Of course the FVB has nothing to do with the Far Left needing more divorce for green female votes and power. 70% of unmarried/divorced women vote for the welfare protection & social justice [wealth redistribution] of the Big Brother party. Far left power follows family tax benefit Part A (sole custody excludes men) – with feminists extremists Crossin, Pratt - herself married to a transman – sitting on the FVB Senate committee instructed by childless Gillard, Plibersek, and new “father” Penny Wong.

Decimating the conservative voting powerbase of middle class family and redistributing that patriarchal wealth [power] to victim women is good socialist policy. And guarantees election support and contributions from a multi-billion dollar family law-domestic violence industry, paid to cry “family violence” wolf.

With divorce ending 52% of 1st marriages and 68% of 2nd and higher for defacto’s the FVB puts half the nation’s private wealth into the hands of a few unelected “controllable” family court judges handing out 100K commissions to brethen lawyers to make allegations of family violence that do not have to be proven or even be reasonable.

In regards to the issue of control consider the female chief justice of family court submission to the Senate in response to proposed law amendments that, in effect, repeal the presumption of innocence and legalise perjury – in short sabotage the fundamentals of western jurisprudence – “when should they start and how much extra funding”

“In the best interests of the child” suddenly becomes more akin to “work will set you free” on the deathcamp gate. Call your senator

Howard, very timely comments, thanks. I wasn't aiming this topic at the issue of separated parents, but nothing illustrates more starkly how few rights parents possess. All it takes for a parent to be effectively removed from the life of a child is for the other parent to say "He's violent and I'm scared", with no evidentiary requirement at all, even as the Law stands prior to the amendments.

Of course, the financial obligation of the parent that is removed don't stop...

Plibersek is not childless but I cannot see how being childless makes anyone less able to make policies for the greater good. There are more politicians with children than not and they don't seem to be doing too well on the issues of child raising all being hellbent on economic productivity over other facts of wellbeing including family.

Parental rights are present in many ways Anti but ill-defined; I am not sure how the law would represent those rights or how it is written.

As a parent of two, I did not feel my rights were diminished only my influence. As children grow, become curious about the world outside the cocoon of the family unit, peers, teachers, media all play a part in influencing your children. So it is less about rights and more about influence.

The ACT is deliberating on a no-smacking law at the moment. Some may argue that is a diminishment of rights but it all depends on one's point of view. My view is that it is a step too far. Parents are still able to homeschool under the law, are able to take their children to Church (if that is their thing) or not. We worry too much about parental rights really, overall Australians are not doing too badly. Children also have rights such as access to medical attention if it is a life and death decision. Does a parent have the right over the best interests of the child and who determines that interest? There has to be a standard agreement that saving life is better than allowing some warped belief to enable the death of another person even if it is your child.

That is not to say erosion of those rights should not be scrutinised. And 'rights' probably have a greater meaning to those who have experienced divorce or who have had children removed under child protection orders especially considering an element of error.

Alcohol included, but not an undeniable urge to enforce a belief system on the child 579, as I also enquired in my last post.

My children are all grown ups, should I continue to abstain from all substantially influenced moments on their behalf ?. Should it really be their business anyway ?, this is the question I would ask 579.

I believe all human experience contributes to the social structure, 579.

Seeking to influence the formative years of human existence with indoctrination, by Gov'ts, Commerce, Religions etc, "even by actual parents", is a hard thing to avoid for sure 579, let alone by interest groups wishing to obtain the rights of a parent in order that they fulfil their own lives. Having said that, I wouldn't like a more convoluted or controlled view of the world than we already have 579.

Substances (including anti-biotics and environmental contamination with poisons) and organised indoctrination, may have equally negatively or positively effected the development of the capability overall, (who knows) ?, of the human organism to progress and sustain a future for itself already, or even the earth itself, including humans in my view 579.

Historically recreational substance use, has not had "the hand braking effect" or the overall negative effect over the centuries that organised religion, politics or oppression have had upon human progress. In some area's of human endeavour, such as in the arts and possibly science in many forms, progress may have actually benefited from substance use.

Environmental and systemic contaminants however are a different matter altogether. There's no going back with some of those !. Someone has too pay.

It is fundamentally inaccurate to suggest that substances that are regarded pleasurable, are also deadly by nature 579. (Once again a personal view).

It is the circumstances of their use in a clandestine environment that is deadly, costly and socially destructive by nature.

Don't worry about druggies, they would be too stoned to think about molesting your children in a safer and more sensible world. (joke).
Please don't take offence 579.

Plibersek is not childless but I cannot see how being childless makes anyone less able to make policies for the greater good.
pelican,
I believe Penny Wong is going to be a daddy. I wonder if that's going to provide him with some sense in regard for the greater good of normal people. Childless until now hasn't made him see reality thus far.