If people of both sexes stopped acting like animals, and took responsibility for their own lives and those lives they created, there would be no need to have governments and courts sticking their noses into their miserable, self-indulgent existences.

In effect, nothing will change. When court orders for joint custody are ignored by both parties and not enforced by authorities given the charge of enforcing them. Propping up the stinking corpse of John Howard as the saviour of divorcing couples in conflict, is pathetic in light of actual workings of his supposed saving system of shared custody.
Examples of that working are thin on the ground around me!

Change is as good as a holiday, but this change is simply business as usual, nine to five.

The Woke are at it again !

I wonder how many of the people who can't manage their marriages and relationships will be celebrating Valentine's Day, and spending silly amounts of money on partners they won't be with this time next year.

Been there done that. Too many marriages break down for multiple reasons. When they do there's hardly any prospect of going back. What can be rescued must be.

And only by keeping courts and attack dog lawyers out of the frame. And by accepting the inevitable and getting an amicable agreement that keeps both parents in the loop and in their children's lives, and never ever blamed! As hard as that may be, it is the best outcome for the mums, dads and their kids.

Otherwise, Blokes should simply bugger of and out of all their family's lives indefinitely.

Conflict resolves nothing but reasoned debate, good manners and civility will. After all, common curtesy and civility costs nothing! Besides, friendship is also worth salvaging!
Alan B.

What can you do when a marriage breaks down?

My advice would be - stay fiends if possible and
don't blame each other. Settle amicably. And move
on. Fighting - and being greedy - only lawyers benefit.
Work it out together, if you can. And I believe you can -
for everyone's benefit.

More dishonest claptrap from the high priestess of the male victimhood movement.

For example, “They've done a brilliant job hushing up the key statistic which puts a lie to the claim that so many dads pose a risk to their children – namely that only 1.2% of women are physically assaulted by their male partner or ex-parent [sic – presumably an error] each year in Australia, according to the most recent 2016 Personal Safety survey. Physical violence is blessedly rare."

That many sound low, but if the statistics were purely random it would mean that more than 50% of women would experience partner violence at least once in their lifetime.

1-(1-0.012)^(85-18) = 55.4%, with average female life expectancy in Australia being 85 years].

Of course, the statistics aren’t random – most women never experience partner violence; and some, unfortunately, experience a lot. But one in six women in Australia women have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner. That is not “blessedly rare”.

https://www.missionaustralia.com.au/domestic-and-family-violence-statistics

The Government is right to ensure that, in custody disputes, the needs and welfare of the child take priority over the supposed rights of the parents. That does no mean going back to an era of winner-takers-all custody, as Geoff Sinclair’s comments in the linked AFR article make clear.

Well said Rhian.

Thank You.

RH Ian

“The Government is right to ensure that, in custody disputes, the needs and welfare of the child take priority over the supposed rights of the parents”.

You fall into the fundamental error of misunderstanding of human nature.

Think out your conclusion.

It is the primary role of the parents, collectively or separately, to determine the future of their own children. That is a fundamental human right which under the interfering hand of Government control, sidelines parental responsibility and fundamental rights of both parents to achieve this balance.

It is less than a disguised means to an end, claiming child welfare should usurp the fundamental rights of the parents to guide the future of the child.

If, as we do under the rule of no fault divorce, promote division by Government interference in domestic issues such as parental disputes, then all is lost regarding family values as a necessity to the welfare of the child or children.

Your attempt to extrapolate out of teased statistics as you did above, you wish the very worst outcomes for the child, then that is how you succeeded.

It appears to me, you are uneducated on this subject.

Dan

The statistics I used were to illustrate how Arndt yet again misrepresents data to underplay the issue of domestic violence.

As the AFR article Arndt links to makes clear, the presumption of ‘equal shared parental responsibility’ under current legislation is commonly misunderstood as giving parents a right to spend equal time with a child. That is not actually the case now, and the proposed changes make this fact clearer, and also simplify the process of resolving custody disputes.

I would agree that, in most circumstances, both parents should be involved in decisions affecting their children’s future, and children should have access to both of their parents. That is the case now, and will continue to be the case under the proposed changes. I would disagree that this is a parental “right”, but certainly accept it should be the norm and should be the model aimed for in custody disputes. The exceptions to that rule should be when it is not in the interests of the children – for example, if they are at risk of violence, or have special needs that cannot be met with equally shared parental access.

In most divorces, the parents work out mutually agreed arrangements for their children. It is only when they cannot agree that the courts get involved. It is sad, but it is unavoidable.

What Rhian says.
Alan B.

RH Ian ( and Alan B) , or maybe even RH rosty? We will never know.

The proposed laws are set to divide communities further along cultural fault lines, and have little regard for patriarchal households. In these, women are expected to play a subservient role to the male head of the family. Muslims for good example, are very inflexible on this point.

If this new approach is designed to overcome thousands of years of cultural imperative, then best of luck with that expectation. My observation among Muslim communities is, there will be no female complying to authorities about the use of submission techniques used against their women.
The whole community will close ranks to protect the patriarchy of the family unit.
That one is an observation I’ve made recently with the assault of a Muslim wife who was beaten to a pulp and hospitalised for many days.

The authorities could not break the silence of both the wife and the husband, which resulted in the police giving up on it. The official line was, she had a fall on the stairs.
You may wish that event to be an isolated one; you would be naive to believe it is.

You would be better advised to concentrate efforts on areas where women are seriously abused, such as Moldavia and Ukraine . A source of women to be fed into sexual slavery Globally, including the US, Canada the UK and Australia. These are genuine cases of oppression.
Agonising over family disputes in Australia as a highlight for the advance of the rainbow flag ideology, is counter productive to genuine need!

Dan

Are you implying I’m the same person as Alan B? Seriously?

Rhosty metamorphosised into Alan B some years ago, but I started posting on these forums before even you, or Alan B, or “Rhosty”. And I disagree with Alan almost as often as I disagree with you. For example:

https://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=22308

___

Yes, some ethnic minorities come from patriarchal cultures, where it can be hard to enforce Australian laws. And yes, there are countries in the world where women face appalling oppression. But that is irrelevant to the current discussion, which is about reform of Australia’s laws governing child custody in the event of divorce.

Rhian

I would hope so! Cheers if you are an original!

Many men are seeing relationships with women as problematic enough to avoid them. Hence the MGTOW movement. As accountants and economists fail to understand much activity isn't recorded- if men can do things that women can't they will eventually learn that it's counter productive at some point to ask for too much- but maybe they aren't smart enough to realize it.

Men and women have genetically, psychologically, and physically different roles in the community. While we think we are smarter than nature it doesn't mean we are- time will tell. If you think you know better- prove it- we don't have to believe you.

I haven't read Bettina Arndt's article as yet but she seems to have good points- thanks.

The custody problem and the who pays problem are difficult problems- but I can't see a system where the male doesn't get anything and the woman gets everything as working. The woman would tend to exploit the man.

It probably wouldn't work in the current context and I'm not sure that it ever worked this way but- the scenario where for example the woman gets the children if she wants them and the man doesn't have to provide child support seems like a scenario where everyone loses from the breakdown of the relationship- so there is a pressure to try to make things work. I'm sure it wouldn't work in all situations- but probably in most.

I suppose that if you are looking at going into a relationship with a person that has had a string of broken relationships it could mean a lot of heartache.

Others have pointed to failings in liberal democracy including work migration over more supportive parochial communities as the cause of massive increases in divorce and associated costs to society. These are a weight around the necks of everyone in society from living more prosperous lives.

Sadly in many cases the women have greater potential for violence to children due to greater opportunity but often children have less ability to make complaints than women- if it isn't reported it doesn't exist.

It's common for the mother to automatically get the kid/s
- When talking about what's in the best interest of the child;

I put forward the following question:
'Who initiated the breakup, - The father or the mother?'

My parents separated when I was about 4.
I was an only child (until my father later remarried)
And my mother had initiated the breakup and seperation.
My father was not violent in any way.

The relationship with my mother was immediately slightly strained.
If my father had've initiated the breakup, the relationship with my mother may have been different.

My mother may have said "You father has abandoned us"
- And we would've both had a feeling of loss in common in which to build a stronger bond.
Instead we never had that common sense of loss, as it had been my mother herself who initiated the breakup and seperation.

Now it was just a normal thing for the child in a separation to stay with the mother.
But I wonder whether (on the matter of a childs wellbeing) whether it might've been better if I automatically went with my father instead.

In which case my father and I would've had more in common in relation to the breakup;
- "You mother has abandoned us"

So whether or not is has much bearing on the discussion, I just thought I'd throw the idea out there.

- 'Who initiated the breakup?'

To Armchair Critic- It sounds like your mother's character wasn't what you would hope- and doesn't fulfill the archetype of the mother that others would like to portray. Excuse me if I'm off the mark. Sorry I haven't been around for a while.