As an Attorney (not a lawyer) I used to assist people in their Family Court litigation and knew from personal experiences that it is stacked up against men. When my (then) wife attacked me while I was trying to leave with the light (with my daughter on my arm) and I reported the assault to the police, the laughed! Surely I could defend myself. I persisted in charges and she pleaded GUILTY, getting 6 months probation, no conviction recorded. Seems using a large knife at least provided for 6 months probation. I wonder what I would have gotten if I had used that conduct! Then, later, she pleaded GUILTY of assault upon the children. Even attacking a child in the police station. She got again 6 months probation without conviction recorded.
After I divorced her she got legal aid to sue for the property I had purchased. Moment, I had purchased a property after we split! Not a cent she had contributed in it. I had been involved in a car accident, after we split, and got a pay-out that I used to pay half of the cost of the property. So, being customary with legal proceedings I simply challenged the judge to show jurisdiction to have proceedings as the property was not matrimonial property. Her lawyers (paid-for-by-legal-aid) argued a lot but lost the case!
As for “Frank’s” story, regretfully I came across numerous of simular stories, even without any violence having occurred, but initially claimed as a weapon to get a Intervention Order. It was originated to have intervention orders to protect those abused, but they are in fact now used to the contrary as to being abused to get hold of property otherwise not being able to get. One bloke took me to court for seeking to enter the property he lived on his lawyers making clear the order was justified to keep me out. The magistrate dismissed the case when I explained that as the Attorney for the Owner I had given prior notification in writing to attend for a property inspection and that was it.

Frank is an adult.
Frank entered into this relationship knowing what he was getting himself into. ie he made an informed decision as an adult to get married. It was his choice. Noone forced him to do it.
Frank is a fool.
The system is not there to protect fools from themselves. This is not like purchasing a car where the manufacturer provides a warranty.
Frank hit his wife. The law is there to protect women from people like Frank who see women as some kind of chattel. This is the case whether Sri is a nice person or not.
A man who hits a woman is gutless.
End of story.

MLK,

the problem is extactly feminism!

http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm
"Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like.

"As some feminists say, it's counter-intuitive. We would not expect that to be true; and if things are not expected to be true, for some people they are not true."

Shal,

Noone forced Frank into marriage, however it is extremely doubtful his decision was fully informed.

This story demonstrates that regardless of how a woman treats a man, she comes out the winner.

It is doubtful that Sri behaviour would have been acceptable in her own country, but in this country she gets away with it.

I have read too many stories just like Franks. The courts, the police, the laws aid and abet these types of women.

OH! thats right women are not responsible for their behaviour!

The wife in this case is playing an interesting game, you could call it the black widow or the preying mantis strategy: that is, after mating the female kills and eats the male, as a source of protein and energy for their young.

This hypothetical woman has devoured her mate, she is acting in an evolutionary successful manner, so I do not see where the problem is, excepting of course that we as humans don't really approve of cannibalism, even symbolic cannibalism.

However this woman is walking a fine line, one which she has navigated her ex partner through very well: She has the house, a good proportion of his wealth, child support payments and a good chance of getting spousal support as well. This poor man may be up for something like $10,000 a year or more in spousal support for a good number of years.

Other woman have failed in this strategy: they have pushed too hard, or not chosen their victim quite as carefully: their victims have given up and killed themselves, resulting in less positive financial outcome for the exploiter. This is one reason for the recent trend towards trying to prevent male suicide, after all, in the words of our Prime Minister, we live in an economy, not a society. The death of a productive and profitable male means that the rest of the economy has to support the non-grieving widow.

I know that there are a large number of abusive men out their, and no violence by males or females can be justified.

But driving men to suicide, or 'slavery', is a version of violence that we as an 'economy' seem to accept. Or will we just accept the black-widow strategy as being a valid one?

Country Gal, the stuff I've seen does not go into reasons. I made the point because of the commonly expressed view that it's men who leave. In context with the claim about women sticking around for the sake of the family (which does often happen). In hindsight it may not have been as relevant as it seemed at the time.

To all posters sticking the boot into Frank. Frank made some silly decisions. Frank may have wanted a compliant asian wife but the story does not tell us that, that bit is speculation. Frank chose to use violence - according to the story once and of relatively low level. If the story is as told does that justify the governments involement in handing over his assets to another party who has not worked for those assets?

Would your sympathy be as lacking for a woman who made silly choices and suffered in some other way?

Does the penalty fit the crime?

HRS, paternalists who consider women less responsible for their choices are part of the problem as well. Those who somehow regard women as less able to make informed choices, less able to control emotional responses than men laid the groundwork for some of the silly application of the law which forms part of this problem. Your excessive hatred of feminism blinds you to part of the problem. Have you ever read Patricia Pearson's work on female violence? Not all feminists consider women to be unable to take responsiblity for their actions and choices.

R0bert

While feeling sympathy for Frank, I can't help but think how many opportunities he had to spot that trouble was brewing and bail out before being committed so far.

I somehow suspect that his brief courtship with Sri were spent getting his rocks off and what a good time he must have had. Why else would he know so little about this woman and still accept her suspected lies?

Even upon arrival in Australia, how could he not have spotted the problems prior to her permanent residency being established and definitely before having a child together. Again, the big head let the little head do the thinking.

As to the laws which allow this all to happen, you have to wonder why such unfair laws exist. My belief is that these cumbersome and unfair laws generate a lot of work for the legal profession so there is little motivation for the legal profession to change anything. Perhaps one answer could be for jurys to be used to decide family law matters. At least a bit of common sense might prevail.