I also wonder whether Charles Pragnell still holds the views he expressed in a piece for The Independent back in 1994

"In the longer term, there is certainly an increasingly powerful argument for a Children's Ombudsman. We must also examine how we assert better and more effective control over the activities of social workers. This could most effectively be done by a system of national registration and discipline where families could take their assertions of misconduct and malpractice, and if these are proven, social workers could be removed from practice."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/torn-from-their-mothers-arms-what-are-social-workers-for-charles-pragnell-considers-some-disturbing-cases-1389422.html

Antiseptic,
I think there has to be a little more background reading before you give support to Professor Parkinson.

For example, he has said the following:

“You've got to be very careful with shared care arrangements under about five-years-old because of the attachments that very young children have to their primary carer. You don't want to have long gaps between the time they see mum. “

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2587963.htm

This use of the term “primary carer” occurs right throughout family law, and it means that the father is viewed as being secondary, and ultimately superfluous within the family.

Indeed, a lesbian mother with no biological connection to a child can now have the natural father’s name taken off the child’s birth certificate and her own name added instead.

The view that the father is secondary or superfluous has been a part of feminist demonisation and denigration of father’s for many years.

It is now a typical bind.

The Professor wants better parenting, but at the same time doesn’t properly acknowledge that the father is a parent and part of the family.

Within feminism, the father is simply someone who pays child support money to the mother.

And of course, they are now trying to use a totally watered down definition of domestic violence, with no penalties for perjury, as an additional means of removing the father from the family.

vanna
What if the mother is still breastfeeding? Do you think the father's rights override this very natural need? Some fathers also believe in 'breast is best' and are happy for the mother to remain the primary carer for a short time. While I agree shared parenting should be the starting point it is also not a one-size fits all. What if there is some anxiety caused with children who suffer from the constant uprooting and moving from house to house. This is particularly so with very young children and sometimes teenagers coping with HSC. It does not mean of course that the mother has to always take primary role in those cases, but shared parenting is not always a quick fix.

There are many ways to work within those restrictions it just takes a bit of creativity and a willingness to put the child first.

Pelican,
A high % of women in Australia do not breastfeed at all, and I think the statistics are that about 50% do not breastfeed past 6 months.

Australia has one of the lowest rates of breastfeeding in the world.

So much is being done to hide mummy's little secret, and to ensure best interests of the mother.

We couldn't have the situation where she is not regarded as being the "primary parent", and is not receiving money from the father or some other man.

It would be too embarasing for the mother if other women where to find out that she is not the "primary parent".

Vanna

You so clearly see children as commodities to be equally split that you have lost any empathy for the well being of children.

I don't care if you respond to my comment - I will NOT be entering into any argument with you.

Ammonite, what's the point of making a post to tell someone you're not going to talk to them?

squeers did something similar to me a week or so ago, in response to a question about philosophy. I have no idea why you'd bother.