Having recently met and talked with a Psychologist who had work in the family court for more than two decades.

The Family Courts were described as a hostile enviroment and that more than 90% of the abuse within the court system was perpetrated by the mothers.

Of course the Family Court is a secret court.

I challange those in power to conduct research which is unbiased, and does not use advocacy research techniques, to see who is really telling the truth.

Lift the veil of secrecy and open the courts to public scrutiny. Lets find out what are really internet myths and what is in fact reality.

Tom's Tale
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0922rolph.html

The Anatomy of Abuse
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0407rolph.html

Erin Pizzey in her discussion paper on violent women, labelled them as family terrorists and as terrorists they are hidden from view.

“Family Court orders require the mothers to hand their child into the care of a person that the child has told them has physically and or sexually abused the child.”

And family courts also give protection to malevolent women who manipulate the system to improve there financial circumstances, regardless of the emotional and developmental needs of their children.

JamesH “The Family Courts were described as a hostile enviroment and that more than 90% of the abuse within the court system was perpetrated by the mothers.”

I can well believe that James - good post!

Not all men are abusers, as many women are abusive as men, although the way women abuse it tends to be more psychological and less physical, where the bruises do not show, do not heal but remain buried under the surface and cripple over a lifetime.

In another post I have described the lies and manipulation my ex used.

What the leading comments of this article should say is

“Family Courts must protect children from abusive parents, of either gender.”

The family court and Dr Elspeth McInnes, if they have any pretense to represent the basic (let alone the best) interests of children, need to stop assuming all wrong is automatically sourced from the father.

As for the rest of Dr Elspeth McInnes article, the usual one-eyed and one-sided drivel we expect from the corp of feminist politico cadres

Why does Dr Elspeth McInnes shy away from including child neglect and psychological harm in her (implied) definition of child abuse?

To use a narrow definition of child abuse is to condemn the greater number of children up to the age of 18 to suffering in silence.

A skewed, narrow definition of child abuse further victimises the children concerned by effectively concealing their cases from sight, excluding them from resource allocation and help and ultimately convincing them that their cases are indeed hopeless.

What about focussing of the needs of the children and leave the feminist politics for another day?

Some 60 years ago the government of Germany listened to the cries of people looking for a scapegoat to promote their own agendas.

It brought about the rise of Nazism.

Today people bleat about the alledged crimes perpetrated against 'poor, downtrodden single mothers' by the 'mean, violent and nasty fathers.'

The true victims of family law are the children who are denied their fathers by a system that encourages lies and deceit for the financial benefit of these vindictive mothers making the allegations.

I would like Doc McInness to show some REAL statistics showing PROVEN abuse. I would also like to see how many allegations are made in the courts - with the amount of false allegation and the absurd '9 in 10' rule it would mean that an overwhelming number of men are abusing their children within Australian society.

One in three marriages end in divorce in Australia. Most are instigated by the mother. Most court proceedings include allegations of domestic violence. By simple laws of averages, your allegations say that most men then are abusers if you consider '9 in 10' have 'substance.' Did your father do this Doctor? Mine didn't.

Any proof you can provide Doctor - or is this another attempt to find a scapegoat to promote the agenda?

I don't care who is doing the abusing, it chills me to the bone to think that any child is being forced to see a parent who is harming them by our courts.
Instead of using child abuse as a vehicle to beat up on feminists (yet again), or on men, how about we all start worrying about the safety of children?
it seems the rights of kids always get lost in the intransigent positions of both sides, particularly those who feel they have personally suffered injustice at the hands of the courts and an ex partner.
I don't know if 90% of abusers are female, but one thing I do know, 100% of the abusers are adults, and it's be nice if the rest of us started acting like adults, rather than sullen schoolchildren - you know "my gender's nicer than your gender, nyah,nyah, nayh."

This may be an interesting read, “These Boots are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women” by Dr Brinig who says, "Children are the most important asset in a marriage and the partner who expects to get sole custody is by far the more likely to file for divorce." The question of custody absolutely swamps all the other variables – sadly, I know this from experience.

Interestingly enough, we’re following the way of many American States where new legislation, in shifting from sole custody - which usually went to the mother - towards joint custody involving shared parental responsibility and often more equal share of residence of children. These are the States which show substantial dips in the divorce rate. It is argued, joint custody provides a deterrent for divorce by constraining rights to relocate and requiring couples to continue to share parenting - hence denying opportunity for one parent to punish the other by removing the children. Seems fair enough.

To those who argue, “What about the women who are coerced into remaining within a violent relationship through a change in custody laws?" – statistics don’t bear this fear out. Brinig's research shows few women (6 per cent) name cruelty as their reason for leaving. Research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) shows women usually give other reasons for leaving their marriages - communication problems, lack of common interests, etc, with only 10 per cent citing violence.

Perhaps our legislated for “no-fault divorce” has been an over reaction? We've thrown everything out with the bath water. Basically, “no-fault divorce” seems to have merely exacerbated the problem. Ironically, Dr Mc.Innes wants to, in her own over reaction, legislate for a 'fault clause' - legislation of this type, sadly, will only add to the violence.