Though it might be useful to summarise my views on this.

- Child protection in Australia has plenty of scope for improvement.
- That's not just for kid's who's parents happen to be in dispute over residency/property or just lashing out in the hurt of the end of a relationship.
- Parents of both genders harm kids, tell lies, exaggerate or minimise actions. Those are human failings and not gender specific. Increasing the stakes increases the likely hood that people people will behave badly.
- Whatever we do there will be failures, the debate should keep the big picture in mind and not just the exceptions.
- The supporters of the proposed changes have made a point of attacking the shared care changes as increasing the risk to children. If those changes had placed more kids at risk then we should expect to see a notable increase in the numbers and or proportion of kids killed or harmed by fathers (especially in single parent male lead households). That's not been the case.

It's been a campaign based on emotive appeals and selected and isolated incidents whilst ignoring context and examples that don't suit.

It's in my view a clear attempt to provide a back door return to maternal bias, and has little to do with actual child protection.

R0bert

Robert - if you had carefully examined and analysed the statistics on child deaths from fatal assault in NSW you would have seen that the number of such child deaths had been declining since 1995. In the five years ending in the year 2000, there were 75 such child deaths, in the following five years there were 60 such deaths (a decline of 20%), if the numbers of such deaths continue the trend from 2005 to 2010, they will have declined to 48 child deaths. (reduction of approx 18%). So the reductions in child deaths from fatal assault in NSW has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Family Law amendments of 2006. In fact there was an increase in 2008 to 12 and immediately after the introduction of the 2006 Act, but which was against this trend.
You are quite right Robert about the false testimony given in Family Couirts and it not being punished. Alleged child abusers and domestic violence perpetrators blatantly and constantly make FALSE DENIALS, but very safe in the knowledge that such allegations cannot be proven against them for several reasons. Child testimony of abuse, no matter how horrendous, are insufficient, and the Family Courts do not have the POWERS, EXPERTISE, nor RESOURCES to investigate child abuse and domestic violence (Chief Justice Bryant - 2009), and Section 140(2)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 and the Briginshaw test ensures that paedophiles and other child abusers are very well protected under law, even by civil laws and civil Courts. Furthermore it is so easy in so many cases for lawyers[ICLs], fathers, and various unqualified others to make counter-allegations of mental illness and delusion (see for example Langmeil & Grange 2009) thereby alleging emotional and psychological abuse of the child, and not have to prove such allegations to the Briginshaw standard.
The persons to gain most if this proposed law is not passed are violent assailants of their spouses and partners, abusers of children, paedophiles and other child sex abusers. I would not wish to have that on my conscience, would you?.

R0bert:"Whatever we do there will be failures, the debate should keep the big picture in mind and not just the exceptions. "

Very true. Sadly, there is a lot of effort made by advocates to only mention the extremes. Hardly surprising, since a broader analysis simply doesn't support the picture they're trying to paint for their own cynical reasons.

The Chief Justice of the Family Court was moved recently to say this:

"Raising an allegation or a concern is not the same as proving it to the requisite standard in a court. I can say, however, that contrary to the assertion attributed in the article to Mr Charles Pragnell that "the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities at the extreme end of the scale", that is not the applicable law in Australian family law courts.

Since the 1988 decision of the High Court in M v M, even if a judge cannot find an allegation proved on the balance of probabilities, having regard to its seriousness, the court may still refuse to make an order for contact between a child and a parent if that order would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of abuse. That is because the court is ultimately deciding what is in the best interests of the child, not whether abuse can be proved to have occurred."

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/rights-of-child-supreme-in-abuse-claims-20110822-1j6l6.html

Charles Pragnell is something to do with a Maternal Rights group called "The National Council for Children Post-Separation". The comment the CJ was referring to was:"there are a small number of occasions where the state child protection authorities have intervened and have found the allegations substantiated, but such substantiations have frequently been disregarded by Family Court judges, who see the right to shared care as the principle overriding consideration.''

http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-kids-are-not-all-right-20110816-1iw7l.html

The rather hysterical article was typical of the sort of misinformation peddled by the maternal bias crowd. It's a great shame they have the ear of the ALP via the very powerful Emily's List group.

Perhaps the only effective way to stop either parent from playing the games that go on, is to give custody to the other parent, and that all child support be based on the principle of 50/50, regardless of actual time.

After all if the noncustodial parent had 50/50 or there abouts, that would provied more time for the custodial parent to partake in paid employment.

Robert - this may help you also to better udnerstand what is happening in the Family Law system.
http://safe-at-last.hubpages.com/hub/The-Fine-Art-of-Grooming
Institutional Grooming Defined and Explained
In the context of abuse, grooming refers to actions deliberately undertaken by a perpetrator with the aim of befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a victim. The victim is "prepared" in this way, so they unwittingly allow abusive behavior or exploitation to occur later. The abuser typically befriends or builds a relationship with the victim in order to establish a relationship of trust.
It is not only a perpetrator's victims that are groomed (which would be considered emotional abuse), but the victims' family and friends, the perpetrator's own family and friends, and even public servants and medical professionals (in which case it is purposeful manipulation).
The grooming of doctors, nurses, mental health carers, family support workers and other public servants is called "Institutional Grooming" and the perpetrator does it for the purpose of self-preservation.
Institutional grooming refers to the manipulation of professionals who have contact with the victim, so that any allegations of abuse made by the victim are doubted or outright disbelieved."

I should also add, that whilst Chapz, Suzie, Cherly may add some seemingly valid points, its purpose is to act more as a distraction from the reality that the vast majority of children are not at any risk from their natural fathers.

This also tends to disguise areas of child abuse and neglect that are caused by or contribuited to by the custodial parent.