justice-for-kids...bad name choice...anyway...there is so much wrong in what you wrote...first ask you a question...

what do you want...have child in your full control, full childsupport plus more, exclusion of father...

or life where you settle for less than 'all' and in return have a more sustainable, and happier life with meaningful relationships...

if want first...then 'sistas-gang' way to go...where primary goal of group is working together to achieve 'total' security by placing the mother in full control...of course they want their pound of flesh for it(tool)...a bit vague but think you know what I mean...

if want later...then need to become a 'person' in the sense you have a well developed sense of yourself, confident within your body space, and skills and knowledge not just with people, but seek out knowledge of the world, science, environment etc and have your own assessments on which you relate with other people when you share common space...

so a little test...know what to do to get a man to see you sexually?-guess so...do you know the end product of nuclear process and its problems, or parts of your brain that deals with your state and range of emotion so have better understanding of why you react the way you do, or importantance to achieve lasting peace in middle east...

if you dont know the answers confidently...then you live in a small world where you and your possessions only matter(including children and money)...and which so little to have a meaningful relationship with anyone let alone your children...or be able to find lasting compromises with the father to get to workable care of the children...

Yes, courts can order total control to one mother...that produced a self-sustaining destructive industry...a better way needed...and so can you aim to improve yourself first...you more likely assess situations with less fear or insecurity...but actual facts...which courts understand...then if there is really abuse happening or want to increase the money...then you more likely be able to achieve with you yourself being a big part of the solution...not 'him' bad...give me more...routine thats not going too far these days...

Sam

Sam, can I suggest a reread of JFK's post. Her attacks on you are in my view unfair but likewise your post seem's to ignore the points she makes. There are men out there such as she describes, I doubt that they are as numerous as some would like us to believe but they do exist.

It would be easy to suggest that women should not hook up with guys like that in the first place but then most of the men campaigning for a fair go all round have made a poor choice in partners at some point or we would not be so aware of the issues.

I do get very cynical about those who claim to be all about the kids welfare. Mostly their view of the childs needs seem to line up with their own wants with the option of trashing someone elses rights and needs. I don't believe that the government should treat one persons needs as being more important than anothers, if I as an individual choose to place someone elses needs above my own thats a legitimate choice I should be able to make, when the government does so it's tyrany.

R0bert

Currently children's rights and needs are not a primary consideration by Family Courts or their officials as the Family Law Act is concerned with parental rights and needs i.e. who will have custody/residency of the common property (the children), and who will have equal/shared time with the common property. This is how the Act is worded. To frame a law in this way and for this law to be interpreted and implemented in accordance with such a badly written Act, is a violation and breach of human rights of children. It is long overdue that Parliament took a completely fresh look at this legislation and brought into line with their international obligations and duties to children and end the sham commitment to children's rights as set out by the U.N. and the empty rhetoric about acting "in the child's best interests".

robert...look little deeper...

I have read her post...and almost every point raises most of the 'red flag' to court assessment...which raises issue of 'coaching' usually by 'sista-gang' and which now raises the 'dark-green-flag' to court...and court now has duty to consider/explore effect of this factor to presentation of case and getting to the truth...once you read large number of case laws you start seeing this repetitive pattern...

to the truth of what jfk says...its impossible without father responding to her post at the least...or reading whole court document...but essence of post is not seeking 'justice' but 'support'...as in believe my version and then see what this nasty court has done...highly self-focused approach...

and to fathers who do wrong...absolutely exist...and agree not in numbers women/csa make it out to be...but the past system so skewered to womens interest and enforced by government power...father slaves in separation to serve the mothers lifestyle with money while no child...that men acted to counter in different ways, which jfk elaborates...the small but worst presentation was fathers killing their children so they dont experience the destructive harm from the empowered mother to break the child and fatherchild relationship that was a certainty(I expect cases of mothers doing same if situation reversed)...I will give few court cases but I havnt recovered from reading this some years ago...still have nightmares...

when 'real' parentchild relationship, usually hidden within wall of the home...put in court in clear light...warts and all...which requires professional-assessment government body highly supervised against bias and all other 'perversions' that occurred in such similar past bodies like child-protection...without the vested interests of the parents intervening...court is better placed to decide how to improve the relationship with parent, and when it becomes certain parent refuses/incapable/oppressive_self_interest to achieving meaningful parentchild relationship...removed from relationship...which diminishes desperate acts...hope all that makes sense...

Sam
jfk biggest mistake was moving interstate with child without court permission...clear sign she held no value for fatherchild relationship...

Final words on this as do not want to get 'hooked' into pointless arguement.

Sam, (Sad Angry Man) your 'tactics'- discredit and devalue the message and messenger - by attacking credibilty, fragmenting what I say, abstracting and intellectualising and being dismissive and offensive are all techniques to 'shout me down' and 'silence' me...(or am I talking about the FCA?)

In doing so you attempt to minimise Patricia's message: children are sufferring through court enforced abuse.

Sam, you are reinforcing what she has said. 'Red Flags' are ignored and children are being hurt - badly...forever etc. The voices of the powerless are distorted to meet current agenda - let's deal with 'abuse' by pretending it is a wicked plot by mothers and children to 'control' men.

Don't say the words: 'bad man' or 'abuse' or 'victims' or we'll take your children off you.

These are good, effective tactics and have worked well since at least 1995 as evidenced by court judgments since then.

Any decent person (also 'fellow' or 'man') would stand up if children were being hurt and want to ask why?, how?, lets talk to the children etc...how can this be prevented?

Why has the Family Law Council 2002 raised this issue with the government and been ignored?

'People' like Joe Tucci, Patricia Merkim, Thea Brown and the like are heroes, they stand up for children and basically get spat on by some 'people' for their trouble. All strength to them.

My little child who is currently being deliberatly used as a 'thing' by a sad, angry, person with a Y chromosome, would like it if this 'meaningful' relationship could be stopped. With the huge amount of research and knowledge available, it would be better if abuse was prevented in the first place. Why hasn't it been?

Sam,you reduce yourself as a human being by refusing to acknowledge simple truth and only you know why you are driven to do so. As a society and community we have to ask why the FCA has also turned it's back on abused children and the truth.

JFK says the following "your 'tactics'- discredit and devalue the message and messenger - by attacking credibilty, fragmenting what I say, abstracting and intellectualising and being dismissive and offensive are all techniques to 'shout me down' and 'silence' me.."

Then says of Sam
- Sam, (Sad Angry Man)
- Sam,you reduce yourself as a human being

Simply Sam has a different experience of Family Law and child protection than JFK. That no more makes Sam a Sad Angry Man than it makes JFK a Judgemental Fem-nazi Kook or any other acronym that might be good for putting an opponent down. JFK uses the very tactics against Sam that she apparently dislikes, by her own words techniques to shout him down and silence him.

I've not had close contact with the family law system for a few years so things may have changed dramatically, it used to be that assumptions based on the "Y chromosome" were one of the most significant factor in child residency arrangements rather than actual ability as a parent, actual time spent caring for said child or ability to provide for that child. It used to be that an unsupported allegation against a father was enough to cause them major problems whereas a mother had little to fear from the worst parenting history.

Our kids need protection from abusive parents, we won't get that from those who think the issue is about the gender of the parent nor while we knowingly tollerate those who abuse protection mechanisms for personal benefit.

R0bert