chaz. Do you realise or understand that your position is unsustainable? You cannot argue that the Family Law Act needs to protect “accused & innocent” fathers while at the same time using the tactics of a domestic violence abuser to make your point.
You accuse Chaz and I of “saying anything it takes to protect” our so-called “livelihood” but this is just a personal slur. You then revert to a broad stroke gendered argument next by stating that the “maternal bias” is “all paid by men”. You accuse Chaz and me of “bias” when you're the one doing it. You are the one using violence to defend men accused of violence and then you call us “hypocrites.”
You cannot argue that men are falsely accused of domestic violence while you use written bullying expressions to dehumanise, demean and put down people who disagree with you. Use argument- not verbal violence if you want to argue that men accused of being domestic bullies are falsely accused and not violent.
Your persistent use of personal violence to others in this forum reveals more about a weakness in you personally than any strength in your argument. Wouldn’t it be better to argue without verbal violence? Do you not understand that in using verbal violence, you might as well be punching with your fists? Verbal and physical violence is symptomatic of domestic violence, and it is just bullying. In the same way, written violence is just cyber bullying.
You should really try to make your arguments without resorting to cyber-bullying.

I hope that the link to Max Barry provided some relief from the verbal battery by such as Antiseptic, JamesH and others.

There are men who sincerely care about their responsibilities as fathers, men who do not see their relationships with women as battlefields, men who do not need to bully.

Lets give a cheer and hugs to the men who can bandage the scabbed knee of a child as well as they can put up a shelf, dig a veggie patch and love their partner. Who ever said men can't multi-task was an idiot, not all men are stuck on a single issue, most are very human indeed just like most women are very human.

Patricia, I am going to respond to you comprehensively just this once.

Firstly, you cannot claim that men's violence is worse than women's violence and then claim that calling someone "dear" is equivalent to a physical assault. While I've no doubt that Chaz would love to hit me and as a woman she thinks she is entitled to do so, as a man I'm used to being called much worse by women and had grown accustomed to moderating my responses by the time I was perhaps 10.

Second, an analogy is just that: a way of examining a problem in a different form. Thus I may use an analogy of fluid flow to illustrate the way in which electric current behaves. It's not perfect, but it can help in the understanding. Similarly, the dog with a bone analogy is an excellent fit with the desperate afforts by those who gain from a maternal bias in the Family Law to stop anyone from interfering with their meal made of the misery of others. The fact that you and Chaz and Ammonite have become so exercised over it tends to confirm its aptness.

Third, you confuse the general with the specific, consistently. Thus, even if I am violent, it makes no difference to the claim that false allegations of violence are made and that these false allegations are perniciously motivated. In fact, since you have made the claim with no supporting evidence, it tends once again to support the contrary view, not that there was any question, really.

Fourth, please do something about Chaz's reversion to childhood. she may have been cute as a young girl, but I suspect she was one of those without many friends. It can't be good for her to relive those days.

Ammonite, for once I must congratulate you on a post. Despite the best eforts of the maternal bias crowd to pretend otherwise, as you say, men are human too.

Antiseptic, I said that you contradict yourself and continue to do so because while you profess innocence for fathers accused of domestic violence in the family court, you continue to use verbal abuse; one of the tactics of domestic violence, to make that claim. Your latest post shows a continuing use of verbal violence but it tends to incriminate you as someone who is not objective.

By your own words you have disclosed that you may have been a victim of your mother’s verbal abuse. Perhaps that is why you have such a strong position against your perceived “maternal bias”. If this is so, then I am sorry that you were subjected to such heinous abuse from the woman that should have been your supporter and defender.

Your personal history however, is no basis for you to now argue that men are less violent than women and men accused of domestic violence in the family court are innocent. In fact, your personal experience “as a man used to being called much worse by women and had grown accustomed to moderating my responses by the time I was perhaps 10” should now be experience that demonstrates to you the debilitating power of verbal abuse.

I am sorry that your mother and other women have been abusive to you. I can understand why you appear “anti-mother”. But thus in no way gives you the right to inflict verbal abuse on me or anyone else that does not agree with you. It’s time that you recognise that your own personal experience is not a reliable basis for your position.

Many mothers are good loving mothers and many fathers are also good loving fathers, but the issue for the court is to distinguish between good parents and bad parents.

Nevertheless, in an interview on ABC radio with Martin Powley in 2004 regarding child abuse and parenting, Dr Kerry Sullivan stated that when a mother asks for help, the hospital makes an appointment within the week. When a father contacts the hospital asking for help, they send an ambulance.

Antiseptic

You hurt so much. I cannot take away your pain, only you can heal yourself.

But if you harm my sisters, do not expect mercy.

"But if you harm my sisters, do not expect mercy."

And there lies another part of the problem. This fake sisterhood that some women seem to think is good. They will stick up for their "sisters" no matter how in the wrong the sisters are when the dispute is with a man or men.

ChazP made it quite clear earlier in the thread just how extreme her views on DV are but the sisters continue to focus on behaviours by Anti (only women can treat people with that kind of verbal abuse apparently).

The issue is not about anti, it about a blatant attempt by the mothers lobby to get maternal bias back into family law under the pretence of a highly gendered view of DV and a passion for unsubstantiated allegations.

Lot's of denial that false allegations would ever occur, exagerated claims of the level of DV, utterly one sided examples of abuse, mum's actually do more of the substantiated abuse and neglect because they have the kid's more yet the only examples this crowd can come up with are the ones where the male is in the wrong.

Pathetic and disgusting. None of you have the least concern for child welfare, instead looking for way's to hide behind your lies to help yourselves or your self serving sisters.

R0bert

R0bert:"(only women can treat people with that kind of verbal abuse apparently)"

Abuse? Really? Surely even those possessed of the most insubstantial integument should be able to withstand the "assault" of being called dear without shedding too much hair? As I said, careful breeders... Wish I'd taken more care with the old testimonals.

R0bert, you forgot to mention the generalising from extremes. Ammonite was man enough to acknowledge the tiny scale of the problem, so she deserves some credit for that.

Patricia, my Mum was a lovely woman who died very young at 56 from metastadized liver cancer. My Dad was also an exemplary man, who went so far as to obtain a job at Peat Island psychiatric hospital, situated on the Hawkesbury River, to be close to his first wife who became deranged through diabets before insulin had become widely available.

Frankly, if my Mum was around she'd call you a grub. She'd be right.

Septic ~ "While I've no doubt that Chaz would love to hit me" - where on earth do you get your ideas from?. You really do make some entirely unfounded assumptions about me. I deplore any form of physical violence by one person on another and particularly the violence and abuse experienced by children, a matter on which you seem to have little or no concern, despite your own sufferings. Do you not care about others who are similarly suffering?. The vast majority of those who repeatedly use violence on others are pathologically disordered and should be psychiatrically assessed and registered as such on a publicly available national database. Only in this way can the population begin to be protected from such persons.
Robert - my views are far from being extreme as there is national and widespread concern regarding the increasing incidence of violence, and the need to protect children from such violence. This is particularly so among informed politicians and policy forming groups e.g. AIFS, Family Law Council, researchers/academics etc. It is the dinosaurs and dodos in the Father's Rights groups who are completely oblivious to and in denial of this very serious situation in our society, because they are well aware of the implications for themselves and those they represent of any policy decisions on this issue. The reasons for their stance is pretty obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence. Their only concern is for poor old Dads who they claim will kill themselves when this legislation is passed. They have no evidence whatsoever that this will occur and can give no past events of such having happened.

Look, I think you are all becoming a bit overwrought on this recurring topic of domestic violence and Family Law Act.

RObert- "The issue is not about anti, it about a blatant attempt by the mothers lobby to get maternal bias back into family law under the pretence of a highly gendered view of DV and a passion for unsubstantiated allegations."

I really can't see how all these women's groups can 'get maternal bias back into family law' when it was never there in the first place?

Why or how would a vastly male-run parliament allow this to happen?
Surely they would be enacting laws on the proper evidence they have from law enforcement and medical agencies?
What would they (parliamentarians) have to gain by obviously creating a maternal biased system when most likely most of them are fathers?

ChazP- "It is the dinosaurs and dodos in the Father's Rights groups who are completely oblivious to and in denial of this very serious situation in our society, because they are well aware of the implications for themselves and those they represent of any policy decisions on this issue."

I doubt many of the men in the father's groups are elderly ChazP, and I doubt they are all violent or insane either!
Many of the men in these groups may well have been hard done by from some 'dodo' women who with-held their rights to see their own kids simply because they are angry at the men.
We cannot assume that all the men are at fault in these acrimonious separations, just as we can't blame all women either.

Obviously, both genders can and are to blame for acrimonious breakups, whether it be because of emotional or physical issues at the heart of the problems.

The Family Court must take each case brought before it on it's own merits, with no gender bias allowed at all. If the children get to spend more time with one parent or the other, then it should be because it is better for the kids, and should not be seen as a gender war.

Women do defend other women, so do men with other men, just look at this forum, far more men verbally diminishing women than the other way around, even accounting for any bias I might hold myself.

When you have experienced another women's pain after the experience of rape and assault and had the support of other women yourself there is much comfort in the 'sisterhood'. Sisterhood it is no different than the concept of mateship - nothing wrong with that as long as integrity is not lost along the way and guilty people are allowed to go free or perpetrate other criminal acts because of the 'boys' club mentality. There is remnants still of an old culture of minimising the man's responsibility in these cases by emphasising the women's contribution no matter how small eg. what she was wearing, she was drunk, she was flirting, she was walking alone at night.

Which specific parts of the Family Law Act are unfair? There has already been great leaps forward in shared parenting and the mother is not automatically given full custody. There is certainly more work to be done in affordability particularly for low income men who struggle to live a life just below or above the poverty line while trying to keep up their obligations of child support where parenting is not shared, particularly when this living standard may impact negatively on access or overnight stays etc.

But the anti-female tones that continue to reverberate in these threads is really something to ponder on how personal feelings can completely blur the lines of reality and fairplay.

Pelican, you seem to be saying that a woman has no responsibility at all for her own outcomes. For example, walking alone at night is dangerous for both genders. There are some areas in which I would simply not do so. Why should a woman be able to claim some sort of special pleading if she does something dumb and it goes wrong? Dumb is dumb and we tend to be less-sympathetic to people whose dumb actions ended in them getting hurt. If a jaywalker gets hit by a car they get much less sympathy than if they were using the pedestrian crossing just down the street. they might even get charged with causing the incident and have to pay for the damage to the car.

Sure, in a perfect world rape would not happen, assaults would never have been invented and everyone would live blissed out on love and peace, man. It didn't happen in the 60s and it isn't going to happen now, therefore we need to be a little careful.

There is nothing wrong with empathy, but it is easily perverted into blind loyalty, something that Feminism has relied on to propagate itself, just as extemist movements have always done. Read Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" if you want a complete exposition.

"far more men verbally diminishing women than the other way around, even accounting for any bias I might hold myself." - I have a different view on that.

There was a big leap forward in family law, right now there is a push to reverse much of that based on broadened definitions of DV and more action based on accusations without safeguards. Some seem to think that the existence of an unsubstantiated allegation should be sufficient to set residency. Others are convinced that no-one should ever need fear a false allegation in the midst of a residency dispute.

That's occurring concurrently with a push to introduce profiling statements about DV into various acts which identify males as the primary perpetrators of DV.

The supporters of the proposal make a point of almost exclusively highlighting examples of men who have harmed children and trying to portray the situation as though the only real risk to kid's was their fathers (and sometimes other men) yet that stands in stark contrast to substantiated child abuse stats. They highlight the harm done to kid's by witnessing DV but rely on heavily gendered views on DV.

I gather that you are not convinced that DV is not substantially genderised but I think that you've got the point that DV initiated by women is not so minute as to be not worth mention as claimed by ChazP http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212360

I've not seen a good breakdown on the why's but there has been a drop in substantiated child abuse across Australia during the period that the changes have been in place (I've linked to material on that a number of times).

Those pushing for changes continue to rely on selected cases where the courts may have got custody wrong ignoring all the times they got it right and the harm done by the adversarial, winner takes it all system they favour.

There is room for improvement but improvements to child welfare won't come by making the system more open to manipulation and further entrenching gender bias and conflict.

R0bert

ChazP quotes from Crime Research Centre and Donovan Research, 2001, which has been used in many papers and media releases.

In this report it states '23% of young people between the ages of 12 and 20 years had witnessed an incident of physical violence against their mother/stepmother'

In the very same report, it also states,

'and 22% against their father/stepfather'.

Even more importantly, while similar proportions of young people were aware of exclusive violence by their mother/stepmother or father/step-father, a much greater proportion of young people experienced couple violence between their parents/step-parents. The study was quite unequivocal when reporting on the effects of young people witnessing domestic violence, finding that the most severe disruption on all available indicators occurred in households where couple violence was reported.

Just thought I would clarify.

It's an easy mistake to make. If you read all advocacy research papers and press releases from domestic violence groups, that's the only part of the report you would ever see mentioned.

It's more likely a fabrication anyway, as with the expanded definition of DV relating to shouting, or either partner making an issue of controlling the family finances (for the good of the family's finances, often couples have one spendthrift and one who tries to be more responsible), then I would say 100% of children would have witnessed domestic violence by both the mother and the father.

I say, why wait until families enter the family court. I think any intact family that has either parent ever raising their voice, the kids should then be taken away from them.

Houellebecq, thank you. So the data was there after all, more credible than I'd expected.

R0bert

Robert ~ "There was a big leap forward in family law," ~ No Robert, the 2006 amendments were a big leap backwards to the past. To Victorian times in fact, when women and children were classed in law as the `Goods & Chattels' of the husband and to be disposed of as he considered appropriate. It gave paramountcy to parental rights and treated children merely as parental possessions, to be `Shared' between the parents as the Court deemed fit, along with the house, finances, and other joint assets. That is how children are still treated under the 2006 amendments. It is extremely rare for a Family Court to consider the wishes and feelings of the children and young people whose lives they are determining. Children's interests are not always synonymous with parent's interests, and indeed may often be in direct conflict with parental interests.
Only when we can get out of this mindset of Father's Rights and Mother's Rights and the inherent conflicts of those `Rights', and begin to think firstly about the Needs, Wishes, and Rights of Children and Young People involved, will the best interests of children be served. The first step is to reform the law to be Child-Centred and focussed on the needs, wishes, and rights of children, and then for such determinations to be taken out of the crudely adversarial arena of the Family Courts and away from determinations about property and other assets, and be determined by Tribunals of Inquiry run on an inquisitorial basis, and focussed solely on the child's best interests. There will of course be the usual arguments that children can be manipulated and influenced by a cunning, contriving parent - yes they can, and so can adults. I've seen many occasions when lawyers and judges have been easily and readily manipulated by such parents. So why are children any different?. A Tribunal of 3 or 4 people is much less likely to be manipulated than a single judge and with lawyers removed from the equation, there will be far less conflict in such hearings.

Robert ~ where is all of this evidence of males being subjected to partner abuse?. How many fathers have been brutally raped?. How many fathers have been otherwise sexually abused?. How many fathers have been kicked in the stomache during pregnancy (points commented on by Dep Chief Justice Faulks that well known feminist). How many fathers have been dragged by the hair screaming into the street?. How many fathers have lived in absolute terror every night knowing that when their wives return from the pub, they will be brutally beaten?. How many fathers have sought refuge with neighbours and friends after being attacked in their own homes by their partner?. On average female partners suffer nine(9) such attacks before they finally leave.
Robert ~ "I've not seen a good breakdown on the why's but there has been a drop in substantiated child abuse across Australia during the period that the changes have been in place" - the major reason is a shortage of social workers to conduct investigations and consequently some States have introduced a `Screening' system which means that many reports of child abuse are never investigated. In 2008 there was widespread concern because the numbers of reports of child abuse in NSW had risen to well over 1/2 million ~ a vast increase. But then, that could not be attributed to the 2006 changes, could it?.

Anti and RObert
To take Anti's point, I don't diminish the responsibilities of women at all to take precautions to protect their personal safety, but how far do we have to go even within our own homes, there is no guarantee of safety.

The risk taking behaviour of the victim (eg. walking alone at night) does not in any way provide a defence for the attacker for goodness sake. I cannot see how you can constantly justify this notion that it absolves criminal behaviour.

RObert
Much of what you say I agree with, but you emphasise the dangers in a bias in the Family Law Act on the grounds of false allegations as I understand your position. Correct me if I am wrong.

Equally you don't offer any potential solution for equally false denials or false allegations made by men. It is as though these possibilities do not occur.

We do need a fairer system but I reckon it is nigh impossible. The only people who really know who is lying and who is telling the truth are the two people involved and who are being judged by a third party who has to make decisions based on the information presented.

pelican "Equally you don't offer any potential solution for equally false denials or false allegations made by men. It is as though these possibilities do not occur."

Actually it's more that I consider the possibility of false denial's to be a given in any system where people are accused of serious wrongdoing. That should be dealt with by thorough investigation as it should be with any serious accusations.

I hope that none of what I've suggested would disadvantage a woman facing false accusations from a man. Other than my highlighting the play by the mothers groups to present a highly genderised representation of child abuse and DV I think I've been fairly gender neutral in this.

Both genders are quite capable of lying for personal advantage or to keep kid's away from someone the adult now has strong feelings against. The stakes can be very high for all concerned.

In some way's I don't mind the idea of an inquisitorial tribunal but have no idea how you would keep such tribunals from being stacked with gender warriors trying to work out their own issues. There seem to be so many in the services around family law at the moment that it's almost a given that they would dominate any tribunals.

I don't think that we will ever have a perfect system, we can try and minimise the harm it does and watch out for those who try and manipulate it for their own advantage.

R0bert

Antiseptic, it appears to be your habit to persist in using personal insults towards those who disagree with you.
Agreed- “dear” on its own is not an insult. But be honest, the way you have used it is demeaning because of the connotations attached in its context. Further, you deliberately victimise your antagonists by calling them animals i.e. “dogs”, “bitches” and including the term “careful breeders.” You then called me an insect, a “grub.”

You exhibit the habit of domestic violence abusers when you write these posts, and betray violent undercurrents in your personal interactions.
It is a well established observation that preceding all serious human rights abuses, abusers dehumanize their victims. This allows the abuser to treat the victim as an object, rather than a person, and then allows the abuser to commit and exhibit the extreme end of violence and abuse. At the same time, the abuser loses any shred of humanity because they choose to diminish their own in the process.

It that why you insist on fighting for the “rights” of accused fathers? Do you actually relate to their “plight” because it actually better suits your disposition? Do you believe they are all falsely accused because you cannot or do not want to own up to your own violence?

Your use of verbal violence may be the slippery slope that betrays your posture towards women who accuse men of violence in the Family Court. You give off significant indicators that you align yourself with accused men, perhaps because you have been one. Question is- are you now going to deny that you are abusive? Your verbal behaviour in these posts merely enjoins you to those men that whinge about the pain on their fists from the effect of their partners’ faces on them.

Your pseudonym does nothing but reveal the contradictions you refuse to acknowledge.

happy:"You then called me an insect, a “grub.” "

Actually, I said my mother would have done so, for trying to pretend that she was violent toward me in order to try to discredit my own views on interpersonal violence. Not sure how you think that works, but still the shoe fits, grub. She wouldn't have been referring to any insect, either, since in my home grub was reserved for the dirtiest of low-lifes who couldn't even manage to keep themselves clean.

How many more times are you going to accuse me of being violent for disagreeing with you? Is that why the father of your children left? One too many "don't argue, I'm right and you're wrong amd if you argue you're being violent"?

BTW, how many members does your "National Coalition" boast? Oh, that's right, it's just you, isn't it? Grandiose fantasies are a fairly important pointer to narcissistic personality disorder, but I think that was already pretty obvious to the unimpaired reader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

A couple of quotes:"The narcissist is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity."

and "People who are diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder use splitting (black and white thinking) as a central defense mechanism. They do this to preserve their self-esteem, by seeing the self as purely good and the others as purely bad. The use of splitting also implies the use of other defense mechanisms, namely devaluation, idealization and denial.

Sounds pretty close to the mark to me.

Happy

You can only make conjectures about other posters. True, Antiseptic is consistently insulting to anyone who disagrees with his views on women. We cannot know that he is like that in his life. One may posit that a person who behaves like a bully online is 'acting out' or may also be a bully in his/her relationships. We don't know.

What I do know is that Antiseptic's comments have caused harm here. There are posters who are indeed victims of domestic violence and to be called a "feminazi", "bitch", "grub", is without doubt causing harm. I have no time for people who indulge in bullying whether it is online or not. Despite the old saw, words DO hurt.

Antiseptic has been suspended in the past, although the forum moderator has allowed him to keep his posting subscription. Which is good as we can easily identify him and refer newcomers to his posting history.

I think we are all agreed upon there being problems with Family Law. As it stands, children remain objects to be divided between parents, greater emphasis needs to be placed on the welfare of children and a stable environment has to be one of the most important, being split between two households must be disruptive. Older children can make these decisions, but the little ones cannot.

Being used as pawns by warring parents is reprehensible - when one adds in the children of refugees, indigenous people; Australia should be ashamed, the weak and vulnerable in this country have always existed at the behest of the more powerful. Societal change occurs much more slowly than we would like, while we cast aspersions to each other rather than dealing with the consequences of our actions, children will continue to be used rather than nurtured.

Antiseptic- I did not “pretend” that she was violent towards you. It was an inference you provided with the following post: “...as a man I'm used to being called much worse by women and had grown accustomed to moderating my responses by the time I was perhaps 10.” (Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 10 July 2011 10:05:22 AM)

These were your words, not mine. Do not accuse me of pretending. What I inferred was reasonable on the provision of your own words. Perhaps it was not your mother who verbally abused you as a child; the effect belies that you have recovered.

Obviously, I’ve hit very close to the mark as you seem to be increasing your verbal dehumanising attack by posting - “grub was reserved for the dirtiest of low-lifes who couldn't even manage to keep themselves clean.”

It is not lost that you are directly referring to me. Thank you, but I am very clean both in my hygiene habits and the way I try and treat others.
By the way, thank you for all that information regarding narcissists. Yes I do agree with you that they are “excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity."

Given that you are the one using all the personal insults and calling me and others who disagree with you on this forum “dogs”, “bitches” and “grubs”, you appear to be the one that is behaving like the narcissist.

Nat MACH had about 25 members, but it is dormant. Unlike various publically funded “fathers rights” campaigners, I work to provide for myself and write on this topic and other justice issues unpaid. I do not mendaciously engage politicians feeding them one-sided and unreliable information to lobby in the area where the child protection crisis is now evident.

What further dehumanising and violent insults will you now pull out to contest that men are falsely accused of violence? Just how low can you go? Prove it.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8271810/bodybuilder-kept-wife-baby-prisoner-in-filth

Ammonite:"being split between two households must be disruptive"

Sharing time between households need not be a problem and what do you mean by "disruption"?

A child can and will adapt to all sorts of things. For example, I went to boarding school at 11. Do you think that was "disruptive"? Should boarding schools be banned?

The real question is whether the disruption is worth it and the evidence to date is that it seems to be. My own experience, despite having an ex who's difficult to deal with, is that the kids do better because i'm involved and they don't suffer adverse rsponses to having two homes, it's just part of their landscape.

Why should having two homes with a parent in each be regarded as more disruptive than having just one home and no second parent around at all?

happy, that was a reference to the fact that boys are used to being called names by girls and have learnt not to retaliate by age 10 or younger. This is a common experience for boys, while girls learn the converse - that boys are fair game and must not retaliate. You obviously learnt that lesson particularly well.

The inference that it had anything to do with my mother was yours alone, grub.

I'm glad you identify so strongly with my analogy of the dog and bone, it must be quite apt.

happy:"Nat MACH had about 25 members, but it is dormant."

So to claim that you "write on behalf of" an organisation with that name is in fact telling a big fat lie, isn't it? I'm sure you'll correct that with Graham Y, won't you? Are you also a member of PALE? The modus operandi is very similar and the locations are not far apart either.

Antiseptic, you wrote “...as a man I’M used to being called much worse by women and had grown accustomed to moderating MY responses by the time I was perhaps 10.” You were NOT referring to boys in general. You wrote in the first person.

You have done nothing but prove my contention that you relate to violent men who falsely deny their violence because you also falsely deny your own violence. You should be aware that calling me a grub and dog with a bone just because I don’t hold to your unsustainable position is abusive and devaluing violence.

If you are prepared to repeatedly diminish my humanity in cyberspace this way, what were you prepared to do to the women in your personal intimate interactions? Is it any wonder you advocate for potentially abusive men in general?

Here’s something for you to chew over- I have supported some men falsely accused of violence because I recognise genuine domestic violence in a relationship. One off events are not DV. You on the other hand, repeatedly engage in verbal devaluing violence. Unlike you, I recognise violence and abuse when I see it, written or otherwise.

I have also supported certain fathers when they have unjustly been excluded or obstructed from contact with their children. So I am not the one aptly “using splitting (black and white thinking) as a central defense mechanism.”

And you said it- “The use of splitting also implies the use of other defense mechanisms, namely DEVALUATION, idealization and DENIAL.” What is calling me; a human being, a “dog” and “grub” other than devaluation of me and denial of your verbal abuse? Go look in the mirror and dare to mendaciously tell yourself that you are not violent and abusive.

Patricia, you're simply digging yourself in deeper. Your behaviour is just like those abusive women who try to pretend that the other person must have misunderstood when they take exception. In this case, however, you've written them down; too bad, so sad, you're in print. Strangely enough, when I insisted that I and the ex should only communicate by email, she decided that was a bad idea and she should only communicate via the deniable medium of the telephone. She's smart, if sociopathic.

Have you notified the Forum administration of your changed author profile? I suggest "Patricia used to claim to write on behalf of a group, but had to revoke her claim when it was pointed out that the group did not exist.".

Unlike you, I recognise dishonesty and an attempt to appeal to (invented) authority.

No Antiseptic, I am not digging myself in anywhere. I am not the one who has called you a “dog” and a “grub”. You did this repeatedly. I have not dehumanised and debased you just because you don’t agree with me. You have; a number of times.

What has “the ex should only communicate by email” have to do with any of this? Clearly some ex partner of yours has accused you of violence. Of course, rather than take responsibility for your violent and abusive behaviour, like your behaviour towards me and others on this forum, you choose to deny your abusive behaviour and fatuously call her “sociopathic.”

If you cannot be respectful with those you disagree with, go away.

If you do not take responsibility for your patent abuse, don’t accuse others of dishonesty.

I made a mistake in the following post:

>> Antiseptic

You hurt so much. I cannot take away your pain, only you can heal yourself.

But if you harm my sisters, do not expect mercy.

Posted by Ammonite, Sunday, 10 July 2011 2:39:36 PM <<

The last line should have read:

"But if you harm my sisters and brothers, do not expect mercy."

Obviously this has been deliberately used to imply some sort of sisterhood conspiracy. Fact is abusive men harm other men as well as women and children.

Which was why I tried to post some positives for all the men in my life who have been of great help and significant consolation to me, at times when I really needed that help. As a result I am not bitter towards men, just saddened and disturbed by bullying whether it is enacted by men or women. However, on these pages there has been terrible bullying by some and I WILL speak out about it and I will NOT be silenced. No one can punch me to the floor here.

Extract from the Age - 19 June 2011: "Last year, 35,720 reports of family violence were made to Victoria Police - up from 33,896 the year before. Yet when we look at crime statistics, we barely glance at the ones that take place between spouses. The data is telling: in the 12 months to March this year, there were 647 assaults (including family violence) per 100,000 people - an increase of 2.1 per cent from the previous year. Take out family violence cases and the assault rate decreases by 2.7 per cent over the same period. That's just the tip of the iceberg. The statistics don't reveal the full extent of the problem because many women are too scared to report they're being abused or are convinced they won't get help.... Intervention orders against violent perpetrators are being breached, women and children are waiting months for crisis accommodation or long-term housing and too often the system turns a blind eye to those most at risk. That partly explains why one woman is killed almost every week by a partner or ex-partner, according to national homicide figures. Or why every year, the Women's Domestic Violence Crisis Service gets about 25,000 calls on its hotline - an average of 67 calls a day. The culture around family violence has improved since a code of practice has encouraged police to report assaults, rather than view them as a private matter. Laws introduced by the former Labor government and extended by Baillieu have given police the power to issue after-hours ''safety notices'' to protect victims and remove perpetrators from the home. But there's still a long way to go."
This shows that domestic violence is far from being a minor problem that some would like to believe, it is not a `feminist' issue, and that those involved in Fsamily Law proceedings are extremely unlikely to be making `false' allegations.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/lets-not-forget-about-crimes-other-heartland-the-home-20110618-1g944.html#ixzz1RrPFJUN8

Septic ~ You do seem to a rather sad and pathetic creature who, rather than make an informed contribution to this debate, chooses to deliberately rankle, irritate, and annoy others from the safe confines of your shed and anonymity. Your comments of "You'd love to hit me" and "You can't hurt me (if you do hit me)" indicate a form of masochism probably borne from the reactions of others in your past to your attention seeking behaviours. None of us have any wish to hurt you in any way, although you constantly invite others to do so by your deliberately provocative behaviours. You really should seek professional help with your problems. Perhaps there are other ways you can get the attention you crave, rather than poking people with sharp sticks. It worries me that you have been permitted to have contact with your children, but then thats a typical part of the bizarre and idiosyncratic determinations of Family Courts.

I've posted some extracts from a report which I think is relevant to the earlier claims on the DV as a hate crime thread.

The report is http://www.science.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/118532/Australian_Institue_of_Criminology-Trends_and_Issues_No195-Yound_Australians_And_Domestic_Violence.pdf

The report does still play the gender game, highlighting at the start the violence against mothers and stepmothers aspect where the claimed difference was 1% compared to witnessed violence against against fathers and stepfathers. It unfortunately drops back at the end to the needing a deeper understanding idea at the end to dismis what it's just demomonstrated.

Whilst I disagree in parts I do think it's well worth a read. It does highlight some of the issues around kid's being exposed to DV and the risks to them and put's gender as an issue in DV into some perspective compared to other factors, substance abuse, not being with both natural parents, being poor or aboriginal etc (and I suspect that rates for aboriginal kid's are mostly about the other factors).

R0bert

Robert : "....one woman is killed almost every week by a partner or ex-partner, according to national homicide figures." How does that compare with the number of fathers who are killed during by a partner or ex-partner?. Or allegedly commit suicide because they are denied contact with their children (honoured by an empty chair at Father's Rights groups meetings).?.
Or my earlier questions: "How many fathers have been brutally raped?. How many fathers have been otherwise sexually abused?. How many fathers have been kicked in the stomach during pregnancy (points commented on by Dep Chief Justice Faulks that well known feminist). How many fathers have been dragged by the hair screaming into the street?. How many fathers have lived in absolute terror every night knowing that when their wives return from the pub, they will be brutally beaten?. How many fathers have sought refuge with neighbours and friends after being attacked in their own homes by their partner or ex-partner?.
And I can add others such as how many fathers and children have been threatened with guns, or have been constantly threatened by mothers that they and their children will be killed if they leave?. How many fathers are in hiding, changing their names because of fear they will be hunted down and killed?. Bare numbers do not disclose the apples and pears comparisons you are trying to show.

happy:"I am not the one who has called you a “dog” and a “grub”. You did this repeatedly. "

It's clear you have some diffivulty understanding simple English phrasing, Patricia, so I'll say this very simply. I called you a grub, because you exhibit all of the characteristics that my mother would have described by that word. I didn't call you or anybody else a dog: dogs are among my favourite creatures. I said that you and ChazP and the rest of the maternal bias crowd are so concerned about the current, reasonably fair system remaining in place that your behaviour is like that of an ill-bred cur when someone tries to take its bone away.

I believe that is an entirely appropriate description.

When are you going to ask Graham to remove your dishonest claim to represent a non-existent "group"? It's a shame you have to invent friends, I do feel sorry for you.

Ammonite:"No one can punch me to the floor here"

Oh fawd, is that a line from one of those little plays you spend your time on instead of working? It sounds like the sort of thing an overheated undergraduate might come up with.

R0bert, the report has to play the pro-feminist game, it's the only one in town. As long as all funding is dependent on the researchers expounding a particular view (or, at least, not contradicting it too baldly), there is no chance of a report without weasel words. JamesH has posted lots of links about the failngs of the Canadian experiment, which has been replicated by diligent feminists here in Oz.

Chaz, dear, isn't it time you went and had a nice cold shower? Those hot flushes must be uncomfortable.

Antiseptic, the ability to dodge and weave is impressive in a sick fashion. ChazP was thoroughly caught out cherry picking the bit of the report that painted men in a bad light but rather than address that she moves onto something else. A pattern we see repeated over and over.

I wonder what the rates she refers to would look like in a system where both parents were actually treated equally as parents and providers?

I wonder what the stats ChazP want's to talk about would look like if we had a better understanding of suicide rates and the causes, there does seem to be little quality work in that area but if we treat emotional abuse as a serious matter then those figures should be part of the equation.

Just so I don't look to be playing ChazP's game of avoiding inconvenient truth's males do kill their partners and former partners more often than females do. At a rate that is statistically significant but not so high that we can or should ignore the other entirely.

It's almost never excusable (just as women killing their partners should rarely be excusable).

R0bert

R0bert, there is no argument about the outcomes of extreme cases of DV.

More men kill their partners, but more mothers kill their children. It's pretty obvious why that happens: when a strong person and a weak person beciome physical, the outcome is unlikely to be that the stronger one ends up hurt or dead, unless the weaker one has a weapon and that is exactly what the data show.

Women who kill their partners use weapons while men who do so often don't. In any other situation use of a weapon would be regarded as evidence of intent, but not in domestic violence cases, where a woman can claim "I was scared" and get acquitted while a man is held to be culpably responsible even if he just lashed out once with his fists in response to years of being tormented by a shrew.

However, extreme cases are not the norm and even in extreme cases there are contributory factors in the lead-up. The lack of any effort to address anything contributed by the female partner is at the root of the failure to find a solution.

While the aim of keeping children from experiencing violence is a noble one, undoubtedly, it cannot be achieved by rigidity and arbitrariness. It can't be helped by committees concerned more about putting the right weasel words on paper and bum-covering than about the genuine needs of children and it certainly can't be helped by a presumption of maternal priority.

There is a big push to get men to do more of the child-rearing by Feminist women seeking to empire-build on the backs of a big sorority of working women. How can "all men are bastards" as espoused by ChazP et al be reconciled with this? Are these women not concerned that this will lead to a massive surge in child murder?

Of course they're not, because except in the feverish imaginings of the would-be maternal gatekeepers men are not a threat to their children as a rule. They don't suddenly become bad fathers jost because they separated from Mum, either...

It seems you Antiseptic, are the one with the difficulties, not with the English language, but not admitting that you are violent.

Nevertheless, let me get this simply straight-

You Antiseptic called me Patricia a “grub”, because I Patricia, exhibit all of the characteristics that your mother would have described by that word.

You Antiseptic, didn't call me or anybody else a dog: dogs are among my favourite “creatures”.

The definition of a “creature” is:

"1. an animal, especially a nonhuman...”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creature

So let me get this straight-
Thus, according to you I am a “creature”, a “grub”, an animal or a non-human. Why? Because I don't agree with you.

You wrote:
"The narcissist is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity."

It seems to me that you are “excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity” and you do this by calling me and others de-humanising names. You don't argue without debasing those that do not agree with you. It's no wonder you don't want the definition of DV expanded.

You reckon you didn’t call us “dogs”, but I think you did. These are YOUR words-

“Chaz, trying to hold a sensible discussion with you is like trying to hold a sensible discussion with the dog about taking her bone away: there's no chance of a meeting of minds when one of the parties sees a nice, big juicy bone just itching to have the marrow sucked out and the other one is trying to make sure there's no mess, but it's certain that there'll be lots of whining as the bone is taken away and possibly the odd bit of snapping in the greedier and less-disciplined members of the species.
There are lots of SUCH DOGS in the Family Law industry, mostly hiding out in the maternal bias KENNEL and only emerging to GROWL whenever a human appears to be taking an interest in their bone supply. “
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 9 July 2011 4:19:09 AM”

I think you are fooling yourself.

Yes Patricia, it's all about you...

No, it's all about you calling me and those you do not agree with on this forum "grub", "creature" and "dogs".

You are the one using debasing, dehumanising and thus violent words.

Yet you are the one advocating for "falsely accused fathers"
all the while using violence with your words.

Care to explain the contradiction without calling PEOPLE names such as "grub", "creature" and "dog"?

Is that even possible?

Anti one of the problems of adopting the style you use is that it gives an excuse to focus on the style rather than the substance of the debate. I know some don't need much excuse or will invent one if it's not available but that's not entirely the case here.

Why not take the parlimentary approach, retract the name calling and express your regrets for any unintended offence that may have been taken? Then maybe Patricia might be able to turn her mind to the topic.

Patricia has been so preoccupied with Anti's comments that she has not been able to express any concern over ChazP cherry picking the anti male parts of a report nor ChazP's uggestion that kid's witnessing violence against their dad's and step dad's would be non-existant despite what appears to be the same report providing on the same page the numbers which were 1% different to the number of kids witnessing violence aginst their dad's and step dads.

Patricia been so bothered by name calling on a web forum where insults are unfortunately all to common that she has been unable to address the blatent attempts to portray DV and child abuse in a genderised manner which does not reflect the reality.

So Anti how about it you retract the name calling (and any alleged name calling) and help Patricia move on.

R0bert

Robert

This is gonna be interesting...

helloooooooooo??

Waiting to hear a retraction of the name calling......"grub" "creature" "dog" etc. In some parts a retraction is properly thought to be called an apology.

And there are no anti-female comments on these threads.

More double standards.

"I know some don't need much excuse or will invent one if it's not available but that's not entirely the case here."

Another form of denial and obfuscation RObert. You are better than that.

R0bert, I shall do as you suggest, but I reserve the right to respond in kind to the scurrilous rubbish.

Patricia, I do not withdraw anything. I apologise if you were offended, but my comments were made with sincerity and reflect my true opinion. However, I shall endeavour to refrain from such utterances as long as you refrain from telling great big porkies and snide remarks.

Are you man enough?

Pelican, I've made no "anti-female" comments. I've made specific comments about some people who happen to be female, because they made fatuous and offensive comments. I do the same to males who do so, although I see no reason to address the more egregious comments as I can't see how it will make a difference and I rarely address male posters at all on these gender threads: either they're ranting or their comments stand alone and need no support.

For example, I try to respond to you comprehensively, Patricia somewhat less so, Ammonite dismissively and ChazP with contempt. This reflects the relative merits of your commentary in my view. Poor old Suze is just a cheerleader who's trying desperately to be part of the team.

I will agree that I make many "anti-feminist" comments, because I think Feminism is a doctrine that is doomed to fail and fail badly. It is predicated on a faulty proposition: that women are helpless hapless victims of men, which is patently false. On the back of this "big lie" has been built a veritable tower of straw, albeit very nicely furnished and all paid for by men's efforts and housing thousands upon thousands of women who really, truly believe thet they're underprivileged if a single man does better than the average woman.

Once upon a time my Dad really believed that women were objects of reverence, to be cossetted and spoilt and treated like princesses. He even inculcated a similar view in me. That I no longer hold that view is entirely due to the efforts of feminists. Well done, thanks.

pelican that's all pretty pointless. I disagree with you and like anti reserve the right to rebut accusations levelled against myself (and others if I'm in the mood).

I have been very specific that I'm not suggesting that women are not more violent than men, that I think the real factors lie elsewhere (substance abuse, poverty, mental health etc). Do I need to keep repeating that?

I'd like the focus to move off who does more DV and onto how to reduce the prevalence of it and the impacts of it. That's not possible while there is widespread acceptance of the the clearly false line that it's something men do (and ever so rarely by women).

At best female DV gets excused on the basis of feminist theories of power or by looking at the extreme end of the harm spectrum, neither approach cut's it when it comes to stopping DV or determining issues of child residency.

On this topic it's clear that the supporters of the proposed changes are trying to play off gender based perceptions about DV, perceptions that are clearly false in the facts although not the spin.

Honest people do have something to fear from false accusations especially if the changes occur and accusations are acted on without safeguards - eg allowing a pattern of child residency to be set early.

If the law also contains profiling statements about DV (a topic which was covered in an article some months ago) then it's clearly going to put dads at a massive disadvantage (and yes men can make false accusations but if the law gets to include a statement that men do most DV then that won't be much use will it?).

At best the proposed changes will bring an increased level of conflict between parents, in rare cases they may save a kid from living with a dangerous parent but what's proposed makes it look like they will have the child living with the parent best able to manipulate the system.

R0bert

C’mon Robert stop trying to be so naive and innocent. The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate. It is not a crime, or the FamilyLawWebGuide would have been forcibly closed down many years ago. Try also reading the statements made to the Senate Committee by Sue Pryce and Barry Williams. But of course they are long-practiced in such arts and know as well as anyone, that it is for the other side in the debate to use other information to refute and rebut what is stated in selective use of information. The most blatant example of the misuse of information is the constant quoting of statistics that mothers are most commonly recorded by child protection agencies for child abuse. I have explained on more than one occasion that such bare statistics are a gross misrepresentation of the situation and are virtually worthless as any kind of guide to the incidence and nature of child abuse, yet they are still frequently quoted to support other weak arguments advanced by the male supremacist lobby.
You for example keep arguing about how many males suffer domestic violence, yet despite being frequently challenged to do so, can produce no statistics of its incidence and nature. Yet it still remains one of your major platforms.
As for Septic, I would suggest that he has nothing whatsoever to contribute to this debate, except insulting words and pejorative invective, so from now on his postings should be completely ignored. I will certainly be doing so, rather than feeding his inflated ego and grossly attention-seeking conduct.

AIFS - "Impacts of childhood exposure to domestic violence
Research on children exposed to domestic violence indicates that there are a range of impacts that such children are likely to experience.
Psychological and behavioural impacts
Most research has focused on the psychological and/or behavioural impacts experienced by children exposed to domestic violence. The research literature documents the following psychological and/or behavioural impacts:• depression;• anxiety;• trauma symptoms;• increased aggression;• antisocial behaviour;• lower social competence;• temperament problems;• low self-esteem;• the presence of pervasive fear;• mood problems; • loneliness;• school difficulties;• peer conflict;• impaired cognitive functioning; and/or• increased likelihood of substance abuse. Herrenkohl et al. (2008) also list eating disorders, teenage pregnancy, leaving school early, suicide attempts, delinquency and violence as potential consequences of child abuse and/or childhood exposure to domestic violence.
Health and socioeconomic impacts
Research has also indicated that there are significant health and socioeconomic problems resulting from childhood exposure to domestic violence. The physical impacts of exposure to domestic violence on children have rarely been documented, due to the difficulty of differentiating children exposed to domestic violence from victims of other forms of child abuse. This is particularly problematic given that children often intervene in pisodes of domestic violence (Bedi & Goddard 2007). A study by Saltzman et al. (cited in Clements, Oxtoby & Ogle 2008) found, however, that children from violent homes had significantly higher heart rates than other children, even fter direct child abuse was controlled for."
Clearly those who arew opposing the proposed amendments want this situation to continue.

“Patricia, I do not withdraw anything. “ Antiseptic, it appears that you have NOT apologised. This is not an apology.

You have not withdrawn your use of the words “dogs” grub” & “creature” to me and others on this forum who have not agreed with your opinion. You are not sorry that you have abused out humanity by calling us "dogs", "grubs" and "creatures".

You are the one that has engaged with “scurrilous rubbish” because we do not turn into "dogs", "grubs" and "creatures" upon disagreeing with you.

“I apologise if you were offended, but” - is also not an apology. The fact remains that I AM OFFENDED at you labelling me and others on this forum as “dogs”, “grub” and ALL your analogies to kennels, bones, mess etc.

I am offended because you in effect have done what abusers have done- they call people- human beings - names that degrade , diminish, put down and offend their humanness.

I am a human being and you have no right to call me a “dog” “a grub” “a creature etc, just because I don’t agree with you.

You also have no right to refer to Chaz and others that disagree with you in terms of "dogs" and "creatures" with their "bones" and "maternal bias kennels". You are not superior to them by using these types of abuses. In fact- it diminished your arguments and betrays your character as a human.

It is irrelevant how “sincere” you believe your comments are. Sincerity does not justify your use of demeaning language with those you disagree with.

Your abuse is abuse is abuse no matter how sincerely you believe your intention is.

I do agree that the use of these dehumanising words reflect your true opinion. Your opinion of me and anyone that does not agree with you is that we are NOT HUMAN- you have called us “dogs” ”grubs” and “creatures”. You have referred to us as less than human.

“Are you man enough?” you challenge? The appropriate question is- are you human enough to properly apologise and not repeat such abuse?

"the selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate."

Well, glad to know that public policy is directed by misinformation, but that's OK, because all's fair in war.

Right.

I think Anti's point has been made for him.

I too think it is "grubby".

Rusty

Nice try Robert.

You may think you have been presenting some semblance of balance - but it is a little skewed, for example (out of so many) you present something all female posters have been saying:

>> I'd like the focus to move off who does more DV and onto how to reduce the prevalence of it and the impacts of it.<<

And then follow that quite reasonable statement which I and and I am sure other female posters fully endorse with this:

>> That's not possible while there is widespread acceptance of the the (sic) clearly false line that it's something men do (violence?) (and ever so rarely by women). <<

No one, has said that female rarely abuse, just that the rate of physical violence by men is greater than physical violence by women.

No one has suggested that female violence in non-existence.

However as Happy, Chazp, Pelican, yours truly and many others have lost patience with being denigrated - even if what we say is deemed to be "scurrilous rubbish" by Antiseptic, there is no excuse. Just as there is no excuse for beating up someone male/female or child who is argumentative, slamming doors, whatever - there is NO EXCUSE FOR VIOLENCE OR ABUSE. I do not excuse anyone, male of female for this type of behaviour. Never have. But there are some who have claimed that if one party is behaving badly then provocation may excuse them.

Cont'd

"You for example keep arguing about how many males suffer domestic violence, yet despite being frequently challenged to do so, can produce no statistics of its incidence and nature."

Given how often I have provided such statistics and over how many years I guess that's just another bit of "the selective use/misuse of information" They may not be statistics that some of you can deal with but that's a different issue.

Just from the current DV as a gender hate crime thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12275#212093

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12275#212181

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12275#212729

I've done similar for years on OLO on a number of threads.

Whilst the selective use/misuse of information may be just what some of you do it's something I try very hard to avoid. Where I'm wrong it's never an attempt to mislead.

I don't believe that it is any way ethical or decent to try and mislead by misuse of information, actually I consider it a very grubby act. Of course not suggesting that anyone is a literal grub, just that the actions are utterly grubby.

R0bert

Cont'd

In conclusion, I question whether you are genuinely concerned about the best welfare of children. I see little mention of possible solutions to the problems vexing the family courts. 50/50 has resulted in some children being placed with abusive parents and it still treats children as objects, does not provide stability - particularly when courted dictated. Amicable agreement between the majority of parents tend not to wind up in the courts (as I have stated), we are attempting to discuss a minority of parents here.

As has been pointed out by others, Antiseptic has not made an apology for his childish name calling, others will continue to take his lead, you will continue to appear reasonable, but as I have demonstrated above closer examination reveals a bias. However, I would have no problem with this (your bias) were you not surrounded by a coterie of extremely aggrieved men who do not wish to debate but instead demean.

Much mischief indeed.

"I have been very specific that I'm not suggesting that women are not more violent than men, that I think the real factors lie elsewhere (substance abuse, poverty, mental health etc). Do I need to keep repeating that? "

RObert you make such statements but none of your links to statistics relate to female experience of violence. It is almost as though this is irrelevant in your postings until somebody points out the bias. There is a bias in DV towards women because that is where history has shown the most need. I agree the premise of any policy should be purely about DV without reference to gender (victims or perpetrators) but it won't change the allocation of resources to match need.

None of the female poster are arguing that women are not capable of violence either.

pelican, true my links don't generally refer to female experience of DV, nor do they generally point to male experience of DV. Where ever possible they point to figures which cover both. Care to reference links posted by me which have covered the male experience of DV and excluded female ones and which were not in the context of a specific response where it was relevant?

Ammonite and pelican, I've refered to this on numerous occasions.
Posted by ChazP in eventual response to my challenge over the ommission of stats about kid's witnessing violence against fathers and stepfathers.
"Robert - if you had read and understood my posting you would have seen the highly credible source of the statistics. The reasons it does not include the figures you `suspect' is because they are at best negligible, and more accurately non-existent." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212360

The highly credible source of the statistics (if the stuff I eventually found is the right one) actaully had the figures on the same page (again that's been pointed out a number of times before). A 1% difference. And more recently one of the more honest posts by ChazP "The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212833

Given how often I've referenced ChazP's post in recent times it's hardly credible to suggest that none of the female posters are claiming that female DV is non-existent (or5 close to it) unless there is debate about ChazP's gender which I'm not aware of.

R0bert

Patricia, it's hard to take your "offence" too seriously when you equate being called "dear" with being hit with a fist.

It sounds more like dudgeon at being caught out telling porkies to me. Have you notified the administrators of your deliberately misleading author profile? you know, the one that claims you write on behalf of a group that doesn't exist except in your own mind.

Chaz, nice of you to confirm you regard dishonesty and duplicity as fair practise, I think I'll use your quote as a sig. I'll make sure you get proper attribution, of course...

Pelican:"There is a bias in DV towards women because that is where history has shown the most need"

Not exactly... For example, here's a link to a correction from Monash University of a key publication relied on by the Government in its reforms to Family Law.

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/releases/show/corrections-to-a-publication-and-media-release-from-monash-university

In a nutshell, it acknowledges that the report made claims of fact that were based not on the data, but on the researcher's mistaken reframing of that data.

"The statement in the book states (and again references the 2001 FLPAG Report) that one third of couples in Australia attribute their separation to severe domestic violence. This statement is incorrect. The presenters to the FLPAG Committee (not the couples themselves) assessed one-third of the domestic violence experienced by 65% of women and 55% of men in failed relationships as severe. Thus, it is at most 33% of 65% of couples whose separation could be attributed to severe domestic violence, and not "one-third" of such couples as stated in the book.

Secondly, on page 111 of the book there is a statement which reads "some 30% of all marriages in Australia fail because of domestic violence". This statement is also incorrect and the figures that have been relied upon in making this statement are incorrect. "

Prof Brown is to be commended for correcting the record. Hopefully some Ms will have sufficient courage to amend their views accordingly.

--

"The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate."

ChazP 14/7/2011

Robert ~ the figures you quote are a gross misuse of data and statistics. Again you are trying to compare apples with pears. DV is defined in those studies as ''hitting, shoving or throwing things at you.'". A study of two-year-olds would record similar conduct. I don't think such a definition even begins to define domestic violence used against females. Nor do those studies record the impact of such badly defined `domestic violence', which were contained in mt original questions to you and your answer being to throw up these junk science studies as an answer - they are no kind of quatitative nor qualitative measure whatsoever. Try to quote us figures that begin to resemble domestic violence as it is defined in the proposed legislation, and which includes the nature of the injuries suffered by the victim.
'Hitting, shoving, and throwing things' (did they actually strike their targets?) is no measure at all of the very serious violence perpetrated on females.
Now please answer my original questions with studies which examine with qualitative and quantitative measures the incidence of domestic violence against males.
So these are the figures that are relied on by Male Supremacist grubs, and it is very clear their claims are a gross misrepresentation and misleading and false, as are their claims about child abuse. This is not only misusing junk `research', it is abusing it to utter falsehoods.

So, "attempting" violence and failing is OK.

Right.

Can we now assume all attempts of DV by males, that are not successful will also be scrapped from the stats?

A whole class of "attempted" crimes could go out the window.

Chop chop

Rusty

Dear Chazp

>> So these are the figures that are relied on by Male Supremacist grubs, <<

While I agree that many (not all links) by some of the permanently aggrieved male posters are to pro-male web-sites - they are not "grubs". They may not shower frequently, I have no idea about their cleanliness regime, but please don't descend to the depths that Antiseptic and others inhabit.

And here we are, still arguing about violence perpetrated by men and women, still nothing about the best outcomes for children, just people trying to find excuses to inflict violence (for door slamming etc) and others who try to point out that the bulk of physical violence is perpetrated by men, but we must remember to include that some women do behave violently as well - or we will be claimed as acting in some uber-feminist conspiracy.

All I had to do to be punched to the floor was disagree with my ex - I am not prone to door slamming, I have never hit anyone in my life, I did try to walk out the door once but was dragged back. Yep, I am guilty of disagreeing with my EX husband and I still stand my ground despite insults and threats, because insults and threats do not solve anything.

Rusty Cat ~ Read. study, and absorb the definition of DV as stated in the proposed legislation and then tell us how `Hitting, shoving, and throwing things' begin to match up. These are what the FR groups are arguing are minor acts of DV and similar infringements for which they (fathers) will be unfairly targetted for. "She shouted at me, M'Lud, and gave my dinner to the dog, just because I hid in my shed for a few hours, and it hurt my delicate (male) feelings."
I'm sure that Family Courts will not simply look at the actual act of domestic violence within those definitions, but the injurious consequences for the victims. That is where scientifically conducted research which offers both quantitative and qualitative analysis would be helpful, not only to the Courts, but to other concerned observers of the scourge of DV which now plagues our society.

Antiseptic, I guess it’s easier to deflect the glaring light of contradiction to anything other than the obvious issue that you refuse to apologise for your abuse.

I wrote- “Do you not understand that in using verbal violence, you might as well be punching with your fists? Verbal and physical violence is symptomatic of domestic violence, and it is just bullying. In the same way, written violence is just cyber bullying.”

Verbal abuse can hurt as much as being hit with a fist. Being called “dear” can be totally endearing, but the way you use it, I understand you that it is an insult. You are stating “dear” in the condescending context. It is meant to be insulting, not endearing.

I pointed out to you- verbal abuse is dangerous both because it intended to hurt the victim of it and it is designed to reduce the humanness of the person to whom it is directed. In some cases, it is only one more step towards more lethal human rights abuses because lethal violence occurs after abusers first dehumanise their victims.

You called me and others on this forum "dogs" "grubs" and "creatures". You do not argue from credible data and research.You do not critique the issue. Instead, you have repeatedly continued to insult me and others who disagree with you in personal ways.

I said the org is dormant - not dead. It still exists by the democratic will of the members. They do not wish for it to cease. Your humanity though, may already have.

Prove me wrong by apologising for your cyber violence and verbal abuse. Otherwise, you are just a cyber bully and cannot speak of behalf of fathers "falsely" accused of abuse claiming their innocence.

In the same way as their partners, I am not "falsely" accusing you of being a cyber bully. The proof is in your posts.

Patricia get over it.

How about having a look at the behaviour of your fellow traveller ChazP or even the smears that Ammonite likes to add in whereever she thinks it suit's even when she is ever so gently correcting ChazP for a minor error, backed up by false claims by Ammonite that most of the links we provide are to pro-male sites (I wonder if it would be as bad if the links were to pro-female sites).

Do you think a male in a dispute with ChazP might have something to fear from false allegations given her stated attitude to truth?

Do you really think Anti's comments to you are so outside the norm in some circles that it's worth bogging the thread down over it? If so why no correction for females who let insults fly?

R0bert

Yes, we already get it, Patricia, it's all about you.

Meanwhile, in the real world, people like you are causing no end of problems.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/mother-kept-her-childen-in-nappies-well-past-the-usual-time-court-hears/story-e6freooo-1226094926951

"In a judgment published this week, Justice Watts handed the father sole parental responsibility, giving the mother only supervised time with her children until next February.

The parents have been ordered to ensure the children are fully toilet trained.

Justice Watts said if the children lived with their mother they would be exposed to her irrational ideas and fears.

He said he accepted a doctor's opinion that the mother's "enmeshed relationship" with the children was likely to undermine their psychological needs and could have drastic consequences.

"(The doctor) considers the mother to be extremely overprotective and is finding it difficult to let the children separate from her and assert their independence," Justice Watts said.

The mother wanted the older child home schooled.

In February, Justice Watts ordered that the boy attend school immediately, but in his latest judgment he said that was yet to occur.

The mother made a range of allegations against the father in court, but Justice Watts said she did not impress him as a reliable witness.

At times, he said, she appeared to be fabricating evidence.

The father claimed she would stop at nothing to avoid him having unsupervised time with the children."

This mother seems to have been trained by ChazP in the art of debate.

--

"The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate."

ChazP 14/7/2011

Further to the Thea Brown correction, I followed the tag the Monash placed on its website to ""correction of public record". Guess how many reports Monash has had to issue public corrections for? go on, guess...

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/releases/search?q=%22correction%20of%20public%20record%22

Yep, just the one report is listed, out of the thousands that are produced by the University. Every other group of researchers manages to properly peer-review their output before publication, yet this farce took over 18 months to be even found! Is that because the people involved are incompetent, or is it because they deliberately fudge results? I can't see any other possibility, can anyone else?

I take it back, Brown should be sacked and her fellow travellers should be too, this is a failure of the worst possible sort, in which false conclusions based entirely on the bias of the researchers has been propagated all the way to a report presented to government. I also doubt she had anything to do with the correction, it smacks of a desperate attempt by the University to limit the damage done and full credit to whoever had the guts to put it up.

At the very least, none of the parties involved should be eligible for government funding in future. Brown, McInnes et al have a history of making things up to support their claims. Just look at the way the SA Office for Women was forced to retract their claims based on McInnes's guff.

I also note that none of the papers that published the original press release have had the courage to print a correction.

Pelican, what I am advocating is a proper education program designed to teach all people that escalating situations to the point of violence is bad. Give people, especially women if they're the most likely serious victim, practical skills to manage conflict. Pretending that it's all the man's fault is not a successful model because it doesn't reflect the reality of how violence evolves in a relationship.

Small correction, this farce took over 4 years to be corrected. Does Dr Brown think she is above such trivialities as being accurate?

There was another example yesterday of a violent woman using a weapon to kill a man she was in a dispute with, in this case, a car.

I'm sure he deserved it...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/woman-ran-down-and-killed-husband-while-visiting-his-parents-at-logan/story-e6freoof-1226094277862

"Police were called to a home on acreage on Zipfs Road, Alberton, about 1am where they found a 21-year-old man dead in the front yard.

A police spokesman said the couple from Varsity Lakes were visiting the man’s parent’s home when a family argument broke out, which resulted in the 20-year-old woman allegedly running over her partner in a white 2009 Holden Commodore Station wagon at the front of the property.

The spokesman said the woman then fled but was later found on the Gold Coast and was charged with murder.

The 19-year-old woman will appear in the Southport Magistrates Court tomorrow.

The police spokesman said the victim’s family witnessed his death."

I'm sure she just meant to scare him, eh Chaz?

--

"The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate."

ChazP 14/7/2011

No RObert, I will not “get over it” because I refuse to allow Antiseptic to get away with the irony that he has put himself in by his use of violence and abuse. Much like other bullies in mobster fashion, your comment to me to “get over it” is typical of the denial by men and some women that men are by far the primary perpetrators of violence and abuse against women because other violent and abusive men aid and abet their behaviour.

Antiseptic was the one who called Chaz, me and others who disagree with him "dogs", a "grub" and "creatures". He is the primary abuser but you're telling me to get over the types of behaviours that even the Nazis habitually invoked. First call them names, dehumanise their personhood, and then that leaves their consciences free to further abuse and even kill.

Much like other bullies, you have focussed on the comments by Chaz, who merely threw back what Antiseptic dished out. By his own behaviour Antiseptic is the primary aggressor and needs to be held accountable. In the same way history has shown how bullies get away with violence and even murder.

Hitler did not commit his human rights abuses on his own- he had help.

Again Antiseptic, it’s really about your arrogance. You primarily dish out victimising, demeaning, de-humanising and verbal abuse but you deflect your violent and abusive behaviour on someone else when the corrections are minor. Instead, you prefer to focus on “problems” that actually reveal the extent of how women may not believed but are instead ‘labelled’.

You also engage in the proverbial splinter in the eyes of others while you ignore the log in your own.

You selectively use violent and abusive words as part of this debate, but your use of it degenerates your contribution to nothing more than the sort of violence and abuse committed primarily by the men you claim are being falsely accused in the Family Court.

So don’t give me the typical bullying tactic that “it’s all about” me when I refuse to let you get away with holding the mirror up to your own face- you are abusive and cannot speak for the innocence of men that falsely state they didn’t do it.”

Like them- you did do it. You either take responsibility for your abuse, apologise completely and properly- or go away.

No amount of deflection to the behaviour and actions of others anywhere changes your behaviour on this forum. You wear it on with every abusive and violent word you used- "dogs" "grub" "kennel" "bone" and even "dear" in its demeaning context.

It's all over your face and you put it there.

Actually Patricia by writing tis one sided slant on DV and child abuse I'd put you down as the primary aggressor. You continue to push a very one sided perspective of DV and child abuse yet claim victim status when dad's who've seen how that agenda plays out when it has sway dare to disagree.

If I recall correctly you claim to work with a lot of people involved in family law. Do you get as bothered when your female clients (or whatever you call them) refer to their ex's in unflattering terms?

Would you considering it bullying if one of the male posters had been caught out in a blatent misrepresention of the data (or had suggested that no men assault their partners or similar), the other men were pointedly ignoring it, and one of the female posters continued to highlight it?

R0bert

Happy – You are quite correct that `dear’, grubs’ etc were used in a derogatory, demeaning, and dehumanising way designed to give offence, and your request for an apology is now being met with obfuscations and prevarications. Ammonite is also quite correct that I should have refrained from responding in like fashion regarding FR Groups and which were not directed at an individual, and for that I sincerely apologise and I take on board her quite correct reproval of “...but please don't descend to the depths that Antiseptic and others inhabit”.. It certainly appears that when some contributors know and feel that they have lost the argument and lack the knowledge and intelligence to maintain their side of the debate, that they have recourse to attempt such dehumanising responses.
Their responses are always in the paranoid Conspiracy Theories about Feminism, or the `Blame Game’ (but Mum, she hit me first and harder). It really is so very pathetic that grown (not mature) men can behave in these ways.
We must just continue to present the soundly based evidence and arguments to support our contentions in the hope that impartial and objective readers will better understand the issues. I do not intend either to respond to the jibes and misconstruances that my motivations are driven out of concern for the children involved, as the vast majority of my past postings provide clear evidence to support my position.
Domestic violence increases by 35% in a year in the UK,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014636/Domestic-abuse-cases-increase-35-year.html

RObert,
now you're just boring.

I'm still rolling on the floor laughing about those statistics on Male domestic violence provided by `Robert' i.e. hitting, shoving, and throwing.
'Hitting' - "She slapped me acxross the cheek," Your Honour, "and her nails dug in leaving marks".
`Shoving' - "I was just about to KIng-Hit her" Your Honour, "but she pushed me away and my fist struck the door".
`Throwing' - "I'd been playing by myself in my Shed for five hours watching child porno films", Your Honour, "so she threw my dinner against the wall and the dog got it.".
So if I don't get my kids I'll jump off Sydney Harbour Bridge and kill myself.
ROFLMAO.......
ONE WOMAN A WEEK IS KILLED IN AUSTRALIA BY A MALE PARTNER.

ChazP,

Strange post to follow on from your previous "apology".

You criticise "dehumanising" or "demeaning" rhetoric, but now you claim to be rolling around the floor laughing at RObert's post.

Unhelpful at best, and an unusual way to further meaningful discussion.
Seems it's six of one and half a dozen of the other in the art of insulting dialogue on this thread.

Poirot

As I stated in my last post, the argument has not moved on at all.

No matter what I say it is deemed "wrong" by males or ignored by female posters.

A fine example that neither some males nor some females on this forum have made: some males using intimidating language; scurrilous rubbish, questions about hormones, ad nauseum and some females unable to keep from being baited.

I can only say I am grateful that my circle of family and friends are nothing like this. I had a bad experience while married, I have moved on and do not blame an entire sex for the actions of one control freak, anymore than I blame all women for the bullying I received in the workplace. Of course I have learned and keep my distance from people who are all about themselves - pots and kettles.

Poirot thanks, I don't get to bothered by ChazP and Patricia's slurs rather by the potential impact of what they do. There are others such as pelican who's views concern me more because I generally consider pelican a fair and decent commentator.

Ammonite who are you trying to kid? Almost every post you have put on these threads contains some kind of slur against men or more of the it's all men's fault, and women are victims stuff.

"some males using intimidating language; scurrilous rubbish, questions about hormones, ad nauseum"
"some females unable to keep from being baited. "

Why not "some people using intimidating language; scurrilous rubbish, questions about hormones, ad nauseum some others unable to keep from being baited.

"permanently aggrieved male posters"

"just people trying to find excuses to inflict violence (for door slamming etc) and others who try to point out that the bulk of physical violence is perpetrated by men"

We've presented clear evidence that bulk of physical violence is pretty much shared, what's not shared equally are the physical consequences when it reaches the extreme. On the other hand male suicide rates should give reason to think that the extreme end of emotional harm is not equally shared either. You've claimed elsewhere that women are more inclined to emotional tactics (or something like that), if true can you see the implications?

You continue to snipe away at male posters and at the same time play the victim and excuse the almost all the excesses of female posters.

It's maybe that the battle lines have firmed up so much that we are all doing some of that, even those of us who try not to. The feeling of being under attack tends to do that.

R0bert

Nice try, PooRot and robert to misconstrue my words. What I was mocking was the pathetic `Statistics' which robert submitted as a claim for evidence of males being subjected to domestic violence and not robert, directly or indirectly. Robert normally takes a quite sensible position, but to submit such statistics with no qualitative data and analysis was open to such a critique.
robert - "We've presented clear evidence that bulk of physical violence is pretty much shared..." - You very clearly have not. You've presented evidence that males experience some minor assaults but the studies quoted go nowhere near using a definition of domestic violence as it has been developed and defined over the last two decades. To ask students if anyone has ever hit them, shoved them, or thrown something at them should have a 100% positive return. But asking them if they'd suffered serious injury as a consequence or were psychologically traumatised whould bring a wholly different result. A clear case of selective use and misuse of statistics robert, as I said before.

ONE WOMAN A WEEK IS KILLED IN AUSTRALIA BY A MALE PARTNER and a third are SERIOUSLY ASSAULTED during their lifetime by a male partner.

ChazP,

"Nice try, PooRot..."

The only thing I misconstrued here is your is your level of maturity.

SydneyMH ~ July 15, 2011
..in an attempted-murder trial yesterday, the court (heard)about the abuse she had suffered at the hands of the defendant during 20 years. He once tried to choke her before shooting at her. He twice threatened her with knives and forced her to have sex with him. He placed a gun under her chin and said: ''Get that fear out of your eyes bitch. The torment started in 1977,...the man was found guilty of..three charges of attempted murder and other charges of assault, sex without consent and detaining with intent...her husband came thundering up the driveway in a rage. As she heard him coming...she tried to lock the door but was too late. The man grabbed his .22 rifle, raised it to her face and pointed it between her eyes. He then dragged her out of the house by her hair on to the concrete pathway at the back of the house. He picked up an electrical lead and wrapped it twice around her neck. She passed out briefly. He then gave her a shove and walked back toward the house. As she started running towards the back gate, two shots rang out. The shots missed...this was one of 10 incidents over two decades. The man also used an electric cattle prod, knives and a fire poker to threaten his wife and forced her to have sex with him. At one stage, he tied her to a bed. In her testimony, the woman explained the situation she had been in: ''I couldn't get away - I was under threat. I got away five times and he found me every time.... cross-examining his own children, he asked one of his daughters whether she thought he had been a good parent. (She)responded:'If you were a good father you would have known that I spent my life anxious and I was stressed beyond belief.'' He accused his daughter of concocting her testimony. She replied: "I wish that I didn't have these memories and that you weren't who you are.''
Hitting?. Shoving?. Throwing things?. Get real.

ChazP does make a valid point. The raw numbers don't tell us much about the nature of incidents. One of the problems with a lot of the alarmist material around which plays on perceptions of the extreme end of DV while including low end stuff as well. For the record the types of incidents described still sound like violence and the calous disregard for male victims of DV is pretty much what I've come to expect from ChazP.

I went looking for some figures on spousal murder.

It seems a bit tricky to find clear figures, the rates for intimate partner homicides seem to be routinely expressed as a percentage for the relevant gender rather than as a direct figure.

The Australian Institute of Criminology has a one page summary which provides enough detail to turn percentages into numbers.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/victim-offender.aspx

In 2006/2007 243 men were the victims of homicides and 55 women.
10% of the men were killed by intimate partners and 53% of the women were killed by intimate parters.

That as far as I can tell means around 24 to 25 men and 29 to 30 women were killed by intimate partners.

A statistically significant difference but nothing like the kind of difference that some would have us believe.

I assume that there are some killings by intimate partners which would be classified as manslaughter and other's which are unsolved but without more detail it's not credible to think that they would significantly alter the overall figures. If anyone has credible figures on that I'm happy to have another look.

The manslaughter rates seemed to be around 1/6th or the homicide rates (and both are slowly dropping) http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

Yet another example of showing a version of the stats that suits a propaganda purpose but which is deliberately misleading in the presentation.

R0bert

I've been hunting around looking at numbers some more.
Of concern is that the numbers I referenced earlier from the AIC appear to be contradicted elsewhere in AIC documents.

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/F/B/%7BFFB9E49F-160F-43FC-B98D-6BC510DC2AFD%7Dmr01.pdf 2006/2007 report gives different percentages on page's 8 and 14 which give a markedly different outcome.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/cfi/181-200/cfi182.aspx

"In almost 4 out of 5 intimate-partner homicides, the perpetrator was a male and the victim a female. In a little over 1 in 5 incidents, the homicides were committed by a female against a male. A small number corresponded to killings among partners in same-sex relationships."
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/6/1/3/%7B613390AC-6E23-43F2-8070-45095691D7F0%7Dti90.pdf

The 2007-2008 report is referenced here as well/
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/8/9/D/%7B89DEDC2D-3349-457C-9B3A-9AD9DAFA7256%7Dmr13_003.pdf

"Of the 134 domestic homicides in 2007–08, 80 were sub-classified as intimate partner homicides (60%),"
"In 2007–08, there were 161 male (59%) and 112 female (41%) homicide victims." (page 19)

18 males killed by intimate partners, 62 females killed by intimate partners. (page 20)

When I'm a bit more clear headed I'll try and revisit this to see if I can get a better understanding of the differences.

R0bert

Chaz, I'm glad you get such a giggle out of men being subjected to violence, it confirms what we'd all worked out. I'm so sorry to see you've had another reversion to childhood though. Perhaps a bex and a nice lie down?

Patricia, you're right, talking about you IS boring. Get a life, for heaven's sake.

Ammonite:"I'm still a grrrl, look at me."

That's nice dear. Do you have anything constructive to add?

R0bert, the real mischief is that Family Law reform is informed by the desire of the wilfully dishonest to be dishonest with impunity. It is a sad state of affairs when laws that will impact on the lives of millions are informed by misinformation from academics and the revenge fantasies of people who couldn't get along with their partner.

What a farce.

My apologies, I'd misread the title of the table with the numbers http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/victim-offender.aspx .

In 2006/2007 there were 44 male offenders involved in killing intimate partners and 21 females.

Antiseptic I agree with the point that you made else where that the who does more is a distraction from the real issues. I'm a sucker for taking the bait with the misuse of stats though.

R0ber

Robert – again you go for apples and pears comparisons in a selective misuse of statistics and data. My point was in regard to the definitions of domestic violence as used to support claims of domestic violence against males. i.e. Hitting, Shoving, Throwing things.
The article illustrated the kind of typical sustained violence experienced by females over several years, and not a one-off incident, the definition and nature of which would be confirmed by the vast majority of two year olds, if asked.
I state typically because many females experience being held captive either physically or psychologically, “If you try to leave I’ll kill you and your kids”. They experience constant death threats, in this instance with a firearm, a cattle prod, strangulation with electric cord, and knives. They experience being sexually violated. In this case such violence and abuse lasted for 20 years, which is a fairly average period of time for such DV.
Notably his children were subjected to his abuse and he brought them to Court to be interrogated by him as witnesses, thereby compounding the abuse he inflicted on them.
I haven’t studied the statistics in detail which you posted, but was immediately struck that the greatest number of males were killed by their friends, almost three times as many as were killed by intimate partners. A proportion which is over double those of females who were murdered by friends. In effect males would appear to have far more to fear from their `mates’ than they have of their `partners’.
That is a small insight Robert into what I mean by qualitative research and qualitative analysis rather than simply accepting bare statistics to try prove some point.
Perhaps you can now provide us with a qualitative analysis of the forms of domestic violence, (Hitting, Shoving, and Throwing things) which are experienced by male victims compared to the types of violence experienced by females as illustrated above. Then we may be able to compare apples with apples, instead of the inane drivel of FR groups. I would recommend a course in research integrity before posting statistics again.

ChazP:"I state typically because many females experience being held captive either physically or psychologically,"

Dear me, Chaz, you're getting ever further dissociated from reality. Have you considered World of Warcraft? I understand it's a fantasy world filled with fearsome monsters and imaginary dangers. Sounds right up your alley.

Posted by ChazP
"I would recommend a course in research integrity before posting statistics again."

also posted by ChazP

"The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate."

That pretty much sums up ChazP's position.

It's apparently Ok to use stats that use a wide range of DV types when the victims are female, not Ok when the victims are male.

The figures routinely posted to support a perception of vast numbers of women being effected by DV include those incidents which ChazP dismisses when men are the victim.

R0bert

Robert – You certainly are wriggling to try to get out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself and you’re still digging with further mess-ups with your statistics..!. “Whoops everybody, I gave you all the wrong numbers. – scrub what I said before and believe me now”. DUH!
.”It's apparently Ok to use stats that use a wide range of DV types when the victims are female, not Ok when the victims are male” – of course its ok to use both Robert, if you are prepared to argue their integrity, validity and utility ~ but don’t try to compare them because they are not comparable in the definitions used for DV.
How does ‘Hitting, Shoving, and Throwing things’ compare with “...sustained violence experienced by females over several years... many females experience being held captive either physically or psychologically, “If you try to leave I’ll kill you and your kids”. They experience constant death threats, in this instance with a firearm, a cattle prod, strangulation with electric cord, and knives. They experience being sexually violated. In this case such violence and abuse lasted for 20 years, which is a fairly average period of time for such DV.”?.
By trying to convince everyone that such distinctly different statistics are comparable is what I refer to when I suggested that male supremacists frequently engage in "The selective use/misuse of information”. The FR groups who gave evidence to the Senate Committee did not even mention this lack of comparability. but misled the Senate Committee into believing they were comparable. i.e. A classical example of the Selective use/misuse of information. Naughty, very Naughty to deliberately and blatantly mislead politicians..

ChazP:. "In this case such violence and abuse lasted for 20 years, which is a fairly average period of time for such DV.”

Oh dear Chaz, you really should consider asking someone with a better grasp on reality to check your stuff before you post. Even Patricia seems to have a closer link with the real world and that's saying something!

--

"if the children lived with their mother they would be exposed to her irrational ideas and fears."

"she would stop at nothing to avoid him having unsupervised time with the children"

Justice Watts, FCA

Sounds like he was talking about you Chaz. Is there something you'd like to tell us?

For those not following closely.

I agree that there is a problem with lumping all sorts of physical violence into the one basket.

However the pushing, shoving stuff that ChazP is so distressed that is included in the figures I've referenced about violence witnessed by kid's against fathers and stepfathers comes from what appears to the same report that ChazP had earlier used to highlight violence witnessed by kid's against mothers and stepmothers and appears to be based on the same set of criteria.

In the misdst of that was a claim by ChazP that such violence against fathers and stepfathers would be non-existant (same page of the report I found and 1% difference to the incidents of violence withessed against mothers and stepmothers).

So while ChazP seems to consider it a valid tactic to try and represent violence against women by broad definitions she tries to portray using the same report and definitions as dishonest when men are the targets of the violence.

There are dangers in trying to restrict definitions too tightly, moving definitions that seemingly depend on gender stereotypes are even more dangerous.

There is an interesting paper I found earlier "Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review"
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/mjreese/psy290/downloads/Archer%202000.pdf

It does seem to be a credible attempt to draw conclusions from a variety of published research into partner violence and explore many of the questions which should be asked when trying to understand that violence.

R0bert

R0bert

Interesting claim you make:

>> Antiseptic I agree with the point that you made else where that the who does more is a distraction from the real issues. <<

Pelican, Suzeonline, Bronwyn, yours truly and many other posters have been making this same point for literally years on OLO and you only notice when Antiseptic belatedly makes this same comment.

I have heard of being slow on understanding problems, but I don't it is due to any intellectual difficulties for you, Robert.

The "real issues" in "Mischief in the Family Law Act" being the best outcome for children ascertained on a case by case analysis by the minority of parents who are unable to reach agreement without the Family Court. Those "real issues" right?

In addition, there was a connection problem when trying to load the above, since then you have referenced to another article on DV. Please start a topic about DV and put forth arguments and solutions in prevention of DV rather than trying to create division between people and causing more circular arguments such as we have been having here ad infinitum.

Ammonite, there are two conflicting imperatives that have to be considered, it seems to me. The first is the drive of some mothers to be "hyper-nurturing", as shown in the extreme case I referenced earlier about the woman who had a 7 year old in nappies and being spoon-fed. This drive, in less-extreme examples can lead to an inability of the mother to consider the father as a suitable parent simply because she thinks "her" kids need her at all times. Such a mother can and will do anything she thinks is necessary to prevent herself "losing" her children. There are many, many examples on Austlii for the searching.

The second is the "traditional" father's role, which has revolved around the dealing of family justice, frequently at the behest of the mother, with a "patriarchal" authority. In an intact family these two modes may mesh well, since Mum doesn't have to do the nasty punishment stuff and Dad doesn't have to do the nasty bum-butter stuff. Mum still gets the benefit of Dad's authority, since she compels his support and he still gets the benefit of having a well-nurtured offspring.

Once a family is broken apart however, it is not too hard for Mum to think that Dad is always going to be too tough or for Dad to think that Mum is too soft. When combined with the animosity that is inherent in an adversarial process, this can lead to all sorts of allegations being made "with the best of intentions", based on nothing at all but a sense that all's fair in defence of the kids, even if the kids aren't actually in danger. See Crispin hull's excellent piece elsewhere for the sort of "appeal to fear", which is at the heart of so much of our lawmaking in recent years.

On the other hand, there are the genuine cases of abusive partners, which need to be taken into account somehow. The question is whether our current Family Law system fails to do that and I have to say I don't think it does.

Ammonite do you have anything to contribute or is your plan to stay on the sidelines trying to trip or divert male posters without actually addressing the issues?

Antiseptic I'm undecided if the existing family law system adequately deals with genuinely abusive parents. To much spin and not enough real data to tell to my satisfaction.

I've suggested before that allegations of abuse should be handled via the same child protection mechanisms that should exist for every other child. Making a special process for family law situations is too fraught with risks all round.

Then the real question is how well do child protection mechanisms protect any child where significant known risks to the child exist? Clearly they are not perfect, that's pretty obvious.

Sometimes there are very clear examples of child proection agencies failing to follow up on known risks with tragic consequences but it's also been pointed out the dangers of various agencies with their own agenda's overstating risk to maintain or grow their share of funding.

R0bert

Just would like some clarification.

ChazP says shoving, hitting and throwing things isn't violence.

happy says being called 'dear' and using analogies that involve dogs is violence.

These two posters have no argument with each other apparently. I find that strange.

I consider 'what is violence?', however it is defined, should be applied unilaterally and consistently to both genders. Anything else is dishonest.

In the report in question, the figures on domestic violence as experienced by females come from the same questions as the figures for males. If the figures for male violence are unsound, so too are the female violence figures. I believe it was chazP who first referenced the report in the first place. It seems strange to reference a report and then claim it unsound.

Poirot,

funny posts

Robert,

Still being played by Fractelle I see.

happy,

That Nazi stuff was just fantastic. la la la la land.

Houllebeq - “ChazP says shoving, hitting and throwing things isn't violence”.. I have not made such a statement. If you had read, absorbed and understood what I said, it was that such definitions of domestic violence used in the original statistics submitted by Robert, and which are used widely by FR groups, are not comparable with the domestic violence events described in the article I quoted. i.e. Threatening with guns and knives, serious sexual assault including rape, assault with a electronic prod, threats to kill if the mother left, etc. We’re still waiting for Robert to provide a statistical information which includes such forms of violence against males for comparative purposes.
So don’t try to twist my words, nor demean Happy’s rightful statements that certain contributors used verbal abuse against other contributors. Happy made the case out clearly and convincingly, and if you associate yourself with their abusiveness, then you are equally guilty.
So Happy and I are in complete agreement regarding the abusiveness of your associates.

“I consider 'what is violence?', however it is defined, should be applied unilaterally and consistently to both genders. Anything else is dishonest.” – that is exactly the point I have made to Robert in his apples and pears comparisons. It had nothing to do with the report I referenced, but the statistics promoted by Robert. Now that he is wriggling and squirming to evade the issue and being hoisted on his own petard, you have clearly been contacted to help him out. But, as usual, your cavalry charge has blundered off in the wrong direction.
“It is far, far better to be thought a fool............ than to speak out, and remove all doubt.”
ONE WOMAN A WEEK IS KILLED IN AUSTRALIA BY A MALE PARTNER.

"Almost one in four children in Australia have witnessed violence against their mothers or stepmothers (Crime Research Centre and Donovan Research, 2001, from National Plan Background Paper pg 20)."

Posted by ChazP, Thursday, 7 July 2011 7:07:43 PM http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212254

I refered to an article by the Australian Institute of Criminology which provides analysis Donovan Research from 2001 http://www.science.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/118532/Australian_Institue_of_Criminology-Trends_and_Issues_No195-Yound_Australians_And_Domestic_Violence.pdf
at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12275#212729 which claim's that the rate is 23% for violence witnessed against the mother or stepmother and 22% against father's or stepfathers.

As far as I can tell I was refering to the same research refered to in ChazP's post for the almost one in four figure which appears to use exactly the same criteria which ChazP now mocks.

I would also out that ChazP was asked by me to provide the missing detail. That opportunity was declined.

"If there are such figures to support what you claim, Robert, then I'm quite sure you will be only too willing to provide them. Unless of course you are willing to pay me a substantial reward for doing your research for you but then, I would not be willing to go on a wild goose chase. It would be rather like searching for squid on Uluhru."
Posted by ChazP, Thursday, 7 July 2011 7:53:43 PMhttp://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212261

R0bert

'Almost one in four children in Australia have witnessed violence against their mothers or stepmothers (Crime Research Centre and Donovan Research, 2001, from National Plan Background Paper pg 20). '

ChazP. The first reference to the report.

She now says 'that is exactly the point I have made to Robert in his apples and pears comparisons. It had nothing to do with the report I referenced, but the statistics promoted by Robert. '

Chaz baby, it's the same farking source. You quoted it first. What were you saying about petards? Man some people are thick.

You're spending the whole thread arguing against the veracity of the same source you initially introduced. There was one survey, your source quoted half the results, r0bert found the other half.

If his half is bogus, so is yours. geddit?

This is a crack up.

R0bert, I admire your persistence in trying to hold a conversation involving rationalism and reason with Chaz. Sadly, the poor dear seems to have had a complete break with reality and would probably benefit more from a few months of complete silence and bed rest, or she could just go in to work as usual - I'm sure there's no reason for her to miss out on sleep while she's there.

Antiseptic, "Sadly, the poor dear seems to have had a complete break with reality".

I don't think that's the case, I'm of the view that it's deliberate and done despite a knowledge of what the reality is. Maybe I'm overestimating ChazP.

The maternal bias crowd are dependant on a perception that fathers are the main risk to kid's to try and get away with this scam.

While they know the stats are out there to show that parents regardless of gender are human, some better than others they keep highlighting the examples of bad males and claiming that opposing views are discredited (a lie repeated often enough) to try and reinforce that perception.

R0bert

ChazP,

Regarding "abusiveness".
I'm wondering if your "P" stands for "Pot", because you seem uncommonly adept at calling the kettle black.

Reading back through thus thread, not only has your tone been consistently hostile and bellicose, you have also often resorted to demeaning rhetoric as a tactic.

For example:
"Antiseptic - it's ok sonny. We all know your mummy didn't love you and that's perfectly understandable....Now sit quietly while the grown-ups talk about sensible things...."

and:

"Septic - it's ok. Now go and play with the toys in the shed, while the grown-ups talk seriously and sensibly about important things. It's such a pity that you don't have any friends to play with you in the shed, but you know the reason for that, as we all do. And please, try to get some help, sonny..."

"Septic - You do seem rather a sad and pathetic creature..."

".....it is the dinosaurs and dodos in the Father's Rights groups...."

So, for someone who not only condemns posters who use abusive and demeaning rhetoric, but also their associates, it's a shame you're not above resorting to such tactics yourself. It does a disservice to your cause and gets in the way of sensible progress on the issue.

My personal favourite was "PooRot..." - but then you probably think I'm a bloke.

R0bert, Crispin Hull made the very clear and strong point about the way in which interest groups use fear as a means of social control, with the complicity of the media and of course, Governments. People like ChazP are the targets of this sort of campaign, not the instigators. Having thought on it a bit, I reckon the poor dear lives in a very scary world of bogey men and night terrors, probably worried about walking down the street in case she has to go past a man.

I hope she gets the treatment she needs to overcome her serious paranoia before it's too late and she ends up institutionalised. That surely can't be too far down the track for someone so obviously determined to be at odds with reality.

Robert - as you know well, these were the `statistics' which you provided and which I referred to in my retort:

"Just from the current DV as a gender hate crime thread.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12275#212093
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12275#212181
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12275#212729
I've done similar for years on OLO on a number of threads."

I responded - "Robert ~ the figures you quote are a gross misuse of data and statistics. Again you are trying to compare apples with pears. DV is defined in those studies as ''hitting, shoving or throwing things at you.'".

Robert states - "ChazP does make a valid point. The raw numbers don't tell us much about the nature of incidents. One of the problems with a lot of the alarmist material around which plays on perceptions of the extreme end of DV while including low end stuff as well. For the record the types of incidents described still sound like violence and the calous disregard for male victims of DV is pretty much what I've come to expect from ChazP."

Now you're off on another tack as you squirm and wriggle. You'll obviously keep digging boys, until you wear your shovels out, or your Hole of Sophistry collapses in on you. If you've left your shed doors open, I might just get another shovel for you so you can keep digging, as an act of kindness. Its the kind of caring person I am.

HITTING. SHOVING, SLAPPING
“It was reported today that in a Family Court, an ex-husband and ex-father alleged that he was HIT by his former wife during their marriage. “She swung her handbag at me, Your Honour”, he said, “and it struck me between the legs”. The ex-father also claimed that his former wife shoved him down on a couch, after he returned home drunk from the pub. “You can sleep there”, she is reported to have said. The ex-father also stated that “I’d been playing in my shed all day, and when I came into the house she threw my dinner against the wall and the dog ate it”.
The Judge, also an ex-husband and ex-father, stated, “Your endurance is beyond belief you poor man, the pain and humiliation you must have suffered while being such a good Dad, you have my every sympathy for having lived with such a violent woman”. “I’m giving you sole parental responsibility for your ex-children and she will never be allowed to see them again.”.
P.S. This is not a fairy story, it is the reality of today.
ONE WOMAN A WEEK IS KILLED IN AUSTRALIA BY A MALE PARTNER.

ChazP maybe you'd better start linking a bit earlier to what you are objecting to and perhaps being a bit more specific.

I think it's been very clear that my focus has been on the Donovan material and your misrepresentation of the findings on this tread rather than a list of links I supplied to counter yet another false claim by you.

So can I take it that the Donovan Research, 2001 material which you refered to and which shows very similar rates of children witnessing violence against parents of eiother genders (even though you were only willing to mention the violence against mothers and stepmothers) meets your criteria for the types of violence that it's appropriate to refer to?

You will find that if you have a look at the paper I referenced yesterday http://lilt.ilstu.edu/mjreese/psy290/downloads/Archer%202000.pdf it spends some time on the myths that you appear to delight in.

R0bert

Poirot

I'm thinking that ChazP and Antiseptic are soul-mates. They just haven't realised it yet.

@ ChazP & Antiseptic

Said it before will say it again, play the ball NOT the er, man. You are both as obnoxious as each other, you also have something to say, (I think) I just don't have the patience for wading through the condescension and vitriol.

@ Robert

I am never going to play with you making the rules. I choose to whom I speak and what I will say.

But Fraccy, I'm only concerned for her welfare, the poor thing.

You don't seem to have yet grasped that I only post "condescension and vitriol" in response to the same or some form of complete drivel. To those who don't do it, I'm perfectly civil.

You see, I really don't see the point in responding properly to people who think and post the way Chaz and Patricia do. They don't offer anything to a discussion besides red herrings and misinformation designed to cloud the issue. The fact that some otherwise sensible posters feel some empathy based on these irrational claims, even knowing them to be incorrect and deliberately misquoted, may give some understanding of the way in which we have allowed so much gynocentrism into our lawmaking and cultural prejudices.

The "I'm a Sista-grrl too" stuff is just a minor expression of the effect, it seems to me, but it can lead smart people off the rails if this forum is any indication.

I absolutely agree with broadening the definitions of domestic abuse. I was repeatedly advised by my lawyer not to raise issues relating to my ex-husband's abusive past behaviour for fear of being labelled "unfriendly" or "obstructionist" or guilty of "alienation". During the three years of our separation 'the husband' repeatedly exploited financial control over me and the children for no reason other than to force my hand with regard to property settlement. The details of which were never revealed to the judge in the final hearing. If the current changes were in law when my divorce proceedings were underway, not only would I have been subjected to a lot less stress but so too would our children have been spared much heart ache. I don't care who you are or what statistics you look at, I don' see mums throwing kids or banners off bridges. The loud-mouth, pro-dad minority seem to take the absence of equivalent vocal protest on behalf of mums as affirmation of their position. I seriously doubt even they would be so vocal with the day to day care of the children and the limited earning capacity that the majority of mothers contend with every day. The ones most in need of a voice - the mums - are stifled by the selfless, perpetual care of the youngest and most vulnerable they surrender themselves to provide. Who is speaking on their behalf? The dead and damaged children. The silence is deafening.

The reason some fathers make "vocal protest" is because they have little access to other avenues of redress. The have little of the support that mothers who wish to be able to tell lies with impunity receive.

It seems that you are bitter at not getting your own way in a property settlement, which I would hazard a guess is the driving factor behind the whole maternal bias crowd - a failure to get their own way. It would be very foolish indeed to give such people the power to have serious allegations acted upon as real with no requirement for evidence to be tested.

I won't even bother with responding to the usual attempt to stack the corpses up. Whatever makes you feel...erm...bad, I guess. Has nothing to do with the subject. Extremes are extremes, they're not the norm and they're not exclusively the province of fathers, but as I said, whatever makes you miserable is fine with me.

Sweet Liberty – You would be advised by your lawyers not to raise allegations of violence and abuse by your ex because they know it is impossible to prove such allegations in Family Courts.
Firstly Family Courts do not have the powers, expertise, nor the resources to investigate such allegations. [Chief Justice Bryant – 2009). In rare circumstances where child protection authorities have involved themselves in such proceedings and have substantiated the allegations, Family Court judges have reserved the right to disregard such findings.
Secondly, if the allegations involve the sexual abuse of children, then Family Courts apply the Briginshaw principle from an English High Court decision in 1938 that because of the `gravity’ of such allegations, a standard of proof should be required to the `Extreme’ end of the scale. There are only two standards of evidential proof – a `Balance of Probabilities’ applied in civil (Family) Courts, and `Beyond reasonable doubt’ applied in criminal proceedings. There is no standard of evidential proof between these standards therefore there is no `scale’ as claimed in application of the Briginshaw principle. Applying the Briginshaw principle is in fact providing legal protection for the alleged perpetrator when Family Courts should be primarily concerned with the care and welfare of the child and the alleged perpetrator is not on trial.
In effect, the application of the Briginshaw principle has provided a licence to paedophiles and child sex abusers to obtain contact with and even custody of their children and as Family Courts do not have the powers, expertise, nor resources to investigate other allegations of domestic assault and child abuse, then neither can such allegations be proven.
In the absence of such forensic investigations, hired psychiatrists declare that the person making the allegations is `deluded’, or has `coached’ the children into making such allegations.
Psychiatrists are usually permitted to make such accusatory conjectures without any evidence and not having seen any of the individuals involved (see W & W) or at most have conducted a one-hour office interview with some of the parties. Children are rarely a party to such interviews.

Dear Antiseptic,

Spoken like a true abuser.

Sweet Liberty:"Spoken like a true abuser."

Well, let's face it, you WOULD say that, which is precisely why the Family Law Act should remain unchanged.

"I don't care who you are or what statistics you look at, I don' see mums throwing kids or banners off bridges. " - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#214082

Maybe a little less time on the mum's advocacy sites and a bit more time checking fact's. The mum's groups tend to stay pretty quiet about mum's who kill or harm their kid's. You will notice the pattern that the only examples of bad or dangerous parents that Patricia, ChazP etc mention or acknowledge are male.

The reality is that parents of both genders kill their kid's and each other, thankfully not very often but it does happen. The reasons are not simple or singular no matter how hard some try to spin it.

I doubt that we will ever completely stop it, we can though reduce the risks by having credible and fair processes to investigate allegations of abuse and thread which lead to credible responses and by working to produce fairer outcomes in the family law system. That won't stop the nutters, nothing much we do anywhere totally stops them but it will reduce the risks.

There are extremists on both sides of the fence, their are parents of both genders who are risks to their kids and their are parents of both genders quite willing to play the system for their own advantage.

Trying to make it about gender does not help kid's.

R0bert

R0bert:"You will notice the pattern that the only examples of bad or dangerous parents that Patricia, ChazP etc mention or acknowledge are male."

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Robert ~ "their (there)are parents of both genders who are risks to their kids and their are parents of both genders quite willing to play the system for their own advantage."
Quite correct Robert, so why are you opposing measures to prevent such parents having custody and contact with their children and claiming "Oh its only us poor Dads who will get it in the neck from these new laws.". The present Sharia Parenting Laws give licence to such parents to have custody and contact with their children and at great cost to those children. But that is of little concern to you as long as male rights are protected.
" You will notice the pattern that the only examples of bad or dangerous parents that Patricia, ChazP etc mention or acknowledge are male." - Why do we need to do otherwise, Robert, when you and other male supremacists and supporters of the Sharia Parenting laws, are constantly bleating on about it.?

ChazP has ignored the point that's been made repeatedly on this and other thread's. The answer is therefore for those wanting to understand concerns rather than brush them aside.

The proposal is travelling in parallel with attempts to introduce into various parts of the law statments which effectivly profile DV offender's as mostly male. There was a long running thread on OLO some time back on that topic.

If that also occurs it's unlikely that a male accused of DV (or claiming that a female partner is the abuser) will get much of a hearing. Some of the same has been touched on in the DV as a gender hate crime thread.

There is also an extroardinary unwillingness from supporters of the proposed changes to discuss safeguards (some has gone so far as to suggest males don't deserve any safeguards). If there is a process which isolate's the accused from children, home etc while claims are investigated it should be an absolute that can't be used to establish patterns of residency etc while the investigation is underway.

I support legitimate investigation of credible allegations and action based on evidence of risk, I oppose the setup of a system likely to increase the use of false accusations to gain advantage for the accuser especially when accompanied by gender based profiling of family violence.

R0bert

Robert - These are the `concerns' and the `patterns', you speak of: "In 2005, an estimated 1.3 million women aged 18 years and over had ever experienced partner violence since the age of 15 years. The most common location where women were physically assaulted by a man was in their home or another person's home (64% or 125,000).Partner violence most often occurs in the home. In 2005, the majority (87% or 263,000) of women whose most recent experience of physical assault during the last five years was by a partner said that it took place in their home, with a further 8% reporting that it occurred in someone else's home. A vast majority (93% or 61,100) of women reporting incidents of sexual assault by a partner also said they took place in their home or another person's home. Some women experience partner violence while they are pregnant. In 2005, 37% (83,500) of women who were pregnant during the relationship with a violent partner had experienced violence while pregnant. A small proportion (16%) said that the violence occurred for the first time while they were pregnant.In 2005, 60% (214,000) of women who had experienced partner violence in the last five years had children in their care. Just over two-thirds of these women (68% or 145,000) said that the children had witnessed the violence.Violent behaviour is often associated with consumption of alcohol or certain drugs. In 2005, of women whose most recent experience of physical or sexual assault was by a partner, a considerable proportion (50% and 46% respectively) said that their partner's consumption of alcohol or drugs had contributed to the incident." ~ Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks Oct 2010.
You should look to distinguish between Aggressor Violence and Defensive Retaliatory Violence and other qualitative data, instead of quoting bare statistics.?.
What further safeguards are needed when domestic violence and child abuse cannot be proven in Family Court, because Family Courts do not have the Powers, Expertise, nor the Resources to investigate such allegations, and do not have the powers to order statutory authorities to conduct such investigations?.

"distinguish between Aggressor Violence and Defensive Retaliatory Violence "

I wish I could distinguish between the two across the board but the reality is that unless a lot of time has been spent to do detailed investigation we can't. We might be able to get an idea who most regularly initiates the physical aspect of domestic violence but that's about as far as it goes.

Whilst I've no doubt that significant proportion of DV is in the mind of the perpetrator "Defensive Retaliatory Violence" all to often it will be ignoring the perpetrators own contributions to the situation.

In the real world of domestic conflict a lot of otherwise good people may eventually hit back however it's not a credible solution to most domestic conflict and it's impossible to tell from outside who really started it.

R0bert

Again drifting back to discussing who does more which is I believe a distraction from the real issue of protecting kid's however I do think it bears some relevance due to idea of "defensive retalitory violence" as a dismissal of violence against men.

I'd previously referenced a meta study which has attempted to draw conclusions from a wide variety of research material. Primarily US material but attention has been paid to studies from other countries. It does appear to be a genuine attempt to put the available material into a coherant form and look at the key assumptions.

http://lilt.ilstu.edu/mjreese/psy290/downloads/Archer%202000.pdf - p664 (or 14 of 30)

"Sex Differences in Physical Aggression and Violence
to Partners

When measures were based on specific acts, women were significantly
more likely than men to have used physical aggression
toward their partners and to have used it more frequently, although
the effect size was very small (d = -.05). When measures were
based on the physical consequences of aggression (visible injuries
or injuries requiring medical treatment), men were more likely
than women to have injured their partners, but again, effect sizes
were relatively small (d = .15 and .08)."

I'd recomend a read of the whole publication for those genuinely trying to understand the differeing perceptions about domestic violence. What continues to stick out is that the differences are not primarily defined by gender despite the most determined efforts by some to portray it in those terms.

R0bert

Robert ~ "Again drifting back to discussing who does more which is I believe a distraction from the real issue of protecting kid's".
I agree entirely, so can we get back to discussing how children can be effectively protected by the Family Law and in its implementation in the Courts, rather than the gender issues which you and others keep bringing into this debate. I have only ever responded to such issues about DV when they have been raised by others, but to me they are a complete irrelevance.
I believe that the proposed legislation will go some way towards protecting children and young people as is their primary right under the UN CRoC and also that they will have the right to be heard in such proceedings. These rights of children must become the over-riding and paramount consideration by Family Courts. I cannot however see this happening while Family Courts do not have the powers or expertise to implement these changes and to competently investigate allegations of child abuse, nor the powers to order child protection authorities to carry out their statutory duties. It is this gross anomaly in the system which urgently needs fixing, as it is the gap between the Federal and the State laws and systems which are seriously at fault.
Can we now leave the gender issues aside and concentrate on the care, welfare, and safety of children?.

Chazp & Robert

You may want to tune into Radio National's Background Briefing:

50-50 Parenting

"Legislation before the Senate now may take some of the heat out of tragic confusion over shared, or "equal time parenting", and the role of violence in Family Law decision making. Research shows children of high conflict families, forced into equal time, are suffering."

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3278027.htm

Then have a courteous discussion.

Thank you.

How can kid's be better protected?

I think the most effective things we can do are around reducing as far as possible the pressures on both parents following separation.

Factors such as a sense of loss of control over your own life, poverty etc are big factors which can contribute to harm to children (intentional and unintentional).

- Take as much of the pressure off initial child residency outcomes as possible. Eg the long term opportunities to have a meaningful role in children's lives and financial prospects of the parents should not be significantly impacted due to the residency arrangements following separation. That gives less incentive for either parents to fight over initial arrangements and work towards better outcomes.
- Put in place fair and sensible investigation processes within the general child protection services. If a parent poses a significant risk to a child then they are a risk in or out of a relationship with the other parent.
- Put in place measures so that unsubstantiated allegations don't disadvantage the accused or benefit the accuser (and visa versa).
- Put in place a process to review court decisions some time later (three years after the decision) and see what's worked and what has not - eg the courts should learn from what they got right and from what they did wrong. They will make mistakes at times, not learning from those mistakes compounds the issue.
- As far as possible let both parents move on. CSA keeps parents tied together financially adding a significant trigger for ongoing conflict. It's hard enough to parent together following separation without constant financial conflict.

R0bert

Robert

What you have written sounds fine on paper - as do most good intentions. What do you suggest when a baby is still being breasfed and the father demands equal time? An example of this was broadcast on BB.

Or there has been no history of violence from either partner, but one partner is very controlling and manipulating - the other partner knows this cannot prove anything and the children suffer greatly as a result?

Unfortunately we cannot legislate for bad behaviour, that this minority of parents reach the courts mean their negotiating skills are poor anyway and the 50/50 set-up sounds more difficult to implement than just staying married. Let alone what the arrangement does to the stability of children's lives.

I wish there was an answer, but of course, there is no one size fits all answer. People muddying an already fraught system with false claims simply because they feel disempowered is not placing children's best interest at heart - these people are about revenge and little else.

Ammonite, I hope that by reducing the stakes around residency at seperation the pressures on parents would lead to better choices.

There is a case where young infants are involved for prime care to be with the person able to produce breast milk (assuming that they are in fact breast feeding the infant). By tying long term residency and the short term division of assets to the short term needs of the child can be very harmful.

If the difference between breast milk and formula milk for an infant was potentially going to cost you almost any chance of ever having a day to day parenting role with that child and possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars a lot of people might decide that formula milk was not so bad.

I don't know what the system can do about overly controlling people. I suspect that they will be the sort who are more likely to play the system so basing residency decisions on unproven behaviors could often lead to the person with the problem getting the residency.

I do have a few assumptions for all this.
- we can't totally remove risk to children. We can reduce it but not remove it.
- it's important to minimise the harm done by government (and it's functionaries). Trying to overdo the protection aspect for kid's by operating without evidence or out of context will do far greater harm than doing less.
- Whatever we do in child protection for seperated families should be the same things we do to protect kid's in intact families. If it's good enough cause to remove kid's from a parent when the parents are apart it should be good enough to remove them when the parents are together.
- The lives of parents are not inherently less valuable than those of children. Kid's have less opportunities to alter their situation than their parents but the extreme end of the "think of the children" crowd seems to think anything done to a parent for the childs well being is somehow Ok regardless of the difference in impact.

R0bert

Robert

Thanks for your reply.

Just a couple of points:

1. Expressing breast milk is not the same as turning on a tap - and is an additional stress especially if trying to meet with the juggling act that is a 50/50 custody split over a little baby. How does one store enough milk for 3 and half days per week? Why should a baby have to have formula if the mother is producing plenty of milk?

Which brings me to your last point:

2. Children are not like vehicles and be parked in any garage at the whim of a parent. A parent who truly loves their child may (and many do) see less of their child in order for that child to have greater stability in their crucial growing years. Children only get one chance at growing up. Adults who put their needs before that of their children.... well I have words for people like that, but I am too polite to write them here.

Ammonite, "Why should a baby have to have formula if the mother is producing plenty of milk? " As I said I think there is a good case for prime care being with the mother in that situation. What I don't think should happen is that situation should be used as a precedent for future care arrangements or used to divide family assets inequitably.

Agreed parents who care for their kid's may well be willing to see less of them if it actually helps with stability. I don't think the case is proven that the extra stability of one prime carer outweighs the benefits of having both parents actively involved though. In some circumstances but not nearly as much as some would like us to believe. I also don't think that the parent willing to make that sacrifice should also be required to sacrifice a long term meaningful role in the child's life or their own ability to move on because of that sacrifice.

Far too much is riding on those early residency decisions for all involved and I think that there is a lot we can do to reduce that pressure.

R0bert

Robert

I am merely pointing out to you that a 50/50 ruling cannot work in all cases - such as breastfeeding a child. I have clearly demonstrated that all cases need to be assessed individually.

And admitted that there is no magic solution. 50/50 generally works where the parents are able to reach amicable arrangements - the majority and not the people being discussed here. The minority who wind up in the courts are often angry and more concerned about 'evening the score' between themselves and their partners than they are about caring for the well being of their children. Perhaps in these cases the children should be removed completely from both parents and placed in the care of people who love children and understand that childhood is such a short period of a person's life and the most important. Children only get one chance at childhood. As adults we make mistakes and can take responsibility for those mistakes - children do not have that power.

I concur that children can be resilient - but 50/50 does not work for all. I may have misunderstood you, but you appear more concerned at keeping childcare 'even' like one does with a property settlement. Children are not property.

Ammonite I completely agree that 50/50 shared care does not work in all situations.

I prefer it as the default position rather than the 80/20 we used have because it helps the chances of people negotiating better outcomes. Maybe reflective of my own experience and that of other seperated fathers from the pre-2006 period when ex's assumed that it was their right to prime care as mothers and of some fathers who didn't think they had a responsibility to do hands on care of children. The same assumptions seemed to be prevalent in a lot of the support services as well.

I really do think that the winner takes all approach to initial determination of child residency both in future residency, property etc contributes to a lot of the preventable harm to kid's. It put's parents of both genders under enormous stress at a time when they are already going through enough other stuff.

It creates a situation where parents can be impacted by disproportionate benefit or harm based on residency decisions which may be based on relatively minor differences to the child.

I'm not talking about extremes with that although at the extreme end some people obviously do great harm to their kid's for their own benefit.

It's never been from my perspective a belief that 50/50 will always work. Rather a belief that it's a better starting place than 80/20 etc and a desire to reduce the external motivators for bad residency decisions and to reduce the ability of players to manipulate the system for personal advantage.

I'm not convinced that all those cases that don't end up in the courts are mutually satisfactory to both parents, from what I've seen of it one party will settle for outcomes that they are deeply dissatisfied with rather than face the horror of a family law battle with an ex who plays dirty.

R0bert

Robert

I completely agree. I also concur that 50/50 is a good place to start - we need somewhere. What has occurred is that this ruling has been taken as the optimal solution and families have found themselves in just as much crisis as the old 80/20 which was indeed lacking any basis in the reality of 21st century parenting.

Where I am disappointed is the confrontational methods taken by many men's and women's groups. If there is one area of human life where bi-partisan efforts are desperately required it is in child welfare. This means give and take on both sides and yes, some parties will feel more disadvantaged than others, however the goal is the growth and prospective lives of children and I believe that is where the goal must remain.

Life is full of compromise - we do it every day; from abiding road rules through, obeying our boss at work through to caring for others. Time for children to take centre stage and not the emotive feelings of aggrieved parents.

Robert & Ammonite – you are both still arguing from a parent’s perspective and not from a child’s Needs, and Rights perspective.
e.g. “And admitted that there is no magic solution. 50/50 generally works where the parents are able to reach amicable arrangements...”
“I completely agree. I also concur that 50/50 is a good place to start...”
You are still saying that children should be divided up along with other financial and household items. It may come as a shock to you both, but children are human beings with their own views and feelings about who they want to live with.
But then Ammonite does a volte face’ and contradicts yourselves by stating “Time for children to take centre stage and not the emotive feelings of aggrieved parents.”.
Shared Care has reached the ridiculous state whereby children are forced to attend different schools on a week-about basis, and or travel from Dubai to Sydney on a month-about-basis or are forced to travel for many hours, even interstate to afford contact to a non-resident parent. How are children in such situations supposed to form and maintain social relationships with their peer groups.?. How are they supposed to have stability and consistency in their lives?. How are they able to enjoy leisure and sports pursuits with their friends?.
It is also a massive assumption on your part that all children want to be with or spend time with a parent – frequently they are forced to do so, because that parent has the RIGHT to make them. What about the 180,000 parents who choose not to have any interests in their children’s lives?. Should children not have a reciprocal right to have that parent forced to spend time with them?.
The starting point for any arrangement for the care of children should be where that child is most likely to receive caring, compassionate, consistent, and constant attention to their needs and where they will be safe and protected from harm and exploitation, and respected as human beings, and not merely as the shared possessions of their parents, as you are suggesting.

ChazP

I can only state that you have selectively read my posts, which have been all about putting children's needs first. I have also criticised 50/50 as being used to apply to all cases - that they need to be assessed each on its merits.

I am still perplexed that someone like Robert would support removing a breastfeeding baby from its mother for 50% of the time, but he has agreed that each case differs. A baby would only need to be separated from its mother if the baby was in danger from the mother, otherwise it is far better for it to remain with its lactating mother. This is just good sense.

Family Law is one of the most fraught aspects of law. While it remains as a tool for warring parents, children will suffer. 50/50 is only a place from which to start, the mistake was enforcing it as the rule which is not likely to work with parents who are are unable to compromise with each other.

Look at some of the posters here, all they do is write posts condemning one sex and never attempting to work out solutions, one can only make assumptions what they are like with their families in their real lives, how much they are prepared to negotiate with their partners? Very little, it seems.

What would you suggest to these embittered people, how do you reason with them?

Ammonite – Equal time is not a requirement under the 2005 Family Law – only substantial and significant time for the non-resident parent. However a false meme was created by the LFAA (B.Williams actually boasts of this) which became part of the public perception and the mindset of Family Court officials.
Breastfeeding is important not only for fulfilling one of an infant’s physical needs, but is vitally more important for fulfilling an infant’s emotional and psychological needs and development.
Because the current Shared Care arrangements completely ignore or disregard children’s needs in this manner, it is creating a generation of children who are unable to create and maintain emotional attachments, and are disaffected and anomic from personal and social relationships. i.e. environmental psychopaths, as was shown in post-Freudian research over 50 years ago.
I am quite sure that in 30 years time, the then Australian government will be apologising to those children, as it has done to the Stolen Generation and the Forced Adoption Generation of children, for the irresponsible harm the 2006 Family Law and its interpretation in the Courts, are doing to this generation.
As I have said, 50/50 is not a starting point from a child’s perspective, they don’t need or want to be `shared up’ or divided in that manner and it violates the respect they have a right to expect, from their parents and from legal arenas.

ChazP

I agree with what you say - I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I agree that 50/50 has been utterly rorted and misused. However, 50/50 does work for some people - the ones who tend not to wind up in court.

Rather than preach to the converted try to explain the bonds of a breastfeeding child and mother to Robert or the more misogynistic OLO posters. The ones who don't believe that women are capable of anything of worth - having us argue among ourselves is playing into the divide and destroy tactics used by extremist groups.