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