Suse,

This....

http://amansw.com.au/news/articles/domestic-violence-too-many-kids-dying-or-suffering-brain-injuries/

"AMA President, Prof Brian Owler, is in Sydney today to raise awareness about the effects of domestic violence on children

“Children are all too commonly victims of domestic violence and represent a significant number of admissions to Australia’s children’s hospitals,” Prof Owler said.

“In the past 12 months, 569 children were referred to the Child Protection Unit at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead because it was suspected they had come to non-accidental physical harm.

“For children who live in homes where domestic violence takes place, non-accidental head injury, usually resulting in bleeding on the brain, is very common.

“This type of traumatic brain injury can destroy a life, with effects ranging from development of epilepsy to poor emotion control to severe disability.

“The leading cause of death for Australian children is injury.

“Child abuse by a parent or step-parent is the third leading cause after road trauma and accidental drowning.

“The Australian Institute of Criminology reported that across the period 2008–10, 29 children died of domestic homicide committed by a parent or step-parent.

“I was shocked, when I came to work as a neurosurgeon at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead, just how many cases of non-accidental injury we see here,” Prof Owler said."

It is mendacious, idiotic, to imply that child neglect and abuse, might be negatively affected in any way by Premier Palaszczuk's proposal.
It would be quite the reverse one would think.

Suseonline,

It is your own bigotry that construes peer-reviewed research that has appeared in professional journals as "ranting" and "misogynistic raves".

Suzeonline, "ranting" you say re otb? And "mysogynistic"?

otb is clearly revealing evidence of the side of DV that has been kept out of debate about DV.

There are also child daughters that lose their father forever and the ongoing psycological impact and consequences from that should also be noticed. Such mental impact may be akin to impact from rape in some cases, or worse, involving suicide.

The stolen indigenous children had prime focus in relevant debate but modern day Australian children stolen from their dad's is virtually kept quiet by media and politicians. Why is that so?

Why not respectably discuss what otb has commented about?

Isn't it interesting how discussions slide from one topic to something quite different.

So we go from domestic violence to blokes having to fork out more than the sheilas over divorce, and over control over the kiddies. Maybe losing the house too.

That all might be true, POST-DV. But let's stick to the prickly topic of DV :)

My bet is that, in Alice Springs Hospital at this moment, there are fifty times more Aboriginal women lying battered and bruised from their beloveds, than Aboriginal men lying battered and bruised from their beloveds.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen: my in-laws were Aboriginal, and when he had a skinful, my f.-in-law used to kick the daylights out of my m.-in-law. But if he drank too much and got really paralytic, she was happy to kick the daylights out of HIM. So it went, weekend after weekend, in their younger days. More exciting than 'Home and Away'. She was a tough woman, the first woman I ever knew to use certain words in anger.

But on balance, I'd still maintain that women cop more from DV, physical violence resulting in either the police being called or the 'victim' being taken off to hospital, or both, than men, 95% to 5%. Perhaps in some suburbs, the balance is more even, but when I was growing up, in the sheltered environment of Bankstown, I can't recall any bloke ever being taken off to hospital for DV injuries.

DV is the topic, mates.

Joe

OTB, any negative views I may have about the views of men like yourself pale into insignificance compared to the venom you spew.

Loudmouth, I too find it annoying when some men feel the need to equate domestic violence to post-divorce court decisions. These acrimonious divorces leading to the need for court interventions are much fewer than those couples who manage the family decisions by themselves.

I often wonder whether these blokes feel that bashing or killing the ex is well justified when things don't go their way in their personal life or from the courts?
My opinion is that if they were ever, or are now, violent towards their ex or their kids, then the courts were well justified with their decisions to keep them all apart.
I don't care whether they blame the separation for the violence or not, because the courts have seen and heard it all before, and aren't stupid.

I personally know a young father of four boys who has sole custody of the kids, and they all live in the family home, while mum lives alone. The courts found that she was an unfit mother and she only gets supervised access to the kids.
So I believe that these men who complain so much are just bitter they didn't get their own way, like she is. The courts make their decisions on evidence, so that is that.

otb,

"It is mendacious, idiotic, to imply that child neglect and abuse, might be negatively affected in any way by Premier Palaszczuk's proposal.
It would be quite the reverse one would think."

What sort of idiotic rant is that?

I didn't put up that article for any other reason than to highlight that children are also significant victims of DV.

And otb immediately lets his paranoia take over and assumes it's some sort of attack on the Queensland Premier's proposal.

Gawd!