[Deleted for abuse.]

I wonder if Dane notices the irony of his abusive response to the author. Clearly a man who is so intuitively comfortable with verbal abuse is going to object...

Hmmmm, let me also summarize 'dane's' take on these things-

1. Children must have a relationship with a father, no matter how bad a parent he is. If he has been disrespectful, abusive and or violent in any way other than severely physically violent - he's just being “a man” and as such, he still makes a “good” father;
2. Fathers, i.e. all fathers have provided the sperm and therefore gives them the “right” to be fathers and the right to continually complain about child support.
Interestingly dane, you betray your own colours by calling Dr McInnes “vile”. That is a put-down deliberately intended to personally attack a person you don’t even know. That dane, is a clear example of the tactics used by people that use verbal violence when they don’t get what they want.
Dr McInnes didn’t agree with you, so you responded by attacking her character. However, resorting to a verbal personal putdown is also the only strategy left to someone who in a battle of reason is unarmed.

An excellent article, a pleasure to read from someone who is so well informed about the issues in Australia's Family Courts. The new laws are welcomed but still do not go far enough to protect our children. And that is one of the issues, isn't it? General public perception is that the Family Court is primarily about child protection. But the reality is that it is not. Our political leaders want us to believe that they have "zero tolerance" to child abuse, and this is how it should be. Again, the reality is that a certain level of child abuse, as defined by contemporary perceptions of what constitues child abuse, is accepted in Family Court. This is easily identified by the comments in final orders that explain that past behaviour does not hold as much weight in considerations when weighed with promises of future parenting practices.

Excellent article Elspeth well done on highlighting the serious deficits in the current Famoily Law system that cause accumalative harm to those escaping domestic violence. Child safety First!

Excellent article, thank-you. We need to accept - and embed within the legal response - that attitudes which lend themselves towards abuse are inconsistent with positive parenting. That should be the starting point.