I have been a Registered Family Court Mediator for nearly 6 years and agree with Marsh's article. I do step outside of my role by commenting personally here but the issue will be used by law sharks and women alike to disadvantage other parties when trying to gain access. The new legislation places no burden on those who would keep the children from their fathers to prove what is alleged. Also, neither is the legal system obliged to have evidence produced for any such allegations. In short there is a huge hole now where abuse of this stupid ruling will be used by mothers who are out to punish fathers for hurt received in the relationship. In my experience, it was hard enough already to get fathers a fair go with the feminised legal system we have. Now Gillard and her Green bed partners have just made it doubly hard for dads. I still get communications from ex-clients who tell me that their male partner has just suicided. Expect an increase of the same and the odd double suicide where a father takes out himself and his family too. Thanks alot Labour for making my job harder as well.

Hard to know where to start with this overly emotional and rhetorical piece.

Do you really think the Prime Minister oversees every bit of legislation? She's too busy attacking the High Court!

Secondly, there have nor will there be any changes to the notion of lying in the stand. You lie - you go to jail.

While one can understand that this is an emotional issue, this article would be better off stating the facts and then drawing inferences from those facts rather than coming out and shot gunning Gillard, single Mums and how ever might be in the way of that shotgun.

Cheryl wrote: "You lie - you go to jail".

In your dreams! How many lies do you think have been told in the Family Court? How many perjurers have been jailed in consequence?

In an extreme case of provable perjury in the FCA being unpunished, a friend's wife broke down in the fourth day of cross-examination and admitted falsifying accusations of child sexual abuse by my friend. She agreed to, and did, make those admissions in writing, and the judge awarded shared residency, 50-50 - something she would not have done had she any doubt as to the accusations being perjurious.

Outcome, no charges of perjury, no penalty at all - not even costs (my friend's legal and medical costs were almost $500,000, much of which related to refuting the lies), and a little girl having been deprived of her father's care, love and protection for 18 months of the most important developmental stage of her life.

<Hard to know where to start with this overly emotional and rhetorical piece.> OUCH!

<Do you really think the Prime Minister oversees every bit of legislation? She's too busy attacking the High Court!>

<Secondly, there have nor will there be any changes to the notion of lying in the stand. You lie - you go to jail.>

<While one can understand that this is an emotional issue, this article would be better off stating the facts and then drawing inferences from those facts rather than coming out and shot gunning Gillard, single Mums and how ever might be in the way of that shotgun.Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 2 September 2011 12:31:44 PM>

There is a process that happens when certain findings are uncomfortable and unacceptable, then the evidence is ignored and turned around to suit a more comfortable preception.

Just recently there were findings that the airports weren't ripping people off, when in reality there are. The same thing occurs with family law.

Typically mothers can act and behave in ways that if fathers were to do it they would gaoled.

Cheryl:"Do you really think the Prime Minister oversees every bit of legislation? She's too busy attacking the High Court!"

Well, quite. This is McClelland's legislation and just like the legislation for the "Malay Solution", it's designed to pick winners, while pretending the losers aren't important.

Well done Bob...

Cheryl:"Secondly, there have nor will there be any changes to the notion of lying in the stand. You lie - you go to jail."

Actually, this isn't correct, sorry. Domestic violence matters have long had a "consent without admission" provision available to the accused, which begs the question of the evidentiary standard required of the complainant. As these matters frequently arise in Family Court proceedings, such a lack of rigour encourages abuse of Habeus Corpus through lack of punitive action on those who abuse.

The Attorney-General's Amendments make the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" an impossibility for fathers and children if mothers decide to unconscionably act to take advantage of the possibilities of making accusations that will be acted on with no penalty to the accuser if they are found false upon investigation.

They're poorly considered, poorly drafted and they will lead to poor outcomes, but at least the girls who run the ALP behind the scenes will have shown the men of Australia who's boss...

Before Gough Whitlam's family law reforms of 1975 that allowed divorce on the one simplified ground of irretrievable breakdown after a 12mth separation, divorcing parties needed to satisfy the Court as to other suitable grounds for a divorce (adultery etc). This was necessary because it significantly impacted property settlements arising from the divorce. But with the desired court result foremost in the mind of the applicant party, often the allegations made were significantly based on lies, without regard for the truth. The sad fact was that often the only way to 'effectively' compete at Court given these rules of engagement, was for the other party to play the same immoral game with their desired court result foremost in their mind regardless of the truth.

With respect custody matters, the proposed changes described in the 'Fathers Day present from hell' forebode a move back to a situation with similarities to that descibed above. The effect of the Bill will be to deliberately reward the one more inclined to lie convincingly at Court for their own selfish ends. The effect of the Bill will also be to cause the Court to have insufficient regard for parents who are more inclined to act with integrity, and selflessly in the best interests of the children.