As RObert writers, there is not doubt there is room for improvement in the Family Court sytem. Much of the policy IMO comes from a desire to protect children who are at risk which sometimes results in an unfair impact on the majority of cases where there is little or no risk.

It is a difficult area and one that I find many commentators rushing to demonise men and women (single mothers) for failures in what is a very difficult area of policy. Who can honestly come up with a completely failsafe and fair system that would not let a few dodgy abusers through the net?

Shared parenting should be the premise from which to start as it would seem the fairest however it is not a one size fits all solution . Shuffling kids between mum to dad over an agreed period does not suit all children and not all age groups particularly if there is breast feeding but there is room to manouvre around those restrictions.

James H

You are corect.

In terms of child abuse, the two most likely sources are indigenous households and single parent households.

- The households most likely to have a history
of ongoing departmental intervention are
Indigenous households (at least one person
identifies as an Aboriginal and/or Torres
Strait Islander person) and single parent
households.

- 40 per cent of Indigenous households have a
history of ongoing departmental intervention
compared to the average of 26 per cent.

- One-third of single parent households – 36 per
cent for single father households and 33 per
cent for single mother households – have a
history of ongoing intervention.

- Two biological parent households are
less likely to have a history of ongoing
departmental intervention, at 23 per cent
compared to 26 per cent of all substantiated
households.

http://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/childsafety/about-us/performance/child-protection/report-3-history-of-contact.pdf

From this, the family type to be avoided is indeginous and/or single parent households.

However I have heard of no efforts by this federal government or feminists (is this federal government also feminist?) to get indigenous or other couples married.

Judging by the current Prime Minister (a self-declared feminist), marriage is something not to be valued, and she is not setting a good example by not getting married.

But I have never known a feminist to get anything right.

My problem with Marsh is his proclivity to blame women for all the woes of the Family Court system and his refusal to acknowledge that some fathers do abuse and then lie about it. It is the liars in the process that is the problem. How to discern the truth. What does Marsh suggest we do to protect kids from abuse or worse death in resentful marriage breakups? What is Marsh's solution?

Marsh also constantly blames single mothers with no compassion about why they might find themselves in a 'single's state - perhaps there was domestic violence, dad might be in jail or has run off with the neighbour's wife. All sorts of reasons that does not fit in with his 'evil mothers' mentality. Marsh's use of self-fulfilling statistics to report high crime rates in single parent families does not include any acknowledgment of demographics. The fact is highest crime rates come from those who experience disadvantage, lower educated and poorer families. He ignores economic disadvantage as a relevant factor in crime rates.

Marsh's demonisation of women, single parents (only mothers) and his refusal to acknowedge legitimate reasons for marriage breakdown means I often read his pieces with preconceived expectations which have never yet proven wrong. Any legitimate points he offers about the system's affect on men get lost in his obvious bias against women.

I don't know what changes are being proposed and I will look further into it but one thing I do know is that demonising women and 'saintifying' men is not the way ahead on this really important issue. We just replace one imperfect system for another.

<I will look further into it but one thing I do know is that demonising women and 'saintifying' men is not the way ahead on this really important issue. We just replace one imperfect system for another.Posted by pelican, Sunday, 4 September 2011 10:50:25 AM>

But that is exactly how feminists and feminism has operated over the last few decades, by demonising men and saintifying women.

Some female posters even demonstrate that when their saintly image is challanged, the men are then accused of being 'female haters'.

Pelican

I think it important that opinions from people such as Warwick Marsh are presented.

There is almost no research undertaken into relationships in this country, most likely because feminists control so much of social science research in universities. However, there is a regular survey undertaken by a private organisation here
http://www.relationships.org.au/what-we-do/research/australian-relationships-indicators/relationships-indicator-2011

In regards to reasons for relationship breakdown:

Financial stress 26%
Communication difficulties 25%
Different expectations 23%

Feminists haven’t got it right there, believing that infidelity at 11%, drugs and alcohol at 6%, or abuse at 5% were the main reasons for relationship breakdown.

In regards to what were the best relationships:

Spouse at 53%
De facto partner at 9%.

Feminists haven’t got it right there, believing that de facto relationships are the best relationships.

Our feminist Prime Minister sets an excellent example for a feminist, believing that abuse is the main reason for relationship breakdown, and also believing that de facto relationships are the best type of relationships.

Incredible that live in de facto relationships at 9% were considered to be only slightly better than relationships with friends from a school or university at 6%.

How far off the mark can feminists get?

I always say I won't get involved in these blatantly biased 'discussions' of the rubbish articles written by this annoying bloke.
But I just can't seem to help myself :)

Sam said <"...all politicians will be paid actors, all judges well trained tools, and whole show run by organized women who have iron control of the government..."

Really? Gee, I wish I could believe you about that, but I very much doubt that all these so-called powerful males would allow this 'control'of them, do you?
So what you are saying, is that the only 'real' men are those who are 'in control' of all and everyone around them?
That's just sad...

Pelican, you are a patient woman :)
<"...but one thing I do know is that demonising women and 'saintifying' men is not the way ahead on this really important issue. We just replace one imperfect system for another."

You are certainly right there.

Going back to the terrible system before women were 'allowed' to have equal rights would be awful, but then again, we don't want to see the system tip too far the other way, with the men that we love getting just as hurt, or discriminated against.