ChildAdvocate, I've not come across the trend you describe but can imagine it as the swing of the pendulum. The ability to weed out false allegations without hindering the ability to raise genuine issues is always a difficult problem, one for which I've not seen solutions which I consider effective.

As for medical practitioners being concerned about how evidence is dismissed my own experience with doctors letters used during family law procedings and the difficulty in getting any action taken over false claims leaves me with little faith in the independance of some doctors.

I'm hoping that this does nbot become a gender war. The inclusion of the statement about genderisation of DV in the article is an opening salvo in such a war but maybe by reminding ourselves that the issues apply to both genders we can stick to the topic.

R0bert

In furtherance of my previous comments, I would suggest that this discussion should address the following questions:

1. How can decision-making in Courts be improved where the care and contact arrangements with children are being considered in the case of embittered and warring parties?.

2. How can children be effectively engaged in the decision-making processes to better inform decisions regarding their `Best Interests’ and in accordance with their human rights.?

3. How can allegations by children that they have been abused prior to, and/or after the parental separation be thoroughly and competently investigated to ensure they are effectively protected and provided with a safe and secure enviroment?.

This issue is far too important to children everywhere to be left to the ruminations and selfish assertions of embittered and dogmatic gender warriors.

Children have always been seen as property and exploitable in many ways
Those with riches and power, “win” the assets, the property. In the Family Court the same dynamics apply. If a parent has no money to fight for their belief that the child would be better of with them, they ultimately lose.

The family court now extends the concept of children as property by ensuring that they are to be “shared” or be lost totally to one party altogether, failing miserably in its examination of the effect of ‘sharing’ between parents, one of whom is abusive. The division of inanimate property has no need to examine the benefit or otherwise to the property of ownership.

Society knows all too well that abusive parents exist. Violence against spouse and children is often carried out because the victims are not seen as having ‘rights’, they are inanimate objects to be used and abused, as one can trash their own property.
(continued in next post)

post continued:
Looking at recent events: Robert Farquharson was angry over the loss of property – his car He killed his children, as a redress for that loss. Gary Bell’s history was that he was very possessive of his children, his possessions, his ‘property’. He said he could not leave his children if he went to jail for a violent assault on his wife, over whom he also appears to have felt he had proprietal ‘rights’ to the extent that beat her on so many occasions. So, rather than let her have what was “his”, he destroyed them.

The solution is that children must not be treated as property. As that continues to be the norm, if not in word, but clearly in deed, they continue to have only the facade of protection and safety. Millions of dollars are spent investigating offences against inanimate property, while our most valuable possessions, our children have only a flimsy façade against abuse, neglect and despair.

Firstly one needs to see where 'common practice' is at...and where childadvocate, dott and others who 'beat the drums' of 'abusive parent' cause alarm bells everywhere...

take dv violence...yes genuine cases(in numbers few and far inbetween)...was point head of 'womens' movement to produce rash of 'studies' to eventually produce numbers like 1 in 2 'women' experience 'abuse'...causing draconian laws, 'superdv courts'...where all it needed was for a 'women' to make a phonecall to police...few minutes work...which caused the state to remove father from children, family home and excluded...Abstatistics then had to set up proper peer reviewed studies that removed subjective questionaire slant like 'did you ever feel threatened by a male...' to a more objective one to get to closer to real dv statistics and which from memory some 2% of population with male/female similar proportion...

now by statistics it was 'women' with people working in womens interest who acted to cause this at parliamentary level/laws...and now by numbers the sheer proportion of these dv cases became 'abusive' levels that lead to reversal of court approach to more traditional evidence establishing method...so yes few cases slip out with severe harm/death of innocents...but majority of involved parties protected...which good outcome...than in to remove 'all' risk great numbers of select population(males/fatherschildren) suffered unjustly...while select population(mothers) benefited greatly in the 'after' ie csa/familycourt/money/total control etc...

so you better wake up...accept the facts...which women in great numbers started abusing process for self-benefit...and this in not gender war...if men did same I would have written 'men'...so by 'act' society has lot to fear harm from 'organized womens movement' in the future...truly a awe inspiring brutal force...

so my point is this was the fact...now we are reversing back to a just system...and we must always keep in mind how system got imbalanced in the first place...

and this piece on 'abuse'(general term) quoting one-off cases to apply to all cases...alfully like past feminist driven abuses...so dont focus on 'women' aspect but logically follow how it got imbalanced and use it to set mechanisms prevent such 'perversion' to justice process in future...

hope you agree...

Sam

It seems to me that 'Sam' and the like is the reason this article was written. I cannot help but reply to your deliberate though somewhat incoherent provocations.

A summary of my 'recent' experience of FCA (over two years).

'Father' of our child never lived with me. Broke into my home and killed my pet when I was nine months pregnant.

He became involved with another woman before the birth of 'our' baby.

I learnt he had a history of drug use and stalking. Mimimum contact with his child at own choosing - 30 hours over two years. When I tried to move interstate he organised a Recovery Order.

This meant the Federal Police were mandated by FCA to locate and forcibly remove a two year old child from the childs mother (me). The police would then 'return' a two year old to a stranger and he could do whatever he liked to the child.

Later: Legal Aid says: do not bring up issues of safety we will not fund you.

Then FCA gave unsupervised time. First unsupervised time he hit two year old around the head - bruise on temple. I was advised by legals not to mention to court.

A few months later child clearly discloses ongoing sexual assualt by father to me. Again legals advise not to mention to court.

Father deliberatly works 'cash in hand', lies to Tax Dept. claims Centrelink benefits, pays $6 per week.

Lies shamelessly to Court and Judge.

I am basically homeless, Court is aware I am poor. FCA requires me to fund all contact - travel with child, three and a half hours interstate so father can spend time with him.

Solicitor tells me, court is 'full of men' like him.

Little children, like mine, have people like Sam to thank for the "reversal back to a just system".

Sam, Why do you have so much invested in attacking those who seek to speak up for children?