I've been struck of late by the number of obvious press releases that are put up as "news". The federal Attorney General's department is one of the more obvious offenders, with many such pieces being put about in support of the very poor Family Law Amendment bill that McClelland is trying to ram through.

These puff-pieces have some common features. They start with a "motherhood statement" such as "Too often, children are the victims of warring parents." which few could disagree with, then go on to mention some extreme examples (real or not, it doesn't matter, the important thing is that they be as extreme as possible).

A good example is this:"In another family, two boys aged three and four are placed in their father's care, despite the fact they try to masturbate, anally penetrate and have oral sex with one another, which they explain to their mother is a ''game we play with daddy''. A court later rules that she is discouraging their father from having a relationship with them, so they are placed in his custody."

This is followed by some pseud-quoting of "experts" that have been cherry-picked from some minor advocacy group. This is a good example:"Charles Pragnell, from the National Council for Children Post-Separation, describes the 2006 Howard reforms as ''seriously flawed''. He believes they are solely concerned with parents' rights and give no consideration to the needs, wishes and rights of the children caught in the middle."

The final feature of all of these things is the lack of any opportunity for public comment. The last thing the Government wants is for the message to be diluted by people thinking about it.

We're expected to just sit down, listen to our betters and do what we're told without question.

And here was I thinking the Government was elected to do as the people think best...

Antiseptic
While there is often little opportunity for public comment on some issues I can't agree with the premise that parent's rights should take priority over children's rights. The first obligation is to children merely because they do not have the legal authority to make decisions for themselves.

The difficulty as in the extreme case you mention above is legitimate concerns about welfare may be construed as a malicious intent to keep children away from the father. What is someone to do in those circumstances when there is very real evidence of abuse but nobody is listening?

Putting an emphasis on children's rights does not mean parent's rights are necessarily excluded. Most of the legislation recognises that children's best interests are served by contact with both parents (assuming both are rational and responsible carers). The problems only arise in cases where there are accusations and they are minimal.

Instead of targeting the laws that seek to put children's rights first, why not evaluate the investigative processes that determine who is telling the truth and find better ways of negotiating with parents. Howard did that to some extent with the relationship centres including in oft forgotten regional areas.

If we make these laws too flimsy and allow abuse to continue I would not blame any parent who 'kidnaps' their children to protect them from harm, such as the father in the US who was apprehended by the FBI after some years but with the support of his children it was concluded that the system had let them down by allowing his wife full or majority custody when she was clearly dealing with a drug issue and not a responsible carer by any means.

Dear Pelican,
This discussion really is a sensitive one.....I think though that rather than refer to the word 'rights', which covers a lot of areas, I think 'responsibilities' is more appropriate. We all have right's and responsibilities, but where children are naturally innocent of many things, it is the parents' responsibility to teach the children about various vagaries of nastiness in the wider community, provided that the teaching is sound and not 'overdone'.
'Tis a sensitive subject my friend, isn't it? Parents are charged with a lot of responsibility, education of the Social mores is tricky, judging how much or how little should be taught to kids at the one time.I do also think that the 'cards' fall down against the males in a lot of cases.
Have a good one.
NSB

Are we talking about changes to
the Family Violence Bill here?

Because if we are then I don't understand what the
objections are. According to the Attorney General's
Department - " This Bill isn't about the rights of
men's groups or women's groups - it's about
prioritising the safety of children and ensuring
violence and abuse is reported and addressed."

Apparently the ammendments to this Bill have been
made in order - to
get rid of "entrenched obstacles in the system to
reporting family violence and child abuse."

As stated on the Attorney General's website -
"The Family Violence Bill prioritises the safety
of children, encourages people to bring forward
evidence of family violence and child abuse and
helps families, law professionals and the courts
to better identify harmful behaviour through new
definitions of "family violence" and "child abuse."

Again from the Attorney General's website:

"During public consultation on the Bill a total
of 73% of respondants expressed support for the
measures and a further 10% made no specific comment
on the Bill but offered information about personal
experiences."

As the website tells us:

"The level of support and interest from the community
around these changes indicate that the Government is
responding to a clear need to improve and strengthen
aspects of Family Law and that the overwhelming
majority of the community support the Bill."

The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs which was inquiring into the Bill had
received more than 200 submissons. This is a Bill that
has been thoroughly investigated - and it's no wonder that
it has received the overwhelming support of the
community. Children to most of us - are a top priority.

Hi Lexi,
Sorry, I sort of got off track with my last post.
Of course the safety of children is paramount, it always is and always has been a priority with our kids and, subsequently they, with theirs.
But surely positive education (not school ed.)delivered in a manner which neither frightens the children nor is it too much information for kids to comprehend, is better coming from parents at the perceived 'right time' in their lives.
Both Fathers,Mothers and their offspring need to be protected from abuse at all times.
One thing does bother me regarding rights though, is this, why does it seem that the Father of the children is often portrayed as the 'bad guy'. Men are driven by desperation after the marriage has failed, the cost of child maintenance is crippling them financially, usually the family home is occupied by the Mother and Children, leaving the Father with absolutely no hope of ever being financially free until the kids reach a certain age. My nephew's wife blithely announced one Christmas that she is leaving him and taking the kids with her. He had to pay high maintenance for the three children, the mortgage on the house and meeting all the financial demands made on him. His wife had found another man, he was living with her immediately after the separation was announced in a home that partly belonged to her bereft husband. (I say partly, because he had to pay the mortgage on it). He didn't ever hurt her or the kids, she just found some one else....where is the justice there?
Cheers my friend,
NSB

Dear Noisy,

I don't think that this piece of Legislation is about the
rights of men's groups or women's groups. As the Attorney
General's website stated this particular piece of legislation
or - Bill
"is about prioritising
the safety of children and ensuring that violence and
abuse is reported and addressed." You're talking about
different issues. And, of course I fully agree with you
regarding father's rights. Perhaps - that may be next
on the agenda - if enough pressure is applied.

The only way things
will change will be if enough people apply pressure on
their Members of Parliament. Look how long it's taken for
this legislation to receive these ammendments?
And you'd think everyone would be concerned about children.