Cotter,

' Usual suspect, why do you instruct ChazP to outline what he has already said. So you can negatively attack again? '

No. It's because I am confused as to what comments here have led Chaz to believe 'their position is that males must dominate and that male rights to possess women and the children of their union are their sole concern'

As for 'Dominant. Bossy. Always right. Verbal abuse.'

Dominant? I see a much less dominant tone in my posts than yours.

Bossy? I asked and said please!

Always right? Hey I'm just expressing an opinion on an opinion forum.

Verbal abuse? Come again! Where.

Robert.

'Have I missed a whole bunch of posts or something. It seems to me that most of the bullying, name calling and character assanation has not come from "the male contributors to this discussion".
'
No you haven't. And the silence about it all from cotter now is deafening.

It seems if you don't like what someone says, you can put words in their mouth and tell them they are into dominating women. Then when they refute the words you put in thier mouth, and ask for some clarification/justification, you call them ignorant and accuse them of intending to attack someone.

Then once called up on all this crap, just ignore it, and say you're above them and their silly fighting and attempting to distract and sabotage the discussion.

Nice work ChazP and Cotter!!

Barfenzie - you wrote, "Children need to be treated as equals in the family and their wishes respected and acted upon. When they say they want out or want to be with a particular parent those wishes need acting on.".
This is the kernel of the current problems in Courts where custody and contact are in dispute. Their voices are not being heard and their rights to be heard are being abused by Court officials and the Courts. Nor are their disclosures of abuse being seriously considered and acted on. Hence dangerous parents are being given custody or contact with children and in consequence children are suffering more harm and even death.
Usual Suspect - if you consider this discussion is `All this crap' and you are unable to make a considered and constructive contribution (which has been notably absent in any of your contributions so far), then there is a simple remedy, don't participate.

Chaz,

' if you consider this discussion is `All this crap' '
No, I consider your stupid games as 'All this crap'.

'and you are unable to make a considered and constructive contribution '

What, like...

'males must dominate and that male rights to possess women and the children of their union are their sole concern'

Get over yourself please.

Usual Suspect, I agree with the points in your earlier post but think the pouint has been made. If I've got it wrong those who disagree are free to detail my omissions.

The idea that a childs wishes should be paramount is concerning. Wonderful if the courts had the skilled and independent resources available to be sure that the child has not been manipulated by the other parent. I don't have that level of confidence.

My view is that it would increase the use of PAS as well lead to contributing to spoiling and bribing kids. The parent who tried to be responsible, who used discipline and avoid spoiling the child might find that the child would rather have the new playstation, the ready access to junk food and a lack of consequences for actions. As they grow they may come to realise that those things were not in their best interests but few adults let alone childen do well in the short term with delayed gratification.

That would be a risk to both mums and dads, finding themselves in a bidding war with the other parent to maintain a meaningful role in their childs life at the same time undermining that role. Do we take kids away from functional and intact families because the child thinks they can get a better deal with a friends parents? Kids voices should be heard but tempered with the reality that they are not ready of making adult decisions or carrying adult responsibilities.

My preference would be to use the same mechanisms for protecting children regardless of the relationship status of the parents. If there is reason to remove a child from a parent it should apply to all children facing that issue. Child protection system do appear to be deeply flawed but that's not a reason to run a second even more flawed child protection process, rather we should focus on fixing child protection for all kids.

R0bert

Barfenzie said '
Children need to be treated as equals ..wishes respected and acted upon.. those wishes need acting on.'

R0bert says 'The idea that a childs wishes should be paramount is concerning'. Paramouncy isn't the issue. It might mean clarifying, communicating, resolving, - but not ignoring, or regarded as coerced. Don't rely on courts - they serve no one but those who make money from them. Surely there is a body of professionals who can focus on the children's concerns. I can't focus on children choosing to live with friends when many children are being damaged.

Family Report writers is another abuse - who gets a fair go there? Certainly not the children. Do you think they are going to disclose to this stranger, knowing that the other parent will read whatever they say?

PAS has been exposed as a fake sysndrome, fact sheets removed from FC site. Parental alienation does occur, by idiot people who dont care about the harm they do to the children.

ChazP informs us the child protection system is not properly named, it leaves vulnerable children at risk, especially when the risk is seen to be mitigated if the child is placed into the other parent's care. Not at risk = no investigation. Then Family Court orders access cos there is no investigation. Child possibly at risk? who cares? only the child and the protective parent.

When I referred to verbal abuse, I referred to the refusal to engage with the issue, the distractions and disimulation that clouds clear communication, a common verbal/non-verbal technique of the abuser. Rather than deal with the problem, the target becomes the words you use, (rather than trying to understand what the other is saying) one's ineptitude with words, and where the argument is lost using power over, in the avoidance, making someone reframe. It isn't just name calling. I guess a better term would be 'email disimulation or manipulation of content' - who knows?

What I said:
“I think a start could be made by promoting that the child's safety and protection from abuse and exploitation must be paramount in any legal proceedings and that the child's direct testimony to the Court is vitally important in this decision-making process,….”

What I was reported as saying :
“The idea that a childs wishes should be paramount is concerning.”

`If you can bear to hear the Truth you have spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,……… Rudyard Kipling.

Aaah well.