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