Firstly, I think the problem of child abuse and blaming the Family court is looking at the problem the wrong way.

The family court would not exist, if relationships did not break up, there would be no need for a court to divy up property and to decide on residential arrangements for the children.

There already exists under various names, the dept of human services, where allegations of child abuse can be made. Imperfect as it may be.

To expect the Family court to some how to be able to look into future and decide who is or who isn't at risk is a big ask.

To are two separate problems, firstly there are the families that abuse is alleged prior to separation, and then there is the alleged abuse that occurs after separation.

If we look at for example the screening process that pregnant women go through, they are screened for signs of depression, as well as to see if they are the victims of abuse, Pregnant women are never screened to see if they just might be an abuser.

So basically, right from the outset of separation people should perhaps be screened (I know it sounds Orwellian). But even with this screening process it is possible, there will some who slip through the cracks.

SJF thanks for that Power thing, here I was niavely thinking it had to do with things like mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, poor parenting skills, post natal depression, poor impluse control. And it was about POWER all along.

I guess because Power is the answer there is no need to conduct any further research.

Mog, I dont know where you get off, but no one has defended adults rights to abuse children. No person has the right to abuse another.

TRTL

Well said. The adversarial system does not work for family law. Given the complications a "one size fits all" ruling doesn't work either. What is desperately required is a supported, mediated style of discussion with the best interest of the child as the goal. Do away with courts completely. The only time lawyers need be involved is to draft the solution agreed upon by all parties.

The rest of you please note: I am not buying into the blame game or gender wars. Get over it. Contribute a suggestion that would benefit children or stay off this thread.

Ok everyone go home. Fractelle has spoken, and as you all know she owns the thread. If you'd like to participate further, please submit a comment to Fractelle and she will decide if it fits within her requirements.

Comments are normally in response to the original article and the question is whether or not the original article is actually about the welfare of children or is it just a thinly veiled excuse to attack men in general. This author has a track record of abusing her power as a writer to promote her own personal agenda. Those who refuse to read between the lines and who refuse to observe how she says what she says are being very naive.

The purpose of the forums is to discuss social issues and if someone abuses that purpose it should be noted and addressed in order to maintain the integrity of the forums. Telling people to get back on topic when the ‘topic’ is not really the point of the original article just helps to provide the camouflage that the original author would like. Rather than come out into the open and declare what her real problem with men is she hides behind her ‘concern for children’. If that was her only genuine concern it would come through in her writing

Turn Right Then Left

‘…and you too SJF, (James's initial posts weren't unreasonable).’

I was not criticising the reasonableness - or lack thereof – of James’ initial posts (or the others I targeted). I was criticising their intellectual dishonesty.

You can get on your high horse about how the author SHOULD have done the even-handed gender thing. But you know what? She had absolutely NO obligation whatsoever to do so. And I am sick to death of women authors on OLO being chastised and abused for ‘failing’ to write about men. (Get over it, guys. The universe has other priorities.)

The author was making a very important and REASONABLE point about WOMEN (Yes … women) who find themselves in genuine fear for their children’s physical safety – so much so that they are faced with no other alternative than to incriminate themselves in order to protect their children.

Who would want to spend their lives on the run and face extradition and criminal prosecution if caught, IF they didn’t have good reason?

And if the system is soooo biased toward women, then why would any woman bother to kidnap her children and incriminate herself at all? Why not just sit back and let our supposedly ‘female-biased’ legal system just hand everything to her on a silver plate – kids, house, bank account, investment portfolio and family poodle?

Dr. David Corteguera

'Now, unfortunately, you also appear to have a raging case of Penis Envy.'

Don't worry, Doc. I'm not after yours.

If the Family Law were inquisatorial rather than adversarial, it would simply lead to those women who want to believe that "all men are bastards" accusing the court of being biased. As it stands, they claim it anyway and frequently bugger off overseas rather than accept its rulings.

There is also an aspect of handing over power to the State that I personally find abhorrent. It is readily conceivable that an inquisatorial Court that is obliged to act on "behalf of the children" may in fact act against both parents and hand care of the children to the State, rather than risk being accused of being complicit if a child should come to harm if in the care of a parent. Given the trend in all sorts of aspects of life toward risk-minimisation, I'd say the above scenario is almost a dead certainty. Far better to give the child to "qualified" people in orphanages than take the ckance that a parent may be imperfect.

IOW, it's a stupid idea that cannot possibly replace the current one, at least in this sort of matter.

Meanwhile, Barbara and her fellow manhaters are busily telling lies for women, doing what they can to preserve their self-perceived "right" to the children and the power they represent. After all, "don't you love your kids?"...

I hope this response meets yopur quality criteria, Fractelle.