"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.