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