Dr McInnes is obviously an educated woman which surprises me with her obvious bias to fathers and men in general.

To state that "Furthermore, many men who have agreed to see their children for contact choose not to keep their agreements. Some have new partners and families; some have moved to new jobs; some suffer from illness or have substance abuse issues. Their lack of contact with their children is their choice and their responsibility. The choice of fathers to not see their children is hardly ever recognised; instead mothers are vilified as “the problem”. is obviously misinformed or is drawing on misrepresented figures provide by like minded feminist's. The fact the Resident parents in the main deny the court ordered access or change the access to suit themselves is what has all these fathers groups up in arms.

The legal aid system has a policy of only representing one party in a case of law and the system does NOT allow for The Non Residential Parent to access low cost legal representation is what keeps these parents from seeing their children in addition to the high costs of Child Support.

When a man has moved on from having his home life,children and assets stripped from him usually leaving him with less than a third of his assets he is legaly stripped of anything from 18 - 36% of his pretax income to pay for the children he is not allowed to see or contact. Not only is he left on the verge of destitution he is depressed and angry that the system continues to strip him of any further chance of improving himself or his lifestyle. Should he remarry he is unable to claim his new spouse as a dependant for Child Support reasons until or unless they should have a child or children. Second marriages are put under considerable financial strain as many of the new wifes are forced to continue working to maintain a lifestyle for the single mother sitting on her behind as it is in her best interests to not seek further education or employment as eventually her income will rise above the $35000.00 limit Child support has set as a reasonable amount for her to earn before reducing the Fathers side of things.

The inference that all men are violent, that the majority of the marriages end for that reason and that children are going to be put at risk has been disproven in so many counties and that the national figures for violence against women are based on surveys from the 80's and 90's are so old and out of date it is laughable especially when it is given that the newest survey to be carried out will not even recognise that violence in the home can be carried out by women in more cases than men.

Yes I agree that any party who uses violence should be investigated and denied unsupervised contact with their children but even the mothers who do abuse their children are not having the children removed they are put under the supervision of Social Workers and Counselled. These poor children are not placed with their fathers for their own safety.

You cannot decry Men are Violent all the time Most men are not just as most women are not we all have our moments.

A survey done prior to the election had over 70% of the australian population saying that all Children should have a 50/50 relationship with their parents nothing further was done as the Government buries it's head in the sand for fear of upsetting the womens movement I am a woman I am a mother and I say it is time for people like Elspeth McInnes to listen to all of us. Not just her one sided group.

I just love the way that Dr McInness uses language to promote the cause of single mothers denying access to non-custodial fathers. Let's just take a look at one paragraph in particular.

"Furthermore, many men who have agreed to see their children for contact choose not to keep their agreements. Some have new partners and families; some have moved to new jobs; some suffer from illness or have substance abuse issues."

So, just how many men have agreed to see their children, but choose not to keep their agreements?

What percentage do they represent, and what percentages make up the groups that she has chosen to highlight?

I suspect that their is no readily accessible and verifiable figure that she'd actually be able to quote, and is instead relying largely on hear-say, rumour and anecdotal evidence supplied to her through The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children, the body that she convenes.

Her heavily biased article deserves recognition only for historical reference, so that when we finally do reach a more enlightened position, today's fathers that have had to battle to gain access to their children, can recieve the recognition for the devotion that they had for their children, and the pervasive attitude that they had to overcome to secure their child's right to have access to both parents.