I went to pick my son and daugther up for my usual visitation, unbeknownest to me, my son witnessed an altercation between my ex and one of her 'boyfriends'.

My son did not want to leave his mother because he was afraid that she would die. Apparently she and her partner at the time had made threats to kill each other.

He had previously reported to me that he had rung the cops when she and her partner at the time were figthing.

I contacted DHS, no luck, went to legal aid and they were not prepared to help me.

My son attended school for about the first 2 months of high school, since then he has not been back. This year he will be 16 this year and has yet to complete any formal education.

My daughter had started down the same track of not attending school, but fortunately at present it seems she is attending school.

...“Hammering away” at those in society with a propensity to violence, is a sure recipe to “riches” for Lawyers undoubtedly: But realistically, (and as convincing as this article is), domestic violence will never be solved as the problem it is “en-total”, (win-win for Lawers).

...Domestic violence, to ever be controlled, needs another and more lateral approach to continuing the endless list of its compositions under law; (of course the author is on a winner here, since few would disagree with the connection of animal cruelty to human cruelty, as constituting a crime; another “win-win” for Lawyers).

...No…the approach for solving this problem will be social change, wrought through education from an early age using psychological manipulation of all children.

...Not, I might add, by Lawyers “using” children themselves to "manipulate" a winning case for clients.

You don't need a degree to recognise violence. Where I come from the majority of families are known to Police DCS and anyone unfortunate enough to live within 100 metres of their homes. The dogs from those homes are generally very skinny. The real problem is that the courts are not serious in doing anything about it and when someone does like Mr Brough did all the leftist luvvies cry racism.

Excellent article. Certainly, the suggestion of animal shelters within refuges is long overdue, as I personally know of a few marital breakdown situations in which this scenario has played out.

However, when these places can only afford to allow one or two night's refuge for humans at best, I can't see this hopelessly inadequate arrangement being extended to animals.

Unfortunately, the death by a thousand cuts to domestic violence shelters over the last 15 years, especially under the Howard government, has rendered these shelters almost non-functional. Under the current 'there's no money' mantra of the conservative state governments, along with the Coalition's history of regressive attitudes to women, funding to anything that holds even the faintest whiff of favouring women over men will only continue to be starved - especially if the conservatives win the next federal election.

I'll make that my only comment for this thread, as I know this commentary will quickly fill up with all the usual odious protests that it's really women who are the vicious and violent gender, but that powerful feminists are preventing us from knowing or doing anything about it.

Before I comment on the article, first a comment on Killarneys misrepresentation ofnthe point that is made by a number of posters including myself on these types of threads.

The message is that we are all in it together, that both genders are capable of great good and great harm. That an lack of balance of power in either direction creates harm. There have been a couple of male posters with a deep seated anti-female bias but they have been few, most that Killarney misrepresents are objecting to the repeated assertion that its men specifically that are the problem with no intent to suggest the reverse.

Thats been said before, most will get it but unfortunately some won't.

There are a range of things that might cause someone to stay in an abusive relationship, issues around pets being one and cruelty to pets is something that should be addressed. Social attitudes to seperation and divorce ar still significant issues for many. The nightmare that awaits those with a malicous or greedy spouse when you get to issues of child residency, child support, property settlements etc ar other reasons why some find it easier to stay in an abusive relationship than move on.

I was pleased to see that Dr Scutt varied the pattern slightly from the norm, whilst there were plenty of reminders that its women and children who suffer at least there was one example where the abuser was female. Gender should not matter however against a backdrop of portrayal of men as some sort of overwhelming risk to their families it is important to highlight that some from both genders harm children, that some from both genders harm partners (in all sorts of ways).

"unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that he or she would otherwise have had;"
and yet a I have a government department doing just that to me at the moment with a child support formula which mandates payments well beyond the real costs of providing for our son and is well beyond what I can afford.

R0bert

R0bert says -
""unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that he or she would otherwise have had;"
and yet a I have a government department doing just that to me at the moment with a child support formula which mandates payments well beyond the real costs of providing for our son and is well beyond what I can afford."

this is completely out of context of the article and has nothing whatsoever to do with domestic violence. If you are so intent on continuing this type of rhetoric in such a manner then you would do well to remember that the Child Support Agency and the formula that it operates was born out of legislation passed by politicians which even today is made up of a majority of MEN.

Tired

tired, or maybe you refuse to recognise violence.

I quoted from a definition provided by the author reportedly from the act in an article called "Recognising violence" pointing out that the exact violence referred to is being done to me and many others and trying to make the point that violence goes unrecognised. I think that point is more than relevant to this article.

If it's violence within a relationship then it's violence when done in the aftermath of the relationship. Possibly more so.

Why would the gender composition of the parliament alter their ability to enact bad legislation? I've never suggested that female politicians are generally better or worse than male ones.

R0bert

I wonder if Ms Scutt has read one of the links in her article:

http://www.aija.org.au/Orations/Oration10.pdf

In the article this link is used as a justification for the point that "judicial education and training" is necessary.

Judges have 2 parameters when they adjudicate; the first is Judicial precedence and the second is reference to legislation; generally new legislation will be the superior determinant but precedence will provide guidelines as to how new legislation, even legislation which is contrary to past case law/precedence, is to be interpreted and applied.

Maintaining a continuum between the past in the form of precedence and the evolution of values and rights on the basis of recognition of deficiencies in the past law's accommodation of these rights and values as indicated in new legislation is the role of Judges.

I don't see how 'education' can enhance that role or the skills of judges and most importantly how Judicial independence can be maintained if judges are required to be educated directly about perceived and no doubt, real problems, as outlined by Ms Scutt.

There needs to be a remove between the Judiciary and the public they serve with contact between the Judiciary and the public maintained through the legislation produced by the parliament which the people have elected.

In short Ms Scutt's article raises issues which should be directed to politicians not judges.

Yes and speaking as one who came from a broken home and a disenfranchised mother, at a time when the social security blanket for single mums was virtually non existent, I can and do relate to the sentiments expressed in the article!
Animal cruelty in childhood all too often translates to even worse cruelty in adults, and is hardly ever gender specific, albeit, more common in males?
I could tell you from the child's perspective, way back when, the horror stories and damage done to a small family, by often elderly males ready willing and able to make entirely unreasonable unconscionable demands; of single mums!
Children have no say in their conception or parents, not all of who are ready for, or even capable of commitment; or indeed, assuming responsibility for the consequences of their choices.
Women don't ever get pregnant by themselves!
I believe we do need long term refuges that ought to also be welcoming refuges for pets!
I agree with other posters, inasmuch as education and endlessly bagging animal cruelty and or those mongrels who practise it, is part of the solution.
Nothing is more effective than peer group pressure/ridicule, in modifying behaviour, and we should harness its power to produce entirely acceptable change.
I also believe children ought to have the final say, in who becomes the principal carer, and how much time and type of access is allowed to the other parent.
Even when you are just three years old, you do understand and fear cruelty, control freaks, and the often intellectually challenged animals/monsters, who practise or prefer it, or cunningly try to explain or somehow justify or excuse it.
With their usual opening gambit of, sorry for the treatment meted out to you when--- etc/etc/blah/blah!
Real men don't ever need to bash or kick their wives or very small children; or indeed, take any form of pleasure from it; or, animal cruelty; or the exercise of spousal control; made even worse, when that control is obtained by withholding essential family finance; or worse, by threatening to harm pets or offspring.
Rhrosty.

I often note that some men, still try to exercise control after the separation or divorce. They often try to exercise that control by endlessly complaining about the costs they need to carry as child support.
Can't afford it they will often complain, even as they light up that next fag, down that next drink and ring their favourite bookie to place a bet, or pull once again on the arm of the one-armed bandit.
It's not the Kids they can't afford! Just their often costly addictions/habits or list of often expensive lovers?
They are all too often incapable of putting others first, or simply understanding the costs associated with raising a child, which for them, ought to be shovelled off onto the rest of us, along with their other avoided responsibilities.
The courts understand, what those very basic unavoidable child care costs are, and the totality of the family income
And what social benefits apply.
Most of those arguments, even the valid ones, put by extremely selfish and all too often incredibly immature males, are rendered null and void, by the tripling of the tax threshold and additional family payments and educational support.
Rhrosty.

Phrosty,
You're making reference to a group of men who are in fact a minority who get most of the publicity. Most blokes I know are battling to pay out an ex & support the kids & forfeit the house so that the new boyfriend doesn't have to look for a place to live.
Most decent men will never get a fair deal from the judiciary because straight men are frowned upon by the mainly gay orientated.

individual, Rhosty has actually made a fairly good demonstration of a couple of relevant points.

- The downside of some of broader definitions of DV. They are very subjective. What is for me a massively unjust and damaging nightmare that's left me with very little financial autonomy (despite being Ok financially without collecting CS when I had the full time care of my son) is to Rhosty just something to be dismissed with the suggestion that I'm just whining because I'm selfish and have no idea what it costs to keep a child. What's one persons abuse is another's social justice.
- The dangers of "educating" judges, politicians etc, if the education is framed more subtly but with the same basic world view about the concerns of non-resident parents then unless the training has no impact then it creates further injustice.

In regards to child support, there are plenty of resident parents who do it tough with little support where the other parent does not work much (or is able to hide their income very well), there are also plenty of non-resident parents paying way beyond what is needed for the care of the child (and way beyond what is spent on the care of the child) where the resident parent chooses not to work much (wealthy new partner so why work hard).

I think the current system is abusive at both ends of the spectrum. In part that abuse comes from keeping people tied together financially with someone who's decisions they have no say in.

TBC

R0bert

Part 2
CSA and the formula show no real regard for the needs of working non-resident parents to maintain a sane life, they show no regard for the circumstances that lead to the residency arrangements. They ignore the actual financial and or personal situations of either parent (except by some very narrow criteria), instead focussing on taxable income and level of residency as the sole criteria for determining the money transferred.

Real families don't make decisions on that basis, once the actual needs are met then optional expenditure becomes part of a balance between a whole bunch of priorities.

Again to quote the item from the act referred to by Dr Scutt
"unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that he or she would otherwise have had"

I'm certainly feeling abused by what's being done to me but I don't appear to have the benefit of that being recognised as abuse (especially by those wanting ever broader definitions of violence and abuse).

For the record I don't smoke, have never been drunk, no illicit drug habits, no gambling or any of those items. I do have a sizable mortgate, an oldish car that will cost more and more to keep going as it gets even older, a house in need of some repairs that will cost money not just labour. I'm in a relationship that benefits from time to time from the purchase of a bunch of flowers, a nice dinner out etc, not just cheap nights in.

R0bert

Paul1405,
Non military National Service would be a character building exercise foremost. Responsibility & consideration to fellow man. It could be started off with unemployed & once the benefits become obvious it could be made compulsory for people 19-21. It would be a transition into adulthood with a sense of belonging rather than the present, way too common directionless what do I do now situation. Cost wise it would end up the same as paying unemployment benefit plus it would create employment for those charged with running the show & associated supply/infrastructure would snowball.

Mark1959,
I suppose you meant fascist nevertheless I for one see such a service as an effective & perfectly moral way for young people to get direction by being with others & sharing views & experiences in an environment that doesn't promote the me, me mentality. It also would show young people that they don't have to work for the State against their will but rather learn, accept & appreciate that the State or rather other people don't owe them a living. Don't forget that it is because of so many me, me in our society that cause so many others to lose employment or can't find any from the start. The me, me's who fleece our social security funds & exploit the Public Service to such an extent that it is at collapse stage now.
There's absolutely nothing fascist about young people being exposed to how to effectively pull their own weight in return for a bloody good place to live in rather than sending it broke. I'm convinced that the party which proposes such a service would get the support of the majority of the voters. After all, most voters are pretty decent people.

Rhroshty

writes,

"I often note that some men, still try to exercise control after the separation or divorce. They often try to exercise that control by endlessly complaining about the costs they need to carry as child support."

Basically she regards men (fathers) as being of little more value than sperm donors and a source of income.

So is not a father still a parent after divorce or separation?

Or have they become redundant as human beings and are of little more value than what they contribute financially?

When it comes to pointing the finger, femininst hav no problems pointing out male violence, yet fail to recognise that often much more subtle covert behaviours of their own gender.

Plus they tend to offer 'excuses' for such behaviour that when perpetrated by a male gets classified as violence, but is not violence when the exact same behaviour is perpetrated by a female.

James, I'm not sure about Rhostys gender and regardless of that there are plenty of men supporting the hit the non-resident parents hard approach and plenty of women who see the injustice in it.

I had the impression that Rhostys views have been badly tainted by his or her own family situation (or the version of the situation that was imparted to Rhosty).

It is a double sided issue, plenty of people who are left holding all the financial responsibility for their family while the other takes no responsibility and I don't think child residency is any kind of predictor of which way that will go.

What's clear from all this is the danger in subjective interpretations of abuse, I'm in my view clearly being unreasonably deprived of the financial autonomy I had when my son was in my care yet for some it appears that I'm asking for it by virtue of currently being the non-resident parent. Any hardship I might endure I just deserve in their view.

R0bert

Recently in the newspapers there was another study that showed that women were worse off than men following divorce.

Now that is a no brainer, especially if she doesn't hook up with another walking wallet that earns more than the previous one did.

Reading the sensational newspaper headlines, one had to get to the body of the study that showed men also lost out as well.

But basically it boils down to the fact, that women can divorce men, but men can never divorce their wives, because she generally gets a lion share of the assests, control of the kids plus child support.

As the recent case in the news show that women can overtly break the law and never ever have to face the consequences of their actions.

Rhroshty wrote;

"I often note that some men, still try to exercise control after the separation or divorce."

I often wonder who really is the controller when one gender accuses the another of being a controller.

there is an offensive tactic used where one accuses another person of behaving or doing things, but the accuser is actually the person who is doing the things that they accuse others of.