Hi Lexi,
Yes, you are quite right, it is about the children., how could it not be about them. Their rights as kids seems to be overlooked these days by those who are close to them.
As usual, I am writing about one thing and my thoughts trail off somewhere different, but also in my view relevant.
Let's hope that there will be adequate protection for the kids, it would be nice though, if today's marriages would last for a life-time, providing more stability for kids. Seems to me that a lot of marriages these days are just temporary, when things go wrong, everybody suffers in the family group, instead of trying to make things work.
Kids shouldn't be subjected to that. More stick ability and less temporary marriages should prevent hurting the kids, who are the ones who suffer.
I am probably still slightly to the left of most topics, oh! how my mind drifts of to other problems of (un)blissful family lives for some poor unfortunates.
Have a good evening my friend,
NSB

I think Iam going to be sic.....:)

This is the best you've got?

Oh Dear...

LEAP

Hi Lexi and Noisy Scrub Bird (interesting name!), I agree it would be better if mum's and dad's could stay 'happily' together, for the kid's sake.
However, it is even more toxic for the kids if their parents stay together and are NOT happy. This destroys kid's perceptions of happy relationships and is as damaging as divorced parents, in my humble view.

We can't and shouldn't force parents to live with one another if they are not happy, like back in the 'good old days'.
What a miserable existence some people must have led, until their spouse died!

Getting back to the original subject of the Family Law Amendment bill, I agree that it is a good step in the right direction for kids who have at least one 'toxic' parent, for whatever reason.

It doesn't need to be a gender thing at all, given that women who are abusive to their kids are just as bad for the kids as the men.

I don't think anybody should have a problem with a bill that proposes more security for kids...unless they have something to fear.

Quantumleap, do you even have a view on the subject matter of this thread?

Yes Sue....the horse feed is well understood........and your right, I have nothing to contribute.

LEAP

Thanks for the responses folks, but I think we've got off the track of the subject. Yes, I think these amendments are bad, but that's not the subject.

What I wanted to discuss was the attempted deception inherent in publishing these press releases under a byline as well as the rather nastily egregious anti-male "examples" chosen by the Attorney-General in his press fare.

The Attorney-General is the highest non-judicial legal office in the land. We have every right to expect the person holding that office to behave impeccably, including in their politicking.

By encouraging the Press, in this case the Fairfax press, to create a faux "story" out of a political press release an altogether misleading impression of the nature of the piece is created. It is clothed in a spurious authority granted by the byline, while the real source of what is after all no more than a propaganda puff-piece is hidden. Hardly the sort of behaviour we'd expect from the judiciary, or the DPP, or the police, but apparently it's OK for the Attorney-General.

It's also interesting that the A-G's department seems to think that doing things this way will be more effective than simply putting out a press release saying "the Attorney-General said". Perhaps they know more about McClelland's personal standing than they're letting on. These things are never opened for commentary.

I'll make a point of collecting these puff-pieces over the next few weeks, not just from the A-G, but from other departments. There is no shortage of Ministers, both State and Federal, wanting to wrap themselves in the authority of the press as a means of bolstering their own minimal stature. McClelland is simply the most obvious example of such a lame duck.

Anti sorry but I'm going to respond to one of the earlier comments.

Suzie made the point "I don't think anybody should have a problem with a bill that proposes more security for kids...unless they have something to fear."

I've mentioned this numerous times before and it's a point that seems to be routinely missed or ignored by those who think that the proposed laws are gender neutral.

On their own possibly they are gender neutral however in conjunction with other proposed changes that's a very unlikely outcome.

I refer to an article published last year (473 posts, OLO's 4th highest ever post count)

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11280

From page 2
"Recently enacted domestic violence acts in several states are prefaced by the words:"domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children" (eg. s.9 (3) of the NSW Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007).

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) in its far-reaching report Family Violence - A National Legal Response released earlier this month has recommended that similar discriminatory words preface all state and federal laws dealing with domestic violence, including the Family Law Act (see Recommendations 7-2 and 7-3 of its report)."

If that goes in as well then action based on accusations would be extremly unlikely to be gender neutral.

Regardless of individual views on who does more and which stats people believe the addition of a profiling statement can't be reasonably ignored in the context of accusations of domestic violence.

R0bert