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?