Reason

Thank you for your compliments - not really that deserving I just call it the way I see it.

I too despair at untangling the convoluted logic used by detractors. No matter what I say, no matter how rmuch I try to be fair - they can't just disagree (which is perfectly acceptable) instead they have to twist my words, ignore many points I have made or even claim things I have never even posted! All because, on this particular thread, they really don't like women - when I talk about equal representation, they really become irrational. Not a nation on earth can truly claim to be a democracy while the balance of power is held overwhelmingly by men. Statements like this are taken as anti-male. Which is absurd. Apart from R0bert I have not been able to have any reasonable discussion on the problems within Family Law.

Reason

I am also sad to note that your posts are less frequent - you are one of the few who give me the inspiration to keep going. Keep these bastards honest - don't let them get away with their twisted views and mantra of hate and exclusion.

Liz

I understand how you feel. On a much earlier post to this thread I wrote that even with all the changes to family law today I would still have just walked away from everything rather than try to prove my ex husband's abuse. I had no children and felt that the best way to escape was to cut my losses and run. On the other side of the equation, my brother-in-law who is a superb father to my niece and nephew is completely estranged from his daughter from his first marriage. There are always two sides - clearly our present system is not helping honest men and women. As with much in our modern world it favours those who can manipulate the system.

Regards to all.

Scout, hi I'm back from an excellent holiday. The last paragraph of your most recent post sums up a key problem with the implementation of family law - it seems to work against parents who try and do the right thing. I support what you have said about your own approach to this issue - whilst we do disagree on some issues you don't come at it with a hard line approach but seek a realistic and balanced understanding. That in itself has been a help to me on a number of issues and I thank you for it.

From the anecdotal evidence that I have seen I can't agree with Liz's perceptions about claims of DV working against mothers - thankfully my ex has not tried that one so I don't have first hand experience.

Her tactic was to make a big issue of differing approaches to discipline to get my son offside at a crucial time - have him feel really hard done by for things that are a part of responsible parenting and to tell him that the ongoing court case was responsible for him missing out on some stuff that had nothing to do with the case at all.

As I understand it claims of DV may not carry a lot of direct weight but the short term management strategies can be very effective to shift the balance in family law issues.

There are tactical advantages to the strategic use of false claims of DV
- it can get the other party so upset that they give the wrong demeanor when dealing with officials and in court.
- it can isolate the other party from family, finances, home, recreational interests, necessary records etc at a time when they most need access to all that stuff.
- it can develop a pattern of parenting which the courts may be reluctant to change.
- if managed correctly it can be used to get kids scared of the other parent. Useful in the lead up to family reports etc.

Cheers
R0bert

OK, so now that we all agree family needs complete reform instead of a mere insertion of “reasonable” ahead of fear of violence,why don’t we start removing some of the violence against men?

How about starting with mandatory paternity testing as part of each birth registration. Out of those currently tested, nearly a third of children are found to be biologically unrelated to the “father”. This type of violence is clearly perpetrated against children and men. Why does everyone support it? Why do good women not stand up to rally against this and many other Family Law supported injustices. These help neither men nor women in the longer term

seeker, agreed. Some good women do stand up and fight against these injustices - Sue Price of MRA really stands out in this regard. I suspect that for most of the community it is a case of "if you are not in the firing line the issue is just one of many". It's not one I had paid much attention to until I found it hanging over my head.

Add to that the difficulties in getting to the truth amongst all the spin that is put on these issues. The child protection issue is fairly clear cut after even the most basic look at the published stats on who harms children but spousal DV is much harder to get to the truth - there is a lot of conflicting research out there and mostly the agenda's of the people conducting the research are not clearly defined. I've spelt out previously the views I hold on this issue but can understand why many hold a different view.

I'd also like to see less confrontational ways of determining paternity (manditory prior to any child support assessment being issued?) but the "one in three" figure should carry the rider that most of those being tested at the moment are situations where there is a known doubt about the paternity of the child. Few people will risk the expense and potential consequences (how do you explain it to your kids?) unless they have serious doubts about the paternity of the child.

We need to change the cultural attitudes which say various forms of violence against others are OK. Fraud being just one of them.

As Scout put it earlier “Domestic Violence, AUSTRALIA SAYS NO".

R0bert

R0bert,

We clearly need more good women like Sue Price. Paternity testing is relatively simple and cheap yet breaks the cycle of abuse before it begins.

This would be so easy to implement. It would be a significant step in the right direction that not only suits current culture and technology, but represents a huge leap for men’s reproductive rights (even if it only scratches the surface). It is as much about male violence against other men and women as it is against women destined to build unstable families headed for divorce. Why not nip it in the bud? Who are we protecting and whom are we harming? Is a society based on lies and deception at its basest building block, a healthy one?

Yes, I know the “one in three” is a distorted statistic, but it is so, only because we are reluctant to routinely test. So if we end up with 1 in 6, 1 in 12, or even 1 in 24 or higher – doesn’t it sound worthwhile? Why are we not doing it? What have good women to lose? Aren’t some of them mothers of sons?

In Seeker's world - everything is the fault of women - violence, paternity, John Howard's mother.

On paternity - the stat arose from inquiries into paternity queries - it does not apply to all families, out of those who had their paternity checked this revealed one third where the father was not the biological father, this amounts to about 1% of the population. An interesting article about this can be found at:


http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/articles/0506cannold.html

"Paternal instinct
Who’s the real father? Men’s rights, women’s quandaries and the truth about misattributed biological paternity"
.
.
.
.
What about all the children fathered by men who simply like to fool around?
.
.
.
.
Fact is Seeker, men are not perfect paragons of virtue - if you are going to diss women then at least keep it equal and acknowledge men's poor behaviour as well.

Not that I think you are bitter or anything but....