SJF:"I find it immensely exasperating that I have written several posts here that focus on the general rights of children in this society. Yet, rather than anyone picking up on this and respectfully discussing it with me, I’m am STILL being hit with lengthy responses to what people think I’m supposed to be saying, for no reason other than that I’m a feminist."

And I've done the same several times in this thread, yet you have chosen not to engage with honesty on the subject, but prefer to regurgitate the same politically and ideologically motivated crap. I'll tell you what: you acknowledge that the author of the article on which this thread is based was wrong to mention only men as abusers and I'll not mention the whole feminism thing again in this thread as long as you don't. somehow I think you're going to find that a difficult thing to do.

SJF:"Hardly any posters here have been able to get into the mindset that children exist IN THEIR OWN RIGHT and that they hold a disadvantaged position in the power hierarchy"

I have and the response from you was silence, while the somewhat dimmer mog wasn't up to anything but accusing me of misogyny for daring to suggest that some mothers are not perfect. You specifically linked the abuse of children with the cause of feminism ("male-centric social hierarchy"), which has formed part of the political activism of feminists since the early days.

SJF:"The fact that the author used female examples has overwhelmingly dominated this thread - when it is largely irrelevant."

It is not irrelevant if the aim is to stop the abuse of children. How can it be irrelevant to ignore the largest class of perpetrators because they happen to be female? To claim that is so is to imply that their victims (their children) are worthy of less concern.

mog, thank you for the link to that report. I have copied some of the key findings below. I will add a commentary of my own at a later date, as this will be my post limit for today.

From the AIFS report:

More than half the cases in the FCoA and FMC in both samples contained allegations of adult family violence and/or child abuse.

More than half (57%) of the cases judicially determined in the FCoA contained allegations of actual physical spousal abuse, and many allegations looked to be at the “severe” end of the spectrum. Thus, allegations of violence appeared to be “core business” in family law disputes that went on to litigate in the FCoA and such allegations of violence were largely of a serious nature.

In the general litigants and judicial determination samples taken separately, allegations of spousal violence were most likely to be made by applicant mothers, followed by respondent mothers, then applicant fathers, with respondent fathers being the least likely to make such allegations. Where fathers made allegations, mothers were also likely to do so or to have done so.

Three layers of ambiguity are suggested by the data: (a) there is little evidentiary material to support allegations (especially in the general litigants sample); (b) there are fairly high rates of non-response to allegations of spousal violence—except for cases in the FCoA requiring a judicial determination; and (c) there are generally low levels of detail in the allegations and low levels of detail when responses are made.

A scarcity of supporting evidentiary material suggests that legal advice and legal decisionmaking may often be taking place in the context of widespread factual uncertainty.

Mothers’ allegations of child abuse by fathers were less likely to be accompanied by evidence than was the case for mothers’ allegations of spousal violence. (Few fathers raised allegations of child abuse.)

Allegations of spousal violence or parental child abuse accompanied by evidence of strong probative weight appeared to influence court orders. Without such evidence, allegations did not seem to be formally linked to outcomes.

The point about the most common response by the courts to allegations of abuse being 'no response' is to highlight that there is no investigative process in the family law system which currently can systematically take account of family health records, police attendance records, courts and corrections records and child protection records. Even when courts have clear evidence of serious violent offending it does not ordinarily result in orders which protect children from the offenders. Courts can and do order children to the unsupervised 'care' of convicted child sex offenders and the 'care' of psychotic homicidal parents. This points to 2 areas for necessary reform. 1. A need for the family law system to be able to scrutinise parents closely and have access to all relevant records when there are any concerns of violence or abuse raised by any party to gain evidence of their capacity to parent safely and 2. a willingness to make orders which have regard to the evidence of safe/unsafe parental capacity and to prefer to protect the child when there are risks to the child's safety. This would, of course, apply to both mothers and fathers.

SJF I wasn't offend by your quip about not being able to read, it is a fact of life.

From the report:"More than half the cases in the FCoA and FMC in both samples contained allegations of adult family violence and/or child abuse."
"many allegations looked to be at the “severe” end of the spectrum"

Does anyone really believe that "severe" violence is a genuine factor in more than half of all marriages ending?

From the report:"(a) there is little evidentiary material to support allegations (especially in the general litigants sample);"

That speaks for itself, I think. If the frequency of allegations is higher than would seem likely and few of the allegations have any evidence behind them, then it is likely that the false percentage is high.

This is borne out by the next line from the report:"A scarcity of supporting evidentiary material suggests that legal advice and legal decisionmaking may often be taking place in the context of widespread factual uncertainty."

In other words, lots of women tell lies about abuse and the people in the system realise that.

From the report:"Mothers’ allegations of child abuse by fathers were less likely to be accompanied by evidence than was the case for mothers’ allegations of spousal violence."

Those like mog and Barbara Biggs would like us to believe that this lack of evidence is due to a lack of interest from the system in collecting it, yet the report clearly places the onus on the allegor to provide evidence to support their allegation. This is in clear accord with the law. An accusor must always be able to provide at least some evidence to support their claim before anybody in authority will investigate it and no court should use it in making a decision.

From the report:"Allegations of spousal violence or parental child abuse accompanied by evidence of strong probative weight appeared to influence court orders. Without such evidence, allegations did not seem to be formally linked to outcomes"

Just as I said above.

mog:"there is no investigative process in the family law system"

Quite right. There is an entire department (DOCS) charges with doing just that. If a parent is concerned about a child being abused, they should call in DOCS. Mind you, that can lead to the allegor being found to be the abuser, so I'm not surprised at the reluctance.

mog:"A need for the family law system to be able to scrutinise parents closely and have access to all relevant records when there are any concerns of violence or abuse raised by any party to gain evidence of their capacity to parent safely"

See above. Why should an unsupported allegation by one parent be sufficient for the other parent to be placed under close scrutiny? Why should the FLC take on the role of DOCS?

mog:"a willingness to make orders which have regard to the evidence of safe/unsafe parental capacity and to prefer to protect the child when there are risks to the child's safety. This would, of course, apply to both mothers and fathers."

In my experience, that is exactly what the Courts do. I spent 7 months separated from any contact with my children while a DVO matter was heard, based on entirely unsupported claims from their mother. When the claims were shown to be baseless, the DVO was withdrawn.

Where I get angry about people like you is that you seem to think that separation is of no consequence if it is the father who is subject to it. Being kept from children you love is an awful punishment. "All's fair in love and war" is the old expression and it is something that it seems women going through divorce have taken to heart. Get over it.

Most men aren't child abusers or wife bashers and the constant stream of false allegations simply makes it more likely that one who is will slip through the net. Instead of trying to get the FLC to take on DOCS's role in protecting children, you should be encouraging a more responsive, better-resourced DOCS or its equivalent.