Robert - "how many kid's have witnessed violence committed against their father's or stepfathers? How many are in homes where the mother lashes out physically or emotionally at her male partner even with kid's around?. I know accurate and credible figures on that will be important to you, after all it's about the kid's and not gender games isn't it."
If there are such figures to support what you claim, Robert, then I'm quite sure you will be only too willing to provide them. Unless of course you are willing to pay me a substantial reward for doing your research for you but then, I would not be willing to go on a wild goose chase. It would be rather like searching for squid on Uluhru.
The major thrust of my contribution is the harm caused to children by domestic violence and its often lifelong serious harm inflicted on them. I note that this has no importance to you, as you launch immediately and singularly into your `Well what about us poor Dads' spiel. Do you think that sometime you may just offer a modicum of concern and compassion for children harmed by such violence and better still offer your alternative for protecting them under Family Laws, as you seem so determined in destroying what is being proposed?.

ChazP if the report that you got the original figures from was at all credible as a source of that sort of data then it would have the figures I've asked for. I suspect that it doesn't, everything about the proposal stinks of a stitch up by those pretending an interest in child protection while persuing an agenda of maternal bias.

You clearly and consistantly play the gender card in the examples you give then complain when called to task for it.

If you had the least concern for the wellbeing of children you would stop that disgusting pretense.

R0bert

Robert - if you had read and understood my posting you would have seen the highly credible source of the statistics. The reasons it does not include the figures you `suspect' is because they are at best negligible, and more accurately non-existent. You will find consistently that my postings begin with pointing out the harm caused to children who experience domestic violence and the long-lasting effects on those children. It is only when I am attacked as gender-biased by males who speculate and `suspect' the evidence, that I respond in a gender preferential way. It serves the purposes of male contributors to turn this debate into a high-conflict gender issue and to evade the issues regarding children's suffering. They cannot point to any word or phrase in the proposed amendments which is gender-biased, but can only offer conjectures and fanciful speculations that it will somehow be turned against males by the administrations of Family Court Judges. The amendments leave it open for any male to bring up issues of domestic violence against a female ex-partner, in exactly the same way as it can be for a female. Your arguments therefore make a presumption that Family Courts will be gender-biased against males. Perhaps you can give past cases judgements to support such a contention.
Notably you again make no reference to the suffering of children from the abuse during domestic violence or the need for them to be protected from their abusers. Perhaps you have another way of ensuring children can be protected from a toxic and abusive parent when that parent wants custody/contact with them after separation?. If so, then lets all hear it.

Chaz, trying to hold a sensible discussion with you is like trying to hold a sensible discussion with the dog about taking her bone away: there's no chance of a meeting of minds when one of the parties sees a nice, big juicy bone just itching to have the marrow sucked out and the other one is trying to make sure there's no mess, but it's certain that there'll be lots of whining as the bone is taken away and possibly the odd bit of snapping in the greedier and less-disciplined members of the species.

There are lots of such dogs in the Family Law industry, mostly hiding out in the maternal bias kennel and only emerging to growl whenever a human appears to be taking an interest in their bone supply. The only thing that varies is how much work they're prepared to put in to get their marrow out. It seems that some expect the bone to be nicely cut open for them, so all they have to do is suck it up. Of course, that sort should be selected out by any careful breeder, but obviously mistakes occur...

Antiseptic~ Your resorting to personally derogatory and insulting comments is a clear sign of intellectual deficiency. I suppose that anyone who is being `sensible' in your view, is someone who agrees with what you have to say. The Father's Inalienable Rights representatives had nothing to offer at yesterday's Senate Hearings either, except to suggest that if the proposed legislation is passed by Parliament, then thousands of fathers will kill themselves. In the past they have frequently been challenged to provide Coroner's Inquiry evidence of just ONE father who has killed himself because he was denied contact with his children, but have so far failed to do so. If there was ever a case of opinion which had no factual or statistical basis, then paternal suicide must take the Blue Riband. Except of course those fathers who have killed their kids in Revenge Killings and then killed themselves. And Barry Williams [LFAA] claimed that family violence only begins when fathers are denied contact with their children - you don't need to return to this planet Barry, you're not needed here. All round it was a pathetic performance by all concerned representing father's inalienable rights, especially the dear old grannie who runs the Men's Health group for inept fathers, who could offer nothing except, `We just want to keep things as they are'. Not a mention of children's needs or how they are suffering abuse and death as a direct consequence of the Shared Parenting laws. No mention of children who are being shuttled back and forth every week in Shared Care arrangements, attending different schools,trying to fit into two different households, living out of suitcases, and with different standards of care and rules.
Ping-Pong children whose lives are being destroyed by `Shared Care'.
Of course poor old Dad must have his rights upheld, after all it would cost him lots of money if he didn't grab his rights to time with his child.

Antiseptic, perpetrators of domestic violence are just bullies at home but bullies exist everywhere (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/859172/bullying-rife-in-workplaces-survey). History has tragic examples of the lengths taken both by international bullies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide) and ones closer to home
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Death-shows-NT-domestic-violence-problem/2006/10/23/1161455654945.html).
Bullies use a variety of tactics to control whomever or whatever they want to control. One of those tactics is the use of words to demean, humiliate and deride the other person. It is an affront to the other person’s humanity because no-one has the right or standing to diminish anyone’s humanity just because they don’t agree with you.
It is telling that you accuse Chaz (and by implication anyone that does not agree with you) that they cannot have a “sensible” written discussion. Immediately with the next words, you compare Chaz (and by implication anyone that does not agree with you) to a dog and “her” bone.
What have you possibly revealed other than exposing yourself by referring to Chaz and the opinion Chaz holds as “a dog” with “a bone itching to have the marrow sucked”, “trying to make sure there's no mess”, “certain that there'll be lots of whining”, and an “odd bit of snapping in the greedier and less-disciplined members of the species”?
Your use of the dehumanising and insulting personification comparing Chaz and those who disagree with you as “dogs” is nothing more than an affront to human rights.
The facts are that domestic violence is not a “juicy bone” but a serious social problem that actually ends up costing the entire Australian community not just billions in terms of hard dollars (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1328611.htm), but often in pure human costs when perpetrators kill their so-called “loved ones” for attempting to leave their control ((http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8250527/kylas-mother-lived-in-fear)
I would suggest you try and use arguments based on credible, best empirical evidence rather than employing de-humanising tactics if you want to be seen as credible. By your own words you have exposed yourself to the inference you might be seen as someone who uses the same tactics as a bully. Although you may deny it, the thing is- you have.