The following is an example of how the court puts a relationship with the father above safety. The double standard on 'alienation' is also apparent.

From
http://australiandivorce.blogspot.com/search/label/Shared%20Parenting

Here is an excerpt.

"Monday, 18 August 2008

Federal Magistrates Court: alienating father leads to shared care
In the recent Federal Magistrates Court case of Delaney and Delaney, it took Federal Magistrate Walters over a year to deliver judgment in relation to a 12 year old boy (now 13) called M. At the conclusion of the trial his Honour decided to put in place a week about arrangement, despite clear evidence of the violent nature of the husband, including on one occasion attempting to choke the wife with electrical chord, and the finding that the husband had engaged in alienation of M from the mother.

His Honour also found, as to the credit of the husband:

He was... one of the least impressive witnesses that I have ever heard (whether as counsel or during my years on the bench). Unfortunately, much of his evidence was inconsistent and non-responsive. His demeanour in the witness box radiated insincerity, and fluctuated between what I can only describe as a state of passive aggression (on the one hand) and a quite disconcerting form of obsequiousness (on the other). I find myself unable to give weight to almost anything that he told me. He gave the impression that he has nothing but contempt for the wife, and he clearly has no respect for her, as a person or as the mother of his child. I am satisfied that he is a controlling and manipulative person, who was unwilling to be open and direct with the court....."

Obviously a fine specimen of humanity, and would you like your child ordered to be in his company on a week about arrangement?

Justice for kids, i quote from the same blog you did:"His Honour found that, with one exception, the arrangement for shared care had for the previous year appeared to be working, and therefore ought to continue. "

IOW, the previous history of alleged violence and the poor character of the parents notwithstanding, the arrangement was working. Is it your contention that such functional arrangements should be overturned? On what basis?

Antispetic, as you quoted "His Honour found, that with ONE EXCEPTION"

Who knows what that tiny little "one exception" would be.

If you devalue the attempted murder of this child's mother to the same extent that this magistrate did, then of course you wouldn't see a problem with spending time with this delightful fellow.

It is apparent to most normal people that this father is full of hatred and that he is UNSAFE. I would infer from his behaviour that he is not motivated by love to see his child. He is motivated by malice.

His behaviour is that of a crimminal and the only reason he is not in jail is most likely due to 'lack of evidence'. Would you like your children with this man...come on, who are you kidding?

If any daddy is better than none (which many adult children of abusers will contradict), if you do not draw the line at attempted murder, you don't draw the line anywhere at all and children are murdered despite very obvious warning signs. Attempted murder, disturbed character/personality in court is a warning sign perhaps??

My apologies...found the full judgment the blog I first visited did not include, what to me is a very important aspect..the child wants to stay with his father.

This case was not typical of the kinds of judgements that are of concern: where the child expresses fear of father and this is disregarded.

So although this child may be with an unsafe, dominating, controlling person: at the age of thirteen he is entitled to make this choice. It would be difficult for the court to force this thirteen year old child to stay full-time with his mother against his wishes.

Sorry to muddy the waters!

Justice for kids:"Sorry to muddy the waters!"

Thanks for your candour, Jfk, but with respect, it's your initial response that concerns me. To your credit, you read further and found more information, but it is all too easy to jump to the conclusion you did initially. It is precisely for that reason that Courts cannot allow themselves to be swayed by the sort of character assessments of which his Honour made observation in his judgement and which so inflamed you.

If they are, the risk of a miscarriage of justice is high.

The strength of your emotional response is pretty typical, I suspect, and hence it is all the more necessary for Courts to be alert to its influence.

Further to this discussion, a report has just been released on a study into shared care arrangements. A brief report is to be found here: http://www.theage.com.au/national/children-suffer-if-parents-do-not-share-care-equally-20081105-5ijn.html

I note that one of the principal findings is that both parents and children in equally-shared-care arrangements report better outcomes and improved feelings of well-being. It is when a great disparity exists between time in the care of one or the other parent that children and parents alike suffer.

I quote from the article:"Parents who had an equal share of care were probably more likely to get along better and to have an egalitarian approach to parenting."

"Associate Professor Bruce Smyth, from the Australian National University's department of demography and social research, said fathers were becoming more involved in their children's lives. But when both parents spent significant but unequal periods of time with the children, it could be problematic.

"Unequal care looks to be a proxy for conflict," he said. "In some cases, unequal shared care may represent an unhappy compromise.""