SUNITA, are you rejecting just the S in PAS or the whole thing?
Do you deny that some parents manipulate children to harm the relationship between the child and the other parent either deliberately as a strategy or by failure to reign in expressions of their own views around the children?

If it's just dropping the "S" then the focus on PAS being discredited seems like an issue of semantics, the impact on children and the other parent is not lessened by the syndrome aspect. If you are saying parents don't do that stuff then I strongly disagree. I've been on the recieving end of it and also seen a former good friend use it force a change in residency to facilitate a tree change she wanted to make. I've also known women who have struggled with the issues that flow from "good time dads".

I back Antiseptic views on Elspeth McInnes except that Antiseptic was being to kind in his comments. She has been one of the more vocal advocates of using "childrens interests" for womens benefits for years. There has been a significant abuse of gender issues in the practice of family law for a long time, it's not necessarily 'trying to make this a "mens" and "womens" issue"' to address that and to bring into the debate the problems with the status quo.

R0bert

SUNITA:"Its regrettable and revealing that certain parties keep trying to make this a "mens" and "womens" issue, instead of focussing on our Children and the research on CSA and CA"

I did you the courtesy of reading and discussing your references and this is the best you can respond with? Can I then assume that you have no disagreement with my comments? If so, why did you bother referring to those items in the first place?

I realise you've been on the FCA merry-go-round for a long time without what you would view as success and I also realise what a debilitating process that can be for all parties. You have my sympathy for that, but your continued failure to make your case doesn't mean the Court is flawed, but indicates to me that there is a realistic expectation that evidence-based claims must be presented. I applaud the Court for applying Occam's Razor to claims of abuse and taking steps to discourage the willy-nilly use of such claims in the absence of genuine evidence of occurrence.

The Family Court is one part of the Family Law system, which is a part of the divorce industry, which has grown to be a very big industry, and is basically focused on money.

Whoever gets the children also gets most of the assets, so there is a grab for the children. Claims of abuse can often be a part of the grab for the children.

It is interesting that most child protection agencies have a different set of criteria for what constitutes child abuse than the Family Law court.

Of course gender is a part of the Family Law court’s decisions. The Family Court is the least reliable and least trustworthy court in the land.

What would be a child-focused response to allegations of abuse?
Yes, a proper, timely, thorough, informed investigation by people qualified in domestic violence and child abuse, which would access health, education, child care, corrections, police records of parties, AND provide recommendations which privilege children's safety as their best interests, which decision-makers are obliged to accept.
Currently a family report writer has a one hour meeting with each parent and writes a report which often includes false or fanciful speculation and decision makers can and do dismiss allegations of abuse as they please. They can ignore AVOs and substantiated child protection reports, and they do, all the time.
It is strange to me how the men on this discussion imagine that there is any claim that all men are abusive - they must really identify with men who are accused of being abusive. Most normal (non-abusing)men I know recognise that talking about men who use violence and abuse is specifically referring to men who use violence and abuse and not all men. There is no claim that women never lie - both men and women lie - that's why investigation matters.

mog,

'It is strange to me how the men on this discussion imagine that there is any claim that all men are abusive - they must really identify with men who are accused of being abusive. '

Um, no. Nice try. The claim that has been objected to is that women never lie about abuse.

'The fashionable IMAGINATION in the family law la la land, which includes the courts and forced mediation, is that women lie about abuse.. '

Your words. My capitals.

You must really identify with women who are accused of making false accusations...

mog:"It is strange to me how the men on this discussion imagine that there is any claim that all men are abusive - they must really identify with men who are accused of being abusive."

Me, from yesterday:"As I said Sunita, no one claims that abuse doesn't exist, merely that it does not exist to the degree that some vested interests would have us believe. Your references don't change that, in fact they reinforce my own sense that this subject is all about giving women more power in FLA proceedings and very little to do with the welfare of children. Frankly, that's a disgraceful abuse of children in its own right, especially given the fact that some abused children will be missed because of the high volume of false claims."

Seems you could do with reading for comprehension, dear, instead of trying to ignore the stuff you don't like.