fide mae, probably off topic but relevant to some extent.

I do have some concern with to much finger pointing at parents (the parents of the two 14 year old suspects etc) while parents do no have rights before the law regarding their children.

It's not reasonable to hold someone accountable for something when their hands have been tied behind their backs in regard to managing the situation. Clearly plenty of parents not even trying to discipline their kids, others stuck in the middle of residency issues find that discipline is a tool used to turn kids against the other parent (gee daddy is way too harsh with you etc). Others have the heartbreak of the government paying kids to move out of home if the kid does not like discipline.

Time to give parents back the rights and responsibilities of raising their children and for the government to stop interfering except where clear avbuse or neglect is occuring.

R0bert

Robert.

as I said regarding experience as a filter: I don't have the experience as a parent to have the filter to see with.

but what you say makes sense, so long as you include the education of parents as to what is acceptable, what is likely to harm and hinder etc.

Your point about government interference is well taken, if not experienced (by me).

I still think that after your issues are resolved parents should still be held accountable. It seems unlikely that the parents of the two 14 year olds could not have seen the problems and at least tried to deal with it. If they had left home as a result of this dealing with, then clearly the parents could no longer be held accountable.

I no longer profess to be Christian, but the words of JC still ring true in that trauma filled misnomer, the arena called the Family Court of Australia.

"Suffer the little children..." Suffer also do the families of the vanquished, and for far too long. The only victors it seems, were the legal profession.

I have been a Sole Parent for 13 yrs now. No contact during that time in any shape or form from the missing parent, other than a letter (Death Threat) in 2000 after someone in CSA/Centrelink 'stuffed up'. CSA is long overdue for a Royal Commission and a major overhaul. It is with no small degree of trepidation I see the FCA going through the motions of a reshuffle.

What will they actually do other than move deck chairs on the 'Titanic'? The relevant legislation FLA, CSA etc needs to be repealed and more caring humanist models put in their places.

I would have given my right arm for 'shared parenting' just to let my children know the other parent is flesh and blood and not a memory.

So prescriptive is the legislation (now & then) it beggars belief!

We missed the most important thing - FAMILY. It is always the breakdown to the "...best interests of the Child(ren)...", but we have negated the FAMILY in all of it so far. Individualist not pluralist.

I fail to see what benefits these new centres will bring, until the legislation adresses the family alone.

The current Family Court system is a national scandal. I want to know why I can't see my three children?
A pox on all the vultures who feed off the system.

Without a presumption of shared parenting these changes to Family Law may go the way of similar 'recommendations' made in 1995/6 - the divorce industry manoeuvred around these and kids continue to suffer enforced 'parentdectomy'.

Access to both loving parents is essentially in the best interest of the child. If the Family Court interprets "best interest" to mean "father removal", then it does not serve the children.

I have Family Court approved shared custody (residency) of my son - it works fine and he is thriving on both parent's love.

Conflict between parents ought not impede a shared parenting arrangement. Most divorce involves conflict, and the adversarial legal system generates more. After our divorce settlement, there was a great deal of conflict and no communication - yet shared parenting allowed wounds to heal over time.

We put simple practices in place to ease the hand-over of our child. State education and support could easily encourage similar practices - perhaps through the new relationship centres. After a few years of shared parenting we are now able to talk with greater depth of cooperation.

If either of us had been denied access to our child I doubt that there would be anything but resent and anger. We now have a life time relationship mutually focused on 'the best interest of the child'. This would have been denied to parents and child if not for a shared parenting agreement.

My father doesn't have anything to do with me, but I miss having a father, and I must say, the presence of a father in a child's life is I think a crucial element in the mix.

However, the trend toward shared parenting as its called seems to be to give lots of leverage to fathers which are non-resident parents.

Time will tell how fair this situation is.