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!