Usual suspect please read a book called 'the batterer as parent' 2002 by l. bancroft and j. silverman published by sage. Your comments that conflict might cease once the couple separates illustrate that you are buying into the paradigm that violence and abuse occur because of the provoking behaviour of the target. Such a belief justifies abuse. The reality is that people who use abuse to get control over others in relationships continue and escalate those practices when their control is threatened - eg separation.
Yes most children's cases in the courts involve abuse allegations because 1. abuse causes separation 2.people can often reach and maintain agreements with non-abusing partners but cannot do so with people who use violence and so (futilely)seek court intervention and protection 3. abusers can use litigation abuse - eg repeated false allegations of breaches of contact orders to bring mothers to court.
Children need to be safe to grow and survive and abuse creates lifelong damage. Children who are abused often grow up to lives of mental illness, substance abuse, suicidality, poor relationships, impaired learning and earning, if they survive and aren't gassed in a car or drowned in a dam or chucked down a well. The system needs to take safety and survival seriously because currently it does not.

Well posted by all.

Having had quite a bit of exposure to the family Court as a supporting person, and during law studies, I can state that the Family Court is extremely poorly equipped to represent the children. I've yet to come across a situation where the needs of the children have actually overriden the bun fight between the parents. It NEVER happens.

As Mog pointed out. Any case that comes before the court, where the parents have not been able to come to some kind of workable arrangement between themselves re the chidren, would more likely than not entail some form of abuse by at least one of the parents, either towards the other adult, the children, or both.

It shows the ineffectiveness of the Family Court. It actually aids and abets, I like to think unknowingly, towards abuse of our children.

This is NOT a gender issue. Whoever comes up attacking with the best lawyer wins. It is as simple as that.

If anybody ever has to face the Family Court, quibling on the cost for your legal defense is the worst saving you'll ever make. My advice always is to find out who is the top in your area and make him/her yours before the other party does. You are extremely vulnerable if you believe to have right or the truth on your side and naively believe that that is all that is required.

Our court system is an adversarial system. Truth is not the issue, justice is. So you better make sure that you get the best chance at justice going your way.

Children are still seen as being 'owned' by another adult. Whoever comes up the best argument to claim ownership wins.

Because, unfortunately for the children, property and money is closely linked to them. Adults will fight ferociously for 'their' money/house/property. Children are also the 'best' weapon to get back at the other by a wronged spouse.

Firstly there will be people (male and female) who will tell the truth, secondly there will be people (male and female) who will LIE!

The difficulty will be sorting out who is telling the truth. Even lie detectors will give false positive/negatives.

There has been a noticeable world wide attempt to discredit PAS. However a piece of significant research into what is known as "maternal gate keeping" perhaps indicates that it is possible that PAS is a set of behaviours that bears more attention.

Mog wrote; "is that women lie about abuse, children lie about abuse on the coaching of their mothers and men's violence and abuse is either because he is being unbearably provoked by the wicked woman or he is grieving for the children she took"

There have been case histories where people who are now adults recant the stories that they told when they were children. The fact is that childrens stories can be influenced and distorted.

Protective mothers and fathers are having their children removed form their care when they express their concerns by the Family Court; the justice system is failing to protect children.

Convicted paedophiles are released into society "because they are too well known and will not get a fair trial" and given priority housing, assistance and police protection while their victims will suffer for the rest of their lives. The justice system has failed to protect children.

The woman across the road sends her children all through the neighbourhood begging for drugs, food, smokes, and money to pay her bills as well as beating them and not sending them to school. I cared for them, fed them and helped them, and when was away for the weekend they robbed my home. The police made application to the children's court to put the children into care; the application was rejected by the registrar as "the woman doesn't deliberately neglect the children; she doesn't know any better; they should stay with her and when her husband returns from jail and assists with their care, their family life will improve." The system failed to protect those children.

Regardless of your gender, the law in this land is failing to protect children. Barristers should not become judicial registrars, child welfare workers should.

This article is the wrong-way around.

Although PAS (Parental Alienation SYNDROME) is not yet recognised by the Psychological establishment, it doesn't take a brain-surgeon to realise that children can be BRAINWASHED by a custodial parent to hate their other parent. This is Parental Alienation and it happens all the time.

Forget the word "Syndrome". The mother doesn't have to have a "syndrome" for common sence to show that parental alienation is bad for kids.

Alienation is child abuse. These children suffer from horrendous trauma! An innocent kid who naturally loves Daddy, is punished or shamed by the alienating parent if they say that they love Daddy... Forced to lie, forced to betray the love they feel.

The problem is that many alienators really do believe the lies they tell their kids.

PROTECTIVE PARENT?
Statisitics show that the safest place for a child is with BOTH parents, even when they are seperated.

If a child is being neglected by an over-stressed single mother, or abused by 'mummies-new-boyfriend' the mother can sadly be blinded to see the abuse.

The only independent adult in the child's life is their father. The mere fact that there is another man in the picture acts as a deterent for any potential predatory abuser.

Look at the "boy in the suitcase" or any of the other horrific abuse cases... in nearly every one, the child lived with mum abd mummies-new-boyfriend'. (Not a loving step-parent, loving step-parents have my deepest respect)

If you want the statistics, children living with "Mummies-New-Boyfriend" have a risk of abuse, neglect and death that is 2,000% higher than kids who live with BOTH their Natural Parents.

We all know smoking causes cancer, well smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by only 25%.

Divorce is a 'winner-takes-all' game, that provides a financial incentive for sole custody. That's why selfish lawyers manipulate mothers into pushing hard for sole custody.

Sadly, sole-custody removes the protective effect of having TWO NATURAL parents.

So why does the divorce court Force kids into vulnerable single-parent homes in 97% of cases?

PartTimeParent@pobox.com
Citations available on request.

Yvonne, thanks that was very well put.

ChildAdvocate that is a distressing story. It must be difficult to see that happening and be able to do little about it. Not knowing any better is not sufficient excuse to abuse and neglect children. Too much is at stake.

James I suspect that PAS being discredited is a piece of semantics rather than a genuine proof that the behaviour described does not occur. I've seen it first hand both in my ex's tactics and in a former friends tactics against her ex so would have trouble believing that it does not exist.

mog, I'll watch out for the book. From my perspective the issue is more complex than just being about control. Sometimes isolation from the situation reduces the pressures which lead to abusive behaviours. Sometimes provoking behaviour does create the trigger that tips people over the edge, that does not excuse the abuse but I don't think all abuse is about trying to control another.

Sometimes it's about people not handling a particular situation or interaction well. Our partners can be the ones who best know our trigger points and we theirs. Day to day contact provides opportunity to hit those triggers which seperate lives may not. Shared finances, social calenders, responsibilities and lives create an entirely different dynamic to seperate lives.

Some post seperation abuse is the result of people trying to maintain control of others lives, I suspect a sizable proportion is a consequence of the difficulty created by our legal systems making it difficult for people to untangle their affairs from a former partner.

R0bert