Both theory and personal observation affirm the insights in Warwick Marsh’s timely article.

The social role of parenthood is undergirded by essential properties assigned respectively to men and women who become fathers and mothers. ‘Essentialism’ posits a set of fixed universal properties to humankind, dividing into distinct male and female persons. Both genders are needed in the balanced nurture of children. Notably, the highly influential European feminist Luce Irigaray, philosopher, linguist and psychoanalyst, acknowledges essentialism, even if a ‘strategic essentialism’.

Fathers are men, mothers are women, and each gender has unique and necessary characteristics or properties, such as authority, protection and discipline for the father, and meekness, care and maternal love for the mother. While there is some overlap, such predominant characteristics equip fathers and mothers respectively, and each parent is required as a role model and a naturally equipped individual nurturer, provider and guide. Fatherhood and motherhood are a simple extension of how men and women are wired to nurture offspring.

On a personal level, we think of one among many cases where the father figure has been unfairly and unfortunately denied his role. This father of five children has suffered for over six years from the anti-father bias in a custody situation. The younger children particularly miss their Dad. Fathers, faithful to their natural role, deserve greater not lesser equity and access. They deserve it, the children need it

A very emotive piece by Warwick Marsh but little to do with reality and more to do with rabble rousing. Neither of the two cases he cited would be affected in the slightest by the proposed legislation which is concerned primarily with enabling children and young people to actively participate in decision-making processes affecting their lives (their right under International Convention) and to broaden the currently very narrow defintions of domestic violence and the inherent abuse of children. The proposed legislation came about after a series of carefully undertaken research studies of the workings of the Family Law and much discussion about their findings. Such findings were then embodied in the proposed legislation and received 73% approval by public submissions, including those of sensible caring fathers.One of the most influential research studies was that of former Justice Chisholm on domestic violence - is he a well known leader of the feminist movement?.
The reckless comments about fatherlessness does not take into account the harm which may have been done to those young people by fathers, prior to their leaving the household nor the many thousands of successfulk people who have been raised in fatherless households e.g. Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and many others. Warwick Marsh's comments are an unfounded insult to them.
This proposed legislation makes no changes to shared care which remains the principle consideration of Family Courts providing the children's safety and protection are ensured and they have actively participated in the process.

Further to my recent post, I previously heard of a case from Queensland (unrelated to Family Law) where a particular offense was worded such that there was no defense to it. This meant that once you were charged with that particular offense you must be guilty by virtue of the way the offense was worded in the legislation that created the offense. An appeal of a conviction to this offense ultimately led to the offense being struck down as unconstitutional on grounds that there was no defense to it.

It seems that the proposed ‘Bill from hell’ maycreate a situation with similarities to the one described in the previous paragraph. False allegations will be able to be made with impunity, there will be no disincentive from doing so, and less effective ability to adequately defend such allegations. The time pressures the Family Court operates under, will likely cause such cases to largely degenerate into each party creating a list of allegations (true or otherwise), and the Court deciding competing interests primarily on that basis.

It remains to be seen whether even if passed by Parliament, the 'Bill from hell' may be struck down because of the 'unlawful' way the Bill will operate in practice, or how little regard Court decisions will have for the objective best interests of children.

It will be a significant tipping point for the electorate at the next election, if it is not just asylum seekers, but we the current citizens of Australia who need to rely on the High Court to be the umpire of last resort to protect us from the policies of the current government

And just to lay to rest some other myths, there is no evidence from Coronial Inquests of any father who has committed suicide as a consequence of not gaining contact with his children after separation. Who and where are all these fathers who have killed themselves in such circumstances?. Secondly, the rate of deaths of mothers killed by male partners has now risen to 60 per annum and children's deaths at the hands of parents have risen to 20 per annum since the 2006 Shared Parenting laws were introduced. Are you suggesting that more fathers will kill their children if this amendments are passed?. What evidence do you have to make such an assertion?.
The only ones to fear the introduction of these amendments are violent partners and child abusers. Are they the fathers who you are supporting and therefore opposing this legislation?.

The current Prime Minister has very recently said "People are entitled to the facts".

So facts should be given in court, and lies not accepted, and perjury laws upheld.

Similarly, while saying that facts should be available to the people, she has never given out the facts to the public regards what happened to Kevin Rudd.

She has also recently condemed a High Court judge for making "arbitary" decisions, but has said nothing regards the Family Law Court for the endless record of arbitary decisions it has made.

The current Prime Minister is hopeless, and not to be trusted with anything.

What you don't realise is that the pain of the new legislation comes into play way before court.

As a a registered DRP I am required under my code to pick up on claims of violence. A DRP is pressured in our training to STOP mediation immediately and call a halt to the process when this occurs. We are taught to have our ears prick up whenever there is any mention of the word and assume the worst.

Mediation is discontinued and both parties receive a certificate so they can proceed straight to court. What happens then is that the contact is jeapordised as the mother is the one with the kids in her possession. She senses her advantage and proceeds to punish the father for hurt suffered in the relationship by trumping him with the kids.

From there, assisted by a feminist legal and health system, the father has to fight for months, sometimes years on an endless round of penance to gain access to his kids just because he was the male. Some dads don't get to see their kids at all until the court makes its ruling - this is the suicide zone.