"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.