Juries would be inappropriate

They are, after all, made up of the general public. And that is not an informed opinion. It's bigoted people whose ideologue are based on urban myth. And that urban myth is channelled by the dominant publication of the time.

For a place like Brisbane, you're looking at the Courier-Mail. That publication is aimed at the lowest common denominator. Not the most analytical bunch.

People read that publication and think they're informed. It's a joke.

Crumpethead,
Your thoughts that there should be a jury in Family Law is probably quite constitutional.

I’m not an expert in constitutional law, but I once read an account by someone who was, and apparently the present Family Law system has never been constitutional since the time it was formed.

It was thrown together by the Hawk government in collaboration with Lionel Murphy (who ironically was latter charged with perjury), under the belief that women were being oppressed by marriage. That belief has since been debunked, and in fact mental illness rates in unmarried or single women are currently twice the rates of married women.

As well, “no child will be left in poverty” has proven a dismal failure, as the average child abducted from their father is normally placed straight into poverty. So there are more children living in poverty than ever before.

As for Sri, she became empowered. She got Frank’s money, and did not have to work for it.

As for Frank, he became depowered. He had to work, and then give his money to Sri.

But I’ve noticed that empowering men as well as women is rarely mentioned by feminists.

What I find interesting is how some choose to fill in the blanks of Frank's story to suit their preconceptions and justify the example given of how unbalanced the laws are.

aqvarivs, I see things just a little differently:

The wife has done, in an evolutionary, or self-centred way, nothing wrong: she has provided for her child and her own welfare, probably even assuring her grand-children's and great grand-children's welfare.

She has found a way to become financially secure, at someone else's expense, but isn't that what we do all the time? We buy the cheapest goods available, suitable for the purpose, without giving a tinker's about the wage paid to the person who made it, or the resources required for our comfort. (To use an extreme example, each late 19th century bicycle tyre cost one African life for the rubber, but did this stop westerners from riding bicycles?).

Many of us drive cars that have capacities beyond our needs, we live in homes that would have been considered to be palaces in comparison with those our grandparents grew up in.

This is the way of the world. There is only so much cake, and how it is cut defines our world view.

The wife has seen a way to advantage herself, and her genes, by deception, manipulation and outright fraud. She has used the tools available to her, which include, apart from her body (anyone else here think of prostitution?) the law and society's attitudes towards DV.

In this free market, liberal capitalist world she has done nothing wrong. In fact she has done extremely well. The law is but a tool, a means to an end.

Our society has become its own Hobbesian nightmare, where life is mean, brutal and often short. The difference is that we have few of the underpinnings of a real society: instead the individual is king or queen: who gives a damn about anyone else? If you do, then you are essentially stupid.

Men are here to be exploited by women: simple as that.

HRS re your statement;

“I’m not an expert in constitutional law, but I once read an account by someone who was, and apparently the present Family Law system has never been constitutional since the time it was formed.”
As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I can state that there are constitutional rights and wrongs with Family Law.
The Family Court of Western Australia is the only constitutional valid Family Court. All Magistrates Courts invested with federal jurisdiction also can validly deal with family law matters, as the framers of the constitution made clear that the Commonwealth could legislate but could not enforce its own legislation as it had to be State Courts doing so.
Also, that the Commonwealth could not interfere with State judicial processes. As such any legislation in the Family Law act dictating State Courts how to conduct proceedings would be unconstitutional, as such ULTRA VIRES.

But getting back to Frank’s issue, it is not relevant if the specific details relate to Frank or whomever, the fact is that Interventions orders are grossly misused. Even people using them to prevent a landlord to collect rent!

While undoubtly most people suffering from injustice in Family Court proceedings are males, there are also male ratbags who abuse the processes. For example, a woman in Geelong had an operation in hospital and a stay of about 2-weeks to recover and when she came out the husband had changed the locks and had an ex-parte Court order that he had interim custody. He had simply filed proceedings but his wife knew of nothing and the case listed as to coincide with the time the wife was in hospital so it could proceed ex-parte. By the time the woman finally had a hearing it was about a year later and by then the Court held the husband had been the carer for the children for the past year and it was against their interest to change it now. Yes, while perhaps not often as with men, there are also women who are denied justice!
I deplore anyone to abuse the legal processes, regardless of their gender!

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

Thank you for the account you gave regarding a woman who was a victim of the DV system (and your previous harrowing account of your own experience). I myself believe the DV system needs reform and this opinion was mainly formed by experiences I have witnessed with the marital separations of two female friends during the last three years.

Both these women left their husbands, due to prolonged violence in their marriages (some of which I directly witnessed). Because both husbands had a DVO history from previous marriages (as defendents), they knew how to work the system. Both husbands took out DVOs immediately on separation, despite the fact that they themselves were overwhelmingly the violent party.

When the first DVO incident happened, I thought it must have been an isolated case. Then when the second DVO incident occurred with the other friend, I started making enquiries about how frequently this is happening. I have since learned from a local Women’s Support Group that this phenomenon – of violent men taking out DVOs against the very wives they have abused – is increasing at an alarming rate.

Of course, all husbands cannot be judged by the behaviour of these two men. However, I think it’s important that, not only should the DVO system be reformed, these reforms must be driven by compassion and fairness (particularly taking in account the issues of shared property and children) – not the kind of vindictive gender bigotry that has crawled out of the sewers and onto this particular forum.