If the reported remarks of Justice Bryant are correct, then it demonstrates even further how completely out of touch Australian Judges are with the realities of the lives of ordinary Australian people and that Australian Judges see themselves as some form of deity issuing edicts from above.

It also demonstrates the ignorance of Australian Judges of human rights issues and the rights of children as set out in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Australia was a signatory in 1991. Unlike in civilised countries which have also signed the Convention, Australian State and Federal governments have failed completely to embrace the rights of children and to embody those rights in legislation relating to and affecting children and in judicial decision-making. In particular Justice Bryant seems ignorant of the Right of children to have their views, wishes, and feelings made known in legal and administrative procedures and for those views,to be taken into account in any decision-making affecting their lives and welfare and their absolute right to be protected from abuse and exploitation. Virtually all legislation affecting children begin with the statement that the welfare of the child is paramount and this is strictly applied.

In Britain and most European countries, children are not seen merely as the property of the parents and their personal possessions but have the right in law to appoint and instruct their own legal counsel and to sue statutory bodies where their interests have been violated by those bodies. to be continued....

Continuation...........
Children are treated in law in those countries as separate entities and parties and it is a fundamental principle that their interests are not necessarily synonymous with the interests of either or both parents and that their best interests may be quite different, especially when parents are in dispute and are feuding.

Children have little opportunity in Australia to protest when their rights are violated and breached, especially by statutory bodies or their representatives.

However the most immediate problem in Family Courts is that Judges are badly informed by their `experts’, especially those appointed as Family Reporters. Such appointees are most usually psychologists or psychiatrists who have little if any, knowledge, skills, and experience in investigating child abuse. Furthermore they do not spend the requisite amount of time with children establishing their views and wishes and very often ignore them if they do ascertain them and merely submit what they as adults think is best for the child. This is arrogance and conceit of the worst kind and a gross violation of the child's rights.

In cases where child abuse becomes an issue, then Family Reporters should be drawn from independent members of the professions which are well-practiced in investigating child abuse and its recognition and identification. Until this is done then Justice Bryant and her `Judges’ will continue to make errors of jdugement which are leading to horrendous outcomes for more and more children whereby their bodies, minds, and rights are abused by those the Judges choose to give custody of and contact with.
Justice Bryant has in fact acknolwedged and accepted that Australia is one of the more backward nations in matters of children's rights and their protection from abuse and their right to be heard.

Robert stated in relation to the statement that there is no PAS: Possibly their is some meaning where that claim is true but in terms that most understand it - one parent deliberatly sabotaging the other parents relationship with a child it is very real.

People; there is no PAS but there is a lot of confusion over this. PAS was defined and promoted by a crackpot psychiatrist who self-published (ie no peer review or scientific scrutiny) and whose theories were first used in the USA. Then the crackpot (who wrote that he found it strange that society "overreacts" to paedophilia) was exposed by his peers and committed suicide. The syndrome he claimed to have discovered is NOT a psychiatric illness as he claimed therefore does not exist. Therefore many people were wrongly diagnosed with this mental illness (which does not exist) by "experts" who are now being discredited in turn. Rightfully so.

Parental alienation is something which exists and which occurs when one party denigrates the other in front of the child so that the child is affected. It is not gender specific ie mothers and fathers denigrate the other parent. It is NOT the same as PAS. Get this part right and you can help many children by discontinuing the cycle of spreading inflammatory misinformation around and letting parents get back to the main point; campaign to make the legal system work better for children.

Well stated Child Advocate.

PAS is a Parental Alienation SYNDROME, describing a mental illness that (typically) the custodial mother has...

Parental Alienation (without the 'Syndrome') is a behaviour - a behaviour that is a form of child abuse.

The debate about whether PAS exists or not is irrevelant. You don't need to say that the mother is mentally ill.

The fact is that brainwashing an innocent child and punishing them to make them lie and deny the love they hold for (typically) their father is child abuse.

Children SHOULD be protected from all forms of abuse, and Alienation is abuse. Forcing shared custody, or even removing custody from the alienating (brainwashing) parent is protecting the child.

This article opposes this and thus supports keeping the child with their abuser !

IF we addressed the issues that has led to hate, jealousy, abuse we would not see so many hurt children and adults. But of course we are to blinded to see that as a society that has demanded its individual rights we only have ourselves to blame. The court is put in a situation where some women lie habitually and some men abuse habitually. The judges have no answer and only do their best. This is more fruit of our secular society.

Ignoring for a moment runner's "more fruit of our secular society" jibe, I think he is onto something.

The majority of this thread has been aimed at the inability of the court system to cope with the rights and wrongs of family disputes over children. Much emphasis has been placed on the word "abuse" with some (to me) startling statistics thrown in.

I was frankly staggered to hear that there are "hundreds of thousands of reported child abuse cases" - presumably this is an annual figure - which must put a good deal of strain on an awful lot of people.

Especially the courts. Given the sheer amount of emotion that is contained in each and every case, and the impact of those emotions on what people say and do, it's a wonder that they get any decision "right".

Because for sure and certain, in cases like these, what is "right" for one party will be almost sure to be anything but "right" for the other.

Isn't it time for the courts to push back a little?

Tell these people that they are not there to play Solomon. That the individuals concerned should bear considerably more responsibility for reaching an equitable solution, instead of simply chucking it over the fence for "the law" to sort out.

It is quite interesting that amongst all the pain on display, and the vitriol it generates, no-one has proposed a single potential remedy.

Which suggests, perhaps, that it is the laws themselves that should be tightened up (whatever that might mean), so that the judges no longer need to do any more than assess the evidence, and enforce the law.