Mogs: I think a start could be made by embedding International Children's Rights in all child-related legislation at Federal and State level as many civilised countries have already done, rather than the token references to `Best interests of the child..." (a term much beloved by autocrats and dictators to justify their actions based on personal biases and prejudices) and `paramountcy of the child's welfare' which amounts to nothing in an adversarial system where winning is all. Courts should be required to show that their decisions are measurably and demonstrably to the benefit of children, rather than as at present, who can buy the best lawyers. In the Family Courts, children are merely hostages to the vagaries and vicissitudes of entrenched adult prejudice and advocacy skills.

ChazP, the rights of the child have paramountcy in Australian Family Law, not just the "primacy" required by International obligation. IOW, those rights are accorded more weight than the UN obligation requires. How would you propose that be strengthened and what is your solution to the undoubted problem of false abuse allegations? Is it your contention that every allegation of abuse should be treated as having actually occurred until proven otherwise? If so, do you support the reversal of the burden of proof in other matters as well, such as (say) murder or serious sexual assault cases? What about fraud? Is it enough for me to say "ChazP ripped me off, because s/he did" and leave you to prove otherwise?

The fact is that the burden of proof always must rest with the one making the allegation. If that person cannot back up their allegation, then their case fails. To suggest otherwise is to condone witch hunts in which innocents are convicted simply because they are accused and can find no positive proof they DIDN'T do it. To date, I've not seen any suggestions on how to fix the problem that Sunita claims exists, other than her suggestion that the Court should be stacked with people likely to accept abuse claims. Since the role of the Court is specifically to arbitrate in matters that are complex without bias, such a suggestion is hardly constructive. If her "experts" were confident of their expertise, they'd likewise have no fear of the Court, since they could back up their expertise with evidence. If they are shying away, it speaks more to their competence than the impartiality of the Court.

mog,

Your motives on this are becomeing clearer and clearer.
"the tired old strident women-haters"

You are illustrating beautifully the point I made near the start. All a woman need do is yell 'think of the children' and the fact they are really just lobbying for a bigger slice of the pie for themselves is somehow missed. 'Classic distraction technique' indeed.

Yet a man concerned about having no protection under the law against false accusations is somehow considered by you as a 'woman-hater'.

People like you are part of the problem.

Antiseptic – “the rights of the child have paramountcy in Australian Family Law etc." They do not. Nor are child-related laws designed to specifically include children’s rights. Children have been refused the right to give personal testimony to Courts. Children have been placed in residence with fathers with records of violent criminal conduct, drug and alcohol abuse, and mental health problems and Courts are therefore failing to uphold children’s rights to be protected from abuse. I suggest you examine some of the recent cases of child murder by their fathers and the Court decisions to award those fathers custody of those children.

“How would you propose that be strengthened" etc. No but neither do I accept that allegations by children, that they are being abused by their fathers on contact occasions, are necessarily `false’, only unproven. Anyone with experience in child protection work knows it is rare for children to make false allegations and on the extremely rare occasions when they are coerced into doing so, this can be uncovered as they cannot maintain consistency in their testimonies.

The major part of this problem in failing to prove children’s allegations of abuse is that many Family Reporters/ Psychiatrists/ and Psychologists giving expert testimony to Courts when it is outside of their area of expertise.

“The fact is that the burden of proof always must rest with the one making the allegation”. I do not dispute that statement – however there is a great deal needs to be done in the way that Courts examine that proof, Excluding children from giving direct evidence, engaging professionals who are operating outside of their areas of competence and expertise, lawyers who can engage `Hired Gun’ Experts to argue their case, other lawyers who are too lazy or incompetent to present a reasonable case etc etc. Failures of DoCS to throughly and competently investigate children’s allegations of abuse. Gender-based bias in the Judiciary. These are but a few of the difficulties faced by children in having their allegations meet the standards of proof required by Courts.

On cue I have now had a full chorus of response from the 'what about me' boys brigade, each with some personal abuse. Shucks. I'd feel special if you didn't do it to all the girls. (For the record I adore my male partner, my father, my son, my brother, my grandfathers and my male friends.) But, leaving aside the play of taunting those who identify themselves as falsely accused abusers -

Back to the issue of children in the family law system - all along the call has been for a proper investigatory capacity in family law decision-making which 1. implements safety from violence and abuse as the primary value where violence or abuse is raised and is informed by the science around children's wellbeing and development 2.brings together the information on parents and children held by state police, corrections, child protection, education, health when there are allegations of violence or abuse and, based on the evidence 3. makes decisions which protect and support the safety of adults and children.
None of these things happens at present. That's the problem. If an airline ran its approach to passenger safety the way children's safety is handled in the family law system the carnage would be visible not shielded by secrecy provisions and professional privilege.

mog,

"from the 'what about me' boys brigade. "

For a start, I comment as an interested bystander. I have never been divorced or been accused of abuse. You however, cant see the forest for the trees. Why do you feel the need to alienate people who just want a proper investigation into abuse? I would have thought that was something you would agree with. But instead you decide to somehow simultaneously attack these posters and claim you are being abused.

' leaving aside the play of taunting those who identify themselves as falsely accused abusers -
'
Why didn't you do that in the first place? Why do you feel the need to play and taunt people? And then claim you are being abused?

It seems to me what you really want is for any allegation of abuse to just be believed, and anyone who doesn't like this idea is selfish ('what about me brigade'). You think nobody EVER falsely acuses anyone of abuse, and anyone who thinks this happens is in lala land, or a 'tired old strident women-hater'.

I think it's pretty obvious who the hater is on this forum. You're the one in Lala land.