Poor chazP, does not understand that this issue has never been about the rights of fathers, but the right of children to have a healthy relationship with their father.

If you wish to groom a child for abuse then by all means take it away from it's biological father. This sad fact has been well known for decades, well documented, scientifically proven.

Formerswag - References please for the scientifically conducted research to support your contention that "If you wish to groom a child for abuse then by all means take it away from it's biological father. This sad fact has been well known for decades, well documented, scientifically proven".
And if, as you claim, it is "the right of children to have a healthy relationship with their father", perhaps you would state whether that should apply where the father is a danger to the wellbeing of the child or a toxic influence on the child, as has occurred with considerable frequency after recent Family Court decisions and has led to serious abuses and deaths of children at the hands of their `biological' fathers?. Should a child also have to go and live at the other end of Australia or even overseas if the father chooses to move his abode as Courts have recently decided in order to facilitate the `biological' father's contact with the child, thereby uprooting the child from their friends, close family, school, leisure and recreational interests etc.?. And what if a child does not want a `meaningful relationship' with a biological father?. What then?. Should the child's right to decide be disregarded?.

Formernag - P.S. You state that it is the right of a child to have a healthy relationship with their father. Can you tell me where that is written in the Family Law Act, or for that matter where any right of a child under international law is written in the Act?. Unless it is not so written, then it is not enforceable nor can redress be obtained if such a right is violated.
I can see lots of rights of parents in the Act - the right to have residency of a child, the right to have a `meaningful relationship' with a child. the right to have contact with a child. etc. etc.
And a parent can choose whether or not s/he has residency, contact or a meaningful relationshp with the child whilst a child does not have any of those choices but has to do so if a Court so orders. In effect children are treated merely as possessions to be divided up along with the other joint possessions according to the rights and demands of the parents and which of them can afford the cleverest lawyer to argue their case.
Or are you merely making the assumption that a child's rights are synonymous with the parents' rights?. If so, then that is a hugely false premise.

Poor dear chazP, you attack me for not quoting any specific statistical surveys into child abuse, etc, then go on making blanket assertions about men without providing any evidence yourself. Yes there are some dysfunctional men out there who have abused some children, but they are outnumbered by dysfunctional women abusing children.

Radical Extremist Feminazis have been forcing our children to be the collateral damage in the "gender wars" for decades now. Everybody knows this. I have met many "adult children" or "survivors of child abuse" during my life and the end results are always the same, regardless of the type of abuse or its severity.

As you should be aware the rights of the child are laid out in the UN charter and family law has attempted unsuccessfully to follow this. The rights of deadbeat single mothers to neglect and abuse their children should not be trumping those of children, or fathers.

Feminism has been hijacked by socialists, lesbians and communists for the express purpose of destroying the family and therefore capitalism. Prominent feminists have freely admitted this publicly many times. It is about spreading hatred and mistrust between men and women through "paedophiles under the beds" rumours.

Sadly feminism has abused far more women and girls than were ever abused by men. They often assert that God is in fact female and i believe them. Who else but a woman would so comprehensively abuse other women, girls, then say, with a straight face, "He did it"?

Formersag – I did not attack you in any way – I simply asked some questions of you to justify your assertions and contentions and to provide the `science’ which you arrogantly claimed supported your viewpoints. Nor did I make any “blanket assertions about men”. In the light of your complete failure to provide any such evidence or `science’ it may be reasonably concluded therefore that there is no such evidence and your earlier statements are merely the meanderings of an unstable mind.

Nor did you attempt to answer my questions regarding the discrimination in the Family Law against children and the violations of their rights, except to assert that, “the Family Law has attempted to unsuccessfully follow this”. It may be reasonably concluded therefore that you are, albeit begrudgingly, accepting my contentions in this regard..

Nor did I make any arguments representing a feminist viewpoint which would warrant the ferocity of your response attacking those who may have such a viewpoint, so I shall make no attempt to respond to your rabid rantings regarding their feministic views and influences. Again you are merely trying to drag this discussion into the Gender Wars debate.

I am fully versed in the contents of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and my standpoint is and always has been, that such rights are being violated and denied by the Family Law Act and by the Family Courts and therefore Australia is committing serious abuses of the human rights of children as long as such a law continues to be in operation, whilst hypocritically accusing other countries of human rights abuses. Attempts are usually made by the Family Courts to mask such abuses of children’s rights by claiming it is “in the best interests of the child”. Of course the child has had no say whatsoever in such decisions regarding who they will be forced into residency with, or who will have contact with them, or who they will be forced to have a `meaningful relationship’ with - Classic Adultism.

Poor dear chazP, does the P stand for propaganda? Did you just repeat yourself as every one of your posting has been doing, regurgitating the same old stuff over and over and over again without quoting a single fact? Was it me who bought the gender wars into it or somebody else?