JamesH, interesting link thanks.

Id's like parenting time before seperation, best interest of the children etc are useful tools to use when it suits but soon get hard to find when they don't suit.

If you swap the genders around it's hard to imagine the reverse being allowed to happen.

R0bert

Erin Pizzey wrote that what she was seeing is that universities instead of turning out social workers, universities were turning out political activists.

The author of this article is a post graduate student.

The author of 'Feminism is Passe' is a university lecturer.

In theory universities are suppose to broaden the mind and teach critical thinking skills. A few authors such as Daphne Patai, Christina Hoff-Sommers, are highly critical of the indocrination of students in today's feminized higher education centres.

One of the extraordinary things to me is the assumption that it should be judges who should be deciding the fates of children, fathers and mothers.

Just think who judges are? They are career lawyers with old school wasp connections. They'd probably barely recognize their own kids if they came across them in the street. When these career-liars were home they probably started and ended their fathering by doing little more than beating whichever of their kids their wives told them they had to punish. That is, of course, if the kids were there - most of the year they would be away at boarding school from the youngest legal age one can send ones children away from home. And these guys almost certainly got the same treatment themselves when they were kids - who are they to judge good fatherhood? Most of them probably wouldn’t know a good father if they fell across one.

I propose a change to Family Law wherein the best psychological welfare of the children is determined by a 3 member panel of child psychologists. The financial issues are resolved under the principal of ‘each party enjoyed equal wealth during the relationship – each party should enjoy equal wealth after the relationship’. Such an equity could be easily determined by any competent accountant. The judge would and should handle all matters of law. The final orders should form a legal entity which is the judge’s synthesis of all of these factors.

Rob513264

I think it's a little more complicated than that. A lot of those judges would've been 'educated' during the 60s when feminists ideology began to infest the system. Some of the ideology would've surely rubbed off on them and influences their decisions today.

As for the laywers, theres a huge financial incentive to help break up families. They're scum.

Take a look at this link,it's disgusting.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2337682,00.html

In 1848 Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. In it he identified the traditional family as being of the bourgeois class, the oppressors, and declared that traditional family was to be abolished. This, was hoped, would destroy traditional patriarchal inheritance and privilege.

In the 1960s Labor/Labour parties aligned strongly with Marxism and formed ideological bonds with communist educational institutions. During this time too, women became "liberated" from biological slavery through the invention and introduction of the contraceptive pill - second wave feminism was born in educational institutions and declared that men/husbands/fathers were an oppressor class and traditional marriage was oppressive to women. Gullible women by the millions believed it.

In 1972, Labor, Gough Whitlam, was elected. In 1975, Labor introduced the Family Law Act and "no fault divorce" to streamline and expedite divorces - in the best interests of the child, of course. Soon after that, Family Courts were established.

In the '80s and '90s feminists denigrated and maligned men/husbands/fathers telling women they were oppressed. Women's refuges were created and run by feminists. Structures were established, Legal Aid, single mother's benefits, child care centers, etc, to permit divorcing women easy access to social services. The state took on the role of the husband/father. Child Support was created, this would stop the man from having further family by keeping him broke.

Put the pieces together. This is a no-brainer. Family Courts were established to abolish traditional marriage. Legal, media and research organisations were created to spin the message. Courts systematically removed the man from the family, destroying patriarchal inheritance and biological lineage. Removing the man from his family and keeping him broke would prevent him from starting another family.

Bingo - about a half of all marriages have ended in divorce, bourgeois privilege destroyed, patriarchy smashed - EQUALITY! Marxist success.

This is not a conspiracy theory. Destruction of the traditional family is an overtly and openly stated objective of Marxism and is practised throughout the world by left leaning governments everywhere.

Having seen family law court papers in where they mother had abducted the children to Switzerland.

It is no wonder that family court wants to keep it's findings secret!