Anti,

The problem seems to be that magistrates want to play it safe, men can suffer any inconvenience, that is what we do. If they see 1000 applications for AVOs in a year, 800 might look malicious or fraudulent. However, if they knock back those 800, in a few cases, subsequent events will make their decisions look like a mistake. Perhaps this could have been forseen when the AVO was appealed for, perhaps it couldn't. My opinion is that AVOs inconvenience the innocent and only serve to inflame the genuinely violent. I just don't know what system might have more chance of success.

Yes when is a child a child, over the years I have been caught between a rock and a hard place,when my teenage daughters became sexually active, trying to teach them right from wrong,morals and values "all irrelevent" say no when it came to boys staying over, lets say, "if you don't let me mum I will leave" sad really I've missed out on 5 of my teenage daughters growing up,have the grandkids to boot, and their hatred that cuts like a knife...

My god, our kids can lie,by saying they have been treated unfairly, ie (asked to clean their room) or create a situation so they can leave,at the age of 12 yrs old and there is nothing we can do to stop them. What a joke! I still have to foot the bill if they stuff up until their 18yrs old

you mean you would still have your daughters if you had got them on the pill and let them have their boyfriends.

We cannot force our children to go on the pill, we cannot tell or stop our children from see their class mates,or friends if we feel they could get into trouble, it's classified as abuses, they can treat us parents any way they like without concequence... no I'm not saying I could have stopped or changed my childrens way of thinking,or their future if things might have been different,I will never know,other outside influences, morals and values, robbed me of that so called parental right...It would have been really nice to have had the chance to see at least one child get a degree, have a career, buy a house, get married before having children.

damned if we do and damned if we don't!

Benk,

without speaking for antiseptic, the "balance of probabilities" cuts both ways when not biased. The magistrates are more than able to excuse the supposed percentage. Prove that an individual is one of the guilty subset without examining the case.....(wthout costing the accused money)

Those few you mentioned are balanced by the greater few of innocent wrongly (but cheaply) excused...(but expensive to defend)

You *are* innocent until proven guilty, balance of probabilities be damned. Just because the opposition has deep pockets..... is that the only excuse? Cheap to accuse, but expensive to defend. Sounds like the (christian) inquisition all over again.

Rusty

My apologies for not responding to this earlier, I've been away for the weekend with my boy.

benk:"magistrates want to play it safe, men can suffer any inconvenience, that is what we do."

The SA law, which will surely become the model for the other States, is frankly demeaning to all parties and I suspect it is also unconstitutional, although that is unlikely to ever be tested, given the cost of doing so.

Firstly, it is insulting to magistrates, since it removes any examination of facts, substituting a summary process which effectively removes his discretion.

Secondly, it is demeaning to women, since it assumes they are passive pawns in all circumstances. Under this law they cannot be held responsible for anything, even telling lies to the court, or conspiring with others to break the AVO they applied for.

Thirdly, it is demeaning to men, because it assumes that they are always aggressors, unable to exercise control unless a police officer with a taser is standing nearby.

Fourthly, it is demeaning and damaging to children, since it provides an easy and completely unaccountable way for a vindictive mother to remove any possibility of them having a normal relationship with their father.

Fifthly, it reverses the burden of proof. Once an application is made, it is certain to be granted, ("These grounds are anticipatory. There is no need for proof of the commission of an act of abuse before an intervention order is issued." as the explanatory notes put it) with no examination of facts unless a man can later prove the proposition that he is no threat. The law offers no guidance as to how this might be achieved, other than to say that it can't be achieved if circumstances remain unchanged.

Sixthly, it overrides Federal Family Law, thereby providing a simple way for a mother who is disgruntled by the outcome of a custody matter to subvert the considered opinion of a Judge and replace it with an untested, but binding, summary judgement by a magistrate or even a police officer.

"Some animals are more equal than others" in SA.