A Parliamentary Inquiry into the troubled family
law court is set to be co-chaired by Liberal MP
Kevin Andrews and One Nation Leader, Pauline
Hanson.

It's a controversial decision made by our PM.
Resources for domestic violence services are
already tight and a new inquiry adds more paperwork
to an already cash-strapped sector.

Many experts are saying that what is needed is
action not more inquiries.

This is the latest in a string of inquiries into
the family law system and its failings. There have
been two very recently with various recommendations
that have not been responded to.

Do we need another inquiry?

And will victims come forward considering Mr Andrew's
conservative views and Pauline Hanson's recent
unsupported claims that women are frequently making
up allegations of domestic violence in family courts?

Dear Foxy,

One commentator said it will be a clash between Pauline Hanson and Rosie Batty.

This inquiry is a subterfuge for total inaction, which displays the underlying patriarchal nature of LNP politics. And giving Pauline Hanson a job for which she is unqualified to fill in order to placate her with a view to getting her support in the Senate.

When I was doing my MA in sociology Pauline Hanson was the MP for Oxley. It gave rise among sociologists at the time of her being The Oxleymoron. I think it's still appropriate.

Dear Mr Opinion,

I've read all the criticisms of this inquiry.
And some very valid concerns have been raised.
However, the fact remains this inquiry is
going to go ahead and to not participate
should not be an option because of people
don't participate and at least attempt to be
heard we can end up with some really poor
recommendations that will affect service provisions
and people's lives and children's lives and safety
for the next years to come.

Things are apparently quite bad currently - they
could get even worse if people choose not to participate.
Doing nothing should not be an option.

I have zero confidence with its current leaders the thing will work
Hanson used her personal view to taint her understanding before it even got started
However yes some women do lie
And yes the court is biased against men
Good idea badly implemented

I'm just watching ABC news and Kevin Andrews is refusing to comment of Pauline Hanson's reference to women suffering domestic violence as being liars about their situation.

Well, there you have it, the inquiry is dead before it has even started.

Dear Belly and Mr Opinion,

Katherine Murphy in The Guardian tells us that
the PM's family court inquiry is a "boneheaded gift to
Pauline Hanson and men's rights activists".

Murphy is not the only one questioning the PM's move.
Hanson has been after this issue for some time. The PM
has given her a gift according to Murphy. Murphy
questions and finds it hard to fathom what of any
substance can emerge from this inquiry given the
Australian Law Reform Commission has already presented
a bunch of detailed recommendations to over haul
the family court system in August.

Those insights and recommendations according to Murphy from
a body well credentialed to consider all the complexities
of the issue, are sitting politely on a shelf, waiting for
someone to notice them.

The following link explains further:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/20/the-pms-family-court-inquiry-is-a-boneheaded-gift-to-pauline-hanson-and-mens-rights-activists

I am interested in hearing from conservatives
on this issue.

go to any prison and the blackfellas will tell you that their woman put them in. Sometimes they just want a break from their man. Unfortunately many do beat their wives but it is by no means one way. A friend of mine was witnessing a man beating his wife. When the Police arrived they both turned on the Police. Do women lie? Well even on olo many have been caught out.

The family court has been controlled by the radical ratbag left, since it's inception, with a large chunk of control now transferred to the oh so biased womens libbers.

It is about time it was hauled back to some sort of sanity, with a bit of equity added to it's focus.

Dear runner,

In family law, the lack of experience in the
most sensitive cases, dealing with fragile
humans will be exacerbated with inexperts in
charge. It will be a sham inquiry. A vehicle
for Pauline Hanson to broadcast the range of her
ignorance, fed not on facts but anecdotes
from her supporters. Her poor grasp of the
evidence about what happens in the family court
is a red flag.

Also the appointment of Kevin Andrews is concerning.
With his evangelical mission to save marriages.
Some marriages cannot be saved and trying to do so
puts parties and children at risk.

Dear Hasbeen,

The family court has had problems since its
inception in 1975. Here it is 2019 and it
continues to be beset by problems. This
latest - the planned inquiry to be run by Kevin
Andrews and Pauline Hanson is being advertised as
an attempt to "bring men along". But is it really
nothing more than pandering to extremists?

Surely the vast majority of Australian men don't
need to be patronised.

The Sydney Morning Herald tells us that government
after government has decreased funding, wanted to
change the Family Court's make-up, and provided
inadequate funding for counselling and mediation.

The Coalition government in particular, slashed
funding to community law centres.

Wouldn't it be better to just give the Family Court
the resources it needs and let it get on with its
work?

No more inquiries. We know what we need to do. Let the
judges and Family Court get on with it.

'Also the appointment of Kevin Andrews is concerning.
With his evangelical mission to save marriages.
Some marriages cannot be saved and trying to do so
puts parties and children at risk.'

yeah I know Foxy you leftist regressives would be happier with people who have trashed their own marriage or don't even believe in it to judicate. No bias though.

runner,

One of the biggest threats to the Family Court
is described by Jacqui Lambie who in her
brutally honest way tells us that:

"Most Australians would think that for a judge to
get the top job you'd have to go through a rigorous
review process. I was shocked to discover that,
instead of a peer review process to examine your
experience and expertise, now all the Attorney-General
Christian Porter has to do is ring up a mate and
offer them a judgeship. That's crazy and frightening
when you think that someone may only have experience
in corporate law and is being asked to make a decision
about where your kids live".

In family law, lack of experience in these most sensitive
cases and dealing with fragile humans, as stated earlier,
will be exacerbated with inexperts in charge. It can
do great harm and puts parties at risk.

Surely you should be able to see and understand that
enough to leave your bias and politics aside.

runner, your position is understandable, coming from a religion that preaches it is the inalienable right of all men to beat their wives.

The names Hanson and Andrews should be enough to set the alarm bells ringing. How could this pair be considered unbiased, given their stated views on women.

"Many experts are saying that what is needed is action not more inquiries."

Well these so-called 'experts' would wouldn't they?
But can they pass the 'sniff test'?

You see if these people really were the 'experts', then it would surely stand to reason that they must've already fixed all the problems, and / or have the solutions to said problems;

- Otherwise they wouldn't be experts would they?

Therefore the determination of whether these 'so-called experts' really are 'genuine experts' depends on whether or not problems exist.

When these people say they want more action, it could mean they want things to stay the same, but want more funding.

I say we should all give Pauline a chance to prove her case on merit.

Let her have a crack.

If she wants to put her neck on the line for what she sees as the good of the nation then surely we can let her?
Maybe another reason why these 'experts' don't want Pauline poking around is that they and the current policy could be shown to be inept.

I saw what she said 2 weeks ago, the default standard should be 50 / 50.
Not one parent holding all the rights over the other.

Anyone complaining about this has already bought into the hate men narrative.

Having already said it nothing can change my view Scomo gifting these two with stewardship of this inquiry has killed it before it starts
Hanson, clearly more Liberal each day, has been rewarded for her loyalty to her first party the LNP

My experiences with family court in respect grandchildren has been both positive and negative and extremely expensive in regards taxpayers funds. One custody case I was involved with for a grandchild involved 5 lawyers for the reconciliation process! And as all parties qualified for free legal aid, the money involved must have been staggering.
I also have major problems with the Child Support department and the different advice I am given every time I deal with them. It’s as though they all read from a different procedure manual. I loath having to phone them.
On the issue of women lying, well yes they do, but even worse, once the court has made the custody decision, some women still try and punish the father, from personal spite it seems.
I saw this first hand in hospitals, when mothers would tell us that the fathers were not allowed to visit their sick children in hospital, or that fathers were not allowed to receive any information regarding their child’s medical condition. They would become incensed when nursing staff informed them that they needed to produce a court order to substantiate their claims.
One of the worst examples I saw of post marital discord was when two children were in the paediatric clinic, waiting to see the doctor. They had arrived with the mother but when the father arrived and sat in the waiting room they rushed over to hug their father. Their mother then yelled at them to get away from him as he wasn’t to have any access to them during the week, only weekends!
This is the type of manipulative behaviour some women use in court and it greatly concerns me because of the damage done to the children.
An overhaul of the he system is desperately needed.

An over haul of the system is indeed needed.
However the Law Council has stated that this
inquiry must involve the whole community not
just politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats.
Those who witness the impacts of the broken
system on a daily basis, including families,
judges, and family violence service providers
must be included.

But, the new inquiry comes at a time when the
government is yet to respond to a review of the
system by the Australian Law Reform Commission which
handed down 60 recommendations in March.

Also - it is less
than 3 years since the government heard from an
earlier inquiry that urged changes to make the system
less complex and expensive.

And then the government is also part way through an
attempt to merge the Family Court with the Federal
Court even though this was criticised by the Law
Council and rejected by Labor.

No wonder people are expressing their concerns.

Queensland Women's Legal Service Chief Executive
Angela Lynch said:

"Yet again we have another inquiry set up with people
who are not experts in domestic violence. I'm exasperated
and outraged. This is just kicking the issue down the road
again... How many women and children have to die before they
do something?"

We can only hope that this time perhaps - things may go better.
Because the system is broken and does need fixing. Doing
nothing is not an option as Attorney-General Christian
Porter has stated.

cont'd ...

Also cutting funding and under-resourcing also only
adds to the problems.

Big Nana,
Ever since its first inception I have been hearing similar concerns as you posted about the Family Court. This has not just been pub talk but from genuine blokes that were members of Lions and Apex clubs, blokes that held strong community values. I am sure that Pauline, and other politicians, have all heard the same, in spades from blokes that have had dealings with the Family Court. Many blokes openly relate the blatant lies their former wives told the court.

It seems to me that those now critisizing Pauline are now fearful that she may well do an excellent job. If she is so incompetent as her critics maintain, they should encourage her and see her 'crash and burn'.

But no, her critics only want to try and discredit the inquiry before it even begins. It seems the major parties have done little to enthuse blokes about the Family Court to date.

The family court is unfit for purpose and has been for a long time.

It has successfully resisted every attempt at reform for 40 years.
More funding will only result in more litigation (profit) and more of the same.

Feminist laws that eviscerate the presumption of innocence and remove the protections against false allegation have put everyone at risk of harm by lawfare and lawyer profiteering.

These UNILATERAL family violence amendments based on "women don't lie" have proven catastrophic and should be repealed.

The Hanson review should use as the starting point the weak shared parenting reforms of 2008 by Howard which reduced family court litigation by 22% in 2yrs.

The emphasis needs to be on reducing litigation. Both genders need to stop harmful actions and court conflict. Equal parenting has proven decrease all forms of domestic violence (emotional, physical, etc..) and lessen the tax burden on families

The ALRC recommendations to

(1) repeal the presumption of shared parental responsibility (and thereby remove the legislative trigger to consider equal, substantive or any time with the child) and

(2) to replace the other parent with the primary carer's new partner (or significant others) to be in the best interests of the child

reek of social re-engineering of family and lawyer profiteering.

Mediation does not work when one party knows they will always do better in court. This is evidenced by the 17,000 case backlog and 2-3 year trial waiting lists notwithstanding mandated mediation

Mediation is organised blackmail unless there is change in the law incentivising shared parenting.

'Surely you should be able to see and understand that
enough to leave your bias and politics aside.'

says the one who wants Hanson and Andrews abandoned for their political ideology. Really can't see your own hypocrisy Foxy.

'runner, your position is understandable, coming from a religion that preaches it is the inalienable right of all men to beat their wives.'

Oh Paul found a conscience have you. Are you sure its not ok to beat your wife? How would you know. I mean its epidemic in cultures you usually defend.

Hi Foxy,

You see this attitute:

"Yet again we have another inquiry set up with people
who are not experts in domestic violence. I'm exasperated
and outraged. This is just kicking the issue down the road
again... How many women and children have to die before they
do something?"

This is EXACTLY the problem.

These people aren't experts either, no matter what they claim.
They haven't made things any better.

I think they are just, angry women who have resentment towards men.
That's what motivated them to take the path they did.

I'll tell you the only way things can get better.

Men and women fight differently;
Men being the physical dominant one tend to fight with confrontation;
Women being the physically weaker always lose out in a physical confrontation; so women learn how to 'fight without fighting'.

What that is, is moving the pieces quietly behind the scenes with a smile on their face.

Men can be stupid, in that they only know 'confrontation' and don't understand this other kind of girl fighting 'fighting without fighting';
Man are wired to get in your face if you annoy them off enough.

So women can manipulate and back men into a corner often for their own insecurities, and often this happens because men don't know how to take women's irrational behavior and want to leave; and the women would often rather ruin the man emotionally if they can't have them, or think he will leave them for someone else.

If men are wired to naturally fight with confrontation then women are wired to naturally fight with manipulation.

If people can't wake up to this, and women don't stop blaming men and accept their part (when it holds merit) and we can get past this as a species there will be no real progress.

Just had a thought;
I wonder if there's a correlation between this:
- the more liberal women get;
- The more gay men get...

Dear runner,

I have not suggested abandoning or banishing
either Kevin Andrews
or Pauline Hanson because of their political agenda.
The only suggestion that was made concerning politics
was your political leanings and bias being put aside
in this discussion.

I merely stated the facts that -

Fears have been raised by many in the media that
this inquiry would not be balanced in its approach with
Hanson and Andrews at its helm. People had strong concerns
about who is heading this inquiry. Their lack of experience
and objectivity was a concern.

This is the latest in a string of inquiries into the
family law system and its failings.

In 2017 the House of Representatives inquiry into a
"better family law system to support and protect those
affected by family violence" made 33 recommendations.

And there was -

The Australian Law Reform Commission Inquiry released just
this year which made 60 recommendations to the government.

The government has not responded to either of these reports
and recommendations.

Everyone seems to agree that we do need to hear more about
family violence, not less. But more importantly we need
action, not yet another inquiry.

The multiple inquiries show there is a pressing need to
address the fragmentation results in gaps in information
and responses to domestic and family violence.

Also there is a pressing need to address the high cost and
the huge delays in the family law system.

The delays are mainly a result of under-funding of the courts
over a number of years. Spending money on another inquiry
and cutting legal aid centers is not going to help anyone.

Dear AC,

The statistics are staggering. On average one
woman a week is murdered by her current or former
partner. The following link gives more information
concerning statistics:

http://www.whiteribbon.org.au/understand-domestic-violence/facts-violence-woem/domestic-violence-statistics/

It would help if you were to do more research into the
barriers faced by women in accessing the legal system
especially in the context of family law matters.

And -

The impact of current legal and family law funding arrangements
on women.

And -

How the current legal system might be changed to more
adequately provide access to justice for women in
family law.

It just might give you a bigger picture and a broader
understanding of what's involved.

Here's another link that is also worth a read and
gives you an insight from two children's viewpoints
and experiences:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-13/family-court-ordering-children-into-unsafe-situations-alrc/11137344

Hey Foxy,

"The statistics are staggering. On average one
woman a week is murdered by her current or former
partner. The following link gives more information
concerning statistics"

Well that just proves MY POINT.
I'm not arguing with you on this fact,
In fact I'm happy to highlight it because it also highlights that these women's approach is NOT WORKING but making things worse.

"It would help if you were to do more research into the
barriers faced by women in accessing the legal system
especially in the context of family law matters."

Your seeing it one sided.

- Just as importantly you should do some research into the situations men face when women back them into a corner, because usually that's the moment right before things turn physical, if and when they do.

Some blokes are arrogant unreasonable assholes who will use physical strength, fear and control measures; but other times men are backed into a corner because they don't know how to deal with women who manipulate and undermine them and want to cause conflict when they're own needs and expectations aren't being met.

You're listening to the 'scorned women who've lost quite possibly their looks and youth and are angry and resentful for the choices they made with blokes - point of view', and not an unbiased view that starts with a clean sheet on the basis of merit.

It takes 2 to tango.
When relationships become powerstuggles, people use whatever they have available to them.

"the more liberal women get;- The more gay men get..."
AC what are you saying, female rejection results in male homosexuality. Interesting, I have seen more than one female lusting after a gay man. sometimes not knowing the fact.

runner the words of a Christian to his wife as she left the family abode after enduring years of physical abuse; "Your problem is you won't obey me. The Bible says you must obey me and you refuse," he yelled. "You are a failure as a wife, as a Christian, as a mother. You are an insubordinate piece of s....."

runner, could this wife beater be a member of your congregation.

Hi Paul1405,
'the more liberal women get;- The more gay men get...'

"AC what are you saying, female rejection results in male homosexuality. Interesting, I have seen more than one female lusting after a gay man. sometimes not knowing the fact."

I didn't really mean to imply that one thing is 'directly' responsible for the other in the way you laid it out;
It was more of just a simple observation, and more in a sense of 'indirectly responsible';
- and I'll happily concede the two things most likely aren't related.

I just through it out there, when I probably shouldn't have.

Dear AC,

What is concerning is that support groups are under-resourced
especially the frontline services. Despite the fact that
there is a huge demand for their services. The recommendations
from previous inquiries are sitting on the shelves yet the
best the government decides it can do is to have another
inquiry.

Perhaps this is because the Family law system and the courts
are predominantly controlled by men?

The statistics and facts speak for themselves AC.

Did you happen to read the other link I gave from the
children's point of view and experiences?

I respectfully suggest it is irrelevant how many recommendations have been for more funding.
More funding is simply going to result in more litigation and more demands for funding.

There is already a 17000 case backlog in the FCoA that will take 10 years to clear

In addition there are 2-3 yr waiting lists for trial, 26 murder suicides a week, self-perpetuating generational child trauma and a $20BN welfare bill to taxpayers paying for single parent families, the mass criminalisation / incarceration / and pauperisation of men and all the social pathologies of mass fatherlessness consequent of a predatory family law / DV industry.

We don’t want more of the same we want less.

What is needed are law changes to disincentivise litigation.

The weak shared parenting reform of 2008 decreased family law litigation by 22%.

The family violence amendments of 2011 – Gillard’s feminist pork for the lawyers - redefined FV so widely that it is anything the accuser thinks it is. Everyone is guilty by accusation and thereby the presumption of innocence eviscerated.

In addition, the protections against false allegations - “women don’t lie” - were removed and the “friendly parent” provisions against child alienation repealed.

Not surprisingly we now have 2-3 year waiting lists and a 17000 case backlog - demands for more funding.

I submit the ALP/Greens intentionally created the DV epidemic by fiddling the definitions of family violence and guillotining UNILATERAL family law amendments for the purpose of socially engineering female votes using the Court.

Single women tend to vote left (2:1) for Big Brother government and welfare. When they marry and have children they this flips to (1:2) to conservative. By increasing the divorce rate, the ALP is flipping conservative voters to the left and keeping them by DV welfare funding – National DV Plan.

Female voters outnumber men by 3%. That swing margin determines election.

No surprise they attack anyone attempting an inquiry into a divorced male suicide rate 8 times that of women.

Most people don’t realise that 90% of DVO’s involve no physical contact between the parties. Men are criminalised for replying to text, driving within 200m of their own home, looking “scary” or just not doing what their partner wants.

Moreover, the taxpayer is being forced to pay for legal aid to fund this trivial litigation.

Feminist laws prevent the accused from defending himself. Only lawyers are allowed to cross-examine the alleged “victim”.

If you don’t have $10K then the law requires the Court to ORDER legal aid to fund a lawyer. If you don’t qualify then you are convicted. No more government jobs, police force, practicing law or running for Parliament to change the law. Complete emasculation.

In this way the DV stats are ridiculously overinflated for more funding.

The recommendations for more funding should not be implemented. There is no evidence that the $740M/year has been effective in reducing DV such that more funding is not justified.

We need to address the root causes of the so called DV epidemic and change the laws.

Hey Foxy,
I was going to say:
'If you want to play gender wars, then I'd prefer not to but if you really want to then fine;
If you think the men are dragging their feet then fine point the finger at men;
- If you are convinced the issue holds merit.'

I was going to say that Foxy;
- Until I read Howards Beale's contribution.

Now I'm considering the idea that these laws that support the womens point of view might be the damn reason in itself for the backlog.

Re your link:
I'm not going to defend a peedo, what's your point?

Children are often worse off in the care they are placed in than where they were in the first place.
This is nothing new.

I know of situations where some mums and women have been railroaded by by a sub standard bloke and his well to do affluent family.
Sometimes losing custody of kids unfairly.

"The statistics and facts speak for themselves AC."
- Yes, what the women have come up with ISNT working.
Their answer is to take a whip to men; after they probably pushed their own men into a corner which caused them lash out at them.

Can any man imagine THESE women wouldn't do that?

I'm trying to make concessions here for both sides Foxy;
- If you pay attention to what I'm saying -
Try to see the bigger picture.

So now I'm going to say something else:

Cloward and Piven.
I've said it enough times, you should all know what I mean by now.

I wonder how many men who support Pauline Hanson's position on the inquiry are doing so because they are woman bashers.

I make no apologies for this being so long. I may even have to wait 24 hours to finish Posting.

Foxy: Pauline Hanson's recent unsupported claims that women are frequently making up allegations of domestic violence in family courts?

I sense a little Bias against men getting any justice against women who work the System with help from their Lawyers. However, moving on.

I wish to point out the Accusation made by Pauline was, “Some women,” not Women. Would you be so bold as to hold a view that, “Women never lie?” I have heard Rabid feminist exclaim something very similar previously, like, “Only men are Violent. Women are never violent.”

Mr. Opinion: a clash between Pauline Hanson and Rosie Batty.

Both ladies are trying to fix a crocked System, but they’ve both got different ends of the same stick. I can understand Rose Batty’s dislike of men given she has that Scar on her face from a man when she worked in that famous Street in Kalgoorlie after coming from Sydney when the Yanks pulled out of Vietnam & there was no more Rest & Recreation for the Troops in Sydney. 😉

Foxy: I've read all the criticisms of this inquiry. And some very valid concerns have been raised.

Mostly from Rabid Women’s Groups & Leftist who hate Pauline with a Passion. Yes, I seen them too.

Belly: Hanson used her personal view to taint her understanding before it even got started.

All she said was that. “Some women lie.” & you are right Belly. <However yes some women do lie> Careful, or you will get lumped in with Pauline.
Cont

Belly: And yes, the court is biased against men.

Yes, it is. I have had a Barrister tell me that I could not present & he would not present the evidence against my ex because, “The Judge would not allow any evidence to be presented that denigrated a Woman & Mother or show up a woman in a bad light.” That was letters & admissions from ex boyfriends she had while we were still married. Not even the hundreds “Letters of Demand” over 16 years. Averaging at least one, sometimes two a month. Do you realize what that adds up to in Solicitors Charges?

Foxy: Katherine Murphy in The Guardian tells us that the PM's family court inquiry is a "boneheaded gift to Pauline Hanson and men's rights activists".

Is Katherine saying that it’s OK for women to take action against me but it’s not for Men to take action against men. Is that Biased, or what.

Foxy: Australian Law Reform Commission has already presented a bunch of detailed recommendations to over haul the family court system in August.

& as usual the Lawyers will get in on the act so they will not lose their Lucrative Cash Cow. The interference of Lawyers. “Looking after their Clients interests” is what drives Lawyers for their own Benefit.

My second wife couldn’t take any more of the constant harassment from my first wife, at her place of employment. We split amicably. We divided everything, made a list of who got what & she started her move back to Brisbane from North Queensland. We went to our Solicitor & he said he couldn’t accept the agreement & could only act for one of us.

He called his brother-in-Law of the rival Firm & she took her copy down to him. Just before she left, I received a letter from my Solicitor want to know what I was going to do about a letter of demand from her solicitor. I asked my Wife what it was about & she didn’t know. So, she rung him & her said, “I’m looking after your interests.”

My Solicitor wrote back, on my behalf & told him it wasn’t necessary & demanded they stop the harassment. Apparently, a couple of more letters passed between the Solicitors. Then I got the Bill for a couple of Hundred Dollars. This was at a time when wages were only about $75 a week.

I refused to pay because this was a Scam between two Solicitors. of the three Brothers of the other Firm of Solicitors & those Three Solicitors were married to the three sisters of my Firm of Solicitors. My wife at the time didn’t have to pay anything because she was granted Legal Aid. When my Solicitor threatened to take me to court my wife said she would stand with me & explain the position to the Court. Needless to say, they didn’t take me to Court.

This is a common occurrence in Divorce Cases. The Solicitors have created an environment for the Clients to do Battle & they rake in the Profits.

This is what this enquiry is about to some extent. Lawyers gouging the System & deliberately creating animosity between the Clients.

Hasbeen: The family court has been controlled by the radical ratbag left, since its inception, with a large chunk of control now transferred to the oh so biased women’s libbers.

Oh, so right.

Foxy: A vehicle for Pauline Hanson to broadcast the range of her ignorance, fed not on facts but anecdotes
from her supporters.

What is the problem with that? The Anecdotes are real life dealt out to men by Solicitors & their female clients.

I am only one male that has been unfairly treated by the Lawyers & Court System.

I’ll add in here that Mine was the first Divorce granted under the new Legislation in 1975. I was also the first Custody Case under the new Legislation., in Australia. There were no problems with the new legislation in the beginning

The Lawyers & the Feminists have done their Damdest to undermine the Laws ever since. The Lawyers are making a mint out of people’s misery & they are causing most of it. What’s more Lawyers don’t care as long as they can keep their clients fighting, they are making money.

That’s what this inquiry is going to try to stop. I wish them well but the Lawyers will win out in the end. Too many Lawyers in Parliament.

Big Nana: One of the worst examples I saw of post marital discord was when two children were in the paediatric clinic, waiting to see the doctor. They had arrived with the mother but when the father arrived and sat in the waiting room they rushed over to hug their father. Their mother then yelled at them to get away from him as he wasn’t to have any access to them during the week, only weekends!
This is the type of manipulative behaviour some women use in court and it greatly concerns me because of the damage done to the children.

Oh yes, been through that too.

Foxy: Queensland Women's Legal Service Chief Executive Angela Lynch said:

"Yet again we have another inquiry set up with people who are not experts in domestic violence. I'm exasperated
and outraged.

Naturally the only “experts” allowed by her would be from “Women’s Shelters” Ay.

I agree with everything Howard Beal said.

AC: and the women would often rather ruin the man emotionally.

Amen.

Foxy: Also there is a pressing need to address the high cost and the huge delays in the family law system.

Isn’t this largely what this inquiry is about?

Foxy: the barriers faced by women in accessing the legal system especially in the context of family law matters.

There are no Barriers for women. Women are automatically granted Legal Aid. Men are entitled but it never or very rarely granted. As I was told, “There is not enough money for the women who need it without giving it to men.” From a Lawyer.

So whats your solution then Mr Opinion?
Maybe we could try empowering women and disempowering men;

Oh that's right we're doing it already and the stats show its not working.

- Maybe we could try blending both sexes into a single new species;

Oh that's right we've got 'gender fluid' doing it already and the stats show its not working.

Maybe we could emasculate men altogether;

Oh we're doing that already with taxpayer funded reassignment surgery;

- But the stats say its still not working.

I'm not saying what I'm saying to stick up for either side.
I'm saying it because there's a problem and we need a solution.

Foxy: How the current legal system might be changed to more adequately provide access to justice for women in
family law.

& Men. (equality) Ay.

Foxy: On average one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner.

No mention about the number of men who commit Suicide because of the Court System & Lawyers & nasty women.

HB: n addition there are 2-3 yr waiting lists for trial, 26 murder suicides a week, self-perpetuating generational child trauma and a $20BN welfare bill to taxpayers paying for single parent families, the mass criminalisation / incarceration / and pauperisation of men and all the social pathologies of mass fatherlessness consequent of a predatory family law / DV industry.

Amen

HB: Most people don’t realise that 90% of DVO’s involve no physical contact between the parties.

Oh, I just remembered. I was the first male to be given a DVO against my first wife. The Clerk of the Court wasn’t happy to give it & took it back to the Magistrate for clarification. Boy didn’t the Magistrate tear strips off him.

AC: Their answer is to take a whip to men; after they probably pushed their own men into a corner which caused them lash out at them.

Oh yeah. I was taken to task by a Marriage Guidance Councillor (Female) for not taking control of my wife. As I said to her, “You would have loved that. Ay. Then you could have said that I was taking away her “Power & made me out to be bad male.” She was not happy I caught her out.

Mr Opinion: I wonder how many men who support Pauline Hanson's position on the inquiry are doing so because they are woman bashers.

I wonder how many men who support Pauline Hanson’s position on the inquiry are doing so because they are NOT women Bashers.

I think that some of us are taking the wrong approach
in all this finger-pointing. Myself included.

I've just read what I consider a rather good article
on the family law system written by Jame Miller, who
was a partner at Tindall Gask Bentley Lawyers in Adelaide
and an accredited family law specialist. She left the
firm in May 2019 (after 19 years) to become a barrister.
Although the opinion piece was written in March 2018.
I feel that its still relevant.

The title of her article is "Australia's Family Law crisis
reaches tipping point".

Miller writes that "our family law system should be
over hauled not because it is "wrong" but because it has
become outdated and inefficient in the delivery of
timely justice. Society has outgrown it."

She points out the fact that "we have a diverse group
of people engaging with family law today. People with
disabilities, and mental health concerns, those
impacted with social and economic disadvantage, people
with substance dependencies, parties of varying cultural
backgrounds, those with language barriers."

She tells us that these evolving diversities will
warrant a progressive legal system that responds to human
needs. On top of this she says is "the increasing diversity
of families, change gender roles, same-sex relationships,
surrogacy, and grand parents as primary carers."

This diversity could never have been anticipated when
the family law system was last over hauled and today
Miller rightly points out we can't predict what future
family units may look like.

She re-assures us that future law reform is inevitable
because try as we might we are never going to arrive at
a perfect system. Sadly, as she tells us - there is no
legal solution that is wholly capable of fixing what are
in fact social problems.

Hurt, deception, betrayal, and conflict can't be healed by
a legal band-aid. As a result, there is an inherent ceiling to
the level of "customer satisfaction"that punters can
expect from the family law system.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

To overcome this our legislators according to Miller
"must be astute, sophisticated thinkers, well-informed
about the tremenduous complexities and diversity in
family law."

She says "they must be attuned to the evolution of
the family unit which judging by past experience will
continue to develop in ways we can't even contemplate
today.

Our family law system will need to change, respond to
and move with changes within our families and within
our society as a whole.

As a result, Miller warns that our reforms whatever
we decide they will be, will not be reforms to end
all reforms, but hopefully our attempts now will
turn out to be a much needed large first-step towards a
system that helps rather than hurts families.

Here is a Media Release from the Prime Minister
dated 17 September 2019 on this Joint Parliamentary
Inquiry into Family Law and Child support:

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/joint-parliamentary-inquiry-family-law-and-child-support

Hi Foxy,

Diver Dan posted a link on another thread, and I thought I'd share it here as it seems to also be relevant to this discussion.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/291105/americas-new-sex-bureaucracy

The problem with family law in my view is, we use the adversarial legal system to try and deal with human emotion, often it doesn't work, this system of winners and losers. Relationship breakup is never easy, particularly when it involves children. Politicians no matter how well intentioned cannot legislate to fix broken lives.

Drag Queen Story Time

12 August 2019
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7346395/Drag-queens-teaching-Australian-preschoolers-inclusion-diversity-storytelling.html

Here's a symptom of the type of screwed up thinking that's gotten us where we are.
- This crap is truly worthy of its own thread. -

But wait, before you go;
If this stuff raises your eyebrows, then consider this:

- I could've told you it was coming 2 years ago, because that's when I first heard about it. -

October 18, 2017
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/forget-mr-rogers-drag-queen-reading-hour-coming-to-a-library-near-you

A man I know well has had three wives,children with each
His third had two kids when they met
Each love him, call him dad
His first was lets say a bit unstable, knew her well, they had two kids
They hung off dad loved him
That wife left, with another man, took the kids, over 30 years ago
He won his kids, the right to bring them up, mum however took off
He has not seen those kids again
He, at least for those in the last 30 years, has seen lies told about him, been able to win court action, but like it or not, never seen his kids
The truth is men good upstanding men, are not treated equally to SOME teary eyed woman armed with lies, in our family court
That bloke? two last wives and kids love him still

Hi Belly,

Is his name Mohamed? I think I saw him on TV.

Q: What do you call a good looking Arab?
A: Asif.

Dear Ac and Paul,

As Jane Miller pointed out in the earlier article
that I cited earlier - our family law system
should be over hauled because it has become
outdated and inefficient in the delivery of timely
justice. Society has outgrown it but more than
that - sadly there is not legal solution that is
wholly capable of fixing what are in fact social
problems - hurt, deception, betrayal, conflict,
can't be healed by a legal band-aid.

To overcome this as Miller points out our legislators
must be astute, sophisticated thinkers, well-informed about
the tremendous complexities and diversity of family law.

They must be attuned to the evolution of the family unit which
judging from past experience will continue to develop in
ways we can't even contemplate today.

Our family law system will need to change, respond and move
with changes within our families and within society
as a whole.

That's a big ask - especially considering who is chairing
the new inquiry. Therein lie the concerns that so many
have expressed.

Also, the fact that we've already had numerous inquiries
and recommendations to which the government has
not responded is not a good sign.

This new inquiry may simply be just another whose
recommendations will sit somewhere on the shelves - with
no action taken.

We can only hope that this inquiry will turn out to be
a much- needed first step towards a system that helps
rather than hurts families.

As I stated previously - to continue to do nothing is
not an option. The system is broken and needs fixing.

Mr O so you think only Muslims wed more than once
Live in a card board box do you
Now in his 70,s the man is my brother have 5 of them,all have wed more than once

The Magistrates Courts used to adjudicate Family matters.

The Family Court making decisions in secret without the litigants knowledge.
Young people with no real life experience are deciding the futures of families.
Court Councillors or social workers advise the family Court judges after a ten minute interview with one of the litigants.
Inflammatory statements such as "you will only be denied access to your children for a few years and you will probably see them when they are grown up,If they want to see you then."
Since the Family Court started in Australia.
Fatherless children have become the norm not an exception.
Bring back the Magistrates who understand families not the well paid professional Family Court judges.

Foxy,

The Metoo movement has successfully pushed that a woman's word should be accepted without question with the result that in many contested divorces a claim of DV is used to separate a father from his children with zero actual evidence.

The issue is not whether the man should prove his innocence, but whether a woman should provide evidence that DV has actually occurred.

Shadow Minister,

I think that broken bones, smashed faces, - dead bodies,
eye witnesses and doctor's and police
reports speak for themselves. As do the current statistics.

'I think that broken bones, smashed faces, - dead bodies,
eye witnesses and doctor's and police
reports speak for themselves'

you forget the number of men who neck themselves Foxy. They also count.

runner,

No one is saying that they don't count.

Are we all done playing gender wars now people?

If you want a better result than previous you're going to have to sit down together (both men and women) to work out the right policy.

Failure 1: It's not going to work if you have the policy written just by the women.
That's just going to have the result of alienating men further;
- Which means more men will feel like they're backed further into a corner meaning they'll be more likely to lash out; and you won't solve anything.

Right now the policy to fix this has been: Failure 2. Try to resolve the conflict by turning women into men and men into women, effectively blend us all into a single species;
Failure 3. Treat the person in the relationship who is physically stronger and naturally more confrontational as the one who is ALWAYS in the wrong;

It's not working.

If something isn't working, then you're going about it the wrong way.

There won't be any progress whilst your 'experts' are blocking the way forward.

If you start out with a man hating attitude, you're guaranteed a man hating outcome.

Personally I think we need somehow to convince young people not to jump into relationships with people they barely know, and certainly don’t have children with hem before you are sure the relationship is going to work.
Being forced to get married or live together because of pregnancy should not occur in this age of advanced contraception.
Sometimes I have listened to hate filled conversations between couples after they have split up and wondered how did they ever conceive children who overhear.
And I hate to say it, but I have found in general that the women were the most vindictive.
And whilst I abhor all forms of violence, including the domestic kind, I have seen men literally forced into lashing out by being subjected to a barrage of verbal abuse and denigration, frequently in front of the children.

Dear AC,

That's why input from everybody is so important.
Not only from politicians, lawyers, and judges.
Community voices - male, female, children, also
need to contribute and be heard.

Dear Big Nana,

I worked for the Department of Community Services
with the child protection services being just down the hall
from my office. It broke my heart reading their reports.
And today we have an even more diverse group of people
engaging with family law. As pointed out earlier
there are those with disabilities and mental health concerns,
those impacted with substance dependencies, parties of
varying cultural backgrounds, those with language
barriers. These evolving diversities will warrant a
progressive legal system that responds to human needs.

On top of this is the increasing diversity of
families, changing gender roles,
same-sex relationships, surrogacy, and grand
parents as primary carers.

This diversity could never have been anticipated when the
family law system was last over hauled and today we can't
predict what future family units may look like.

So yes, people should be cautious prior to entering into
a relationship and having children. Future law reform is
inevitable because try as we might we are never going to
arrive at a perfect system - it must change with its
people and society.

Foxy. Society has outgrown it but more than that - sadly there is not legal solution that is
wholly capable of fixing what are in fact social problems

The Family Law System that is in place now is infinitely better that what was in place pre-75, believe me. It was designed to end the Legal Corruption that was inherit ant in that System. What has happened is the Lawyers have, in time, learnt how to manipulate the ‘’system” for Profit.

Brock: The Family Court making decisions in secret without the litigants knowledge.

Oh yeah. About a week before the hearing the Lawyers for both sides & the Judge get together & decide the outcome.
The Hearing is just a farce to make it look good. As explained to me by a retired Magistrate. Most Trials are like this. Things like the Jury, Precedents, what evidence is & is not allowed etc. It’s to save Court time.

Foxy: I think that broken bones, smashed faces, - dead bodies, eye witnesses and doctor's and police
reports speak for themselves. As do the current statistics

Are you intermating that this is the case in every Divorce or Separation? It sure sounds like it to me. Current Static’s state that more women (mothers) commit infanticide than fathers (fathers.) There are more Drug addicted mothers as well.

Runner: you forget the number of men who neck themselves Foxy. They also count.

Exactly.

Foxy: No one is saying that they don't count.

Just conveniently overlooked.

Big Nana: And I hate to say it, but I have found in general that the women were the most vindictive.

Oh yeah!

Foxy: That's why input from everybody is so important. Not only from politicians, lawyers, and judges.
Community voices - male, female, children, also need to contribute and be heard.

When it comes to the actual hearing there “Must” be no legal People involved in any form. The consultations must be only made by Councillors or people trained in this area. One proviso. No-one connected with the Feminist Industry or have a bias against Males be allowed anywhere near the process. After an fair & reasonable agreement has been reached then it can go to a Judge for ratification.

Jayb,

Good to see that you've given this a great deal
of thought and taken the time to share your
thoughts with us.

Kudos.

Hi Foxy,
We could EASILY come up with a better policy than the 'experts' have ourselves.
And when I say 'ourselves' I mean just the contributors to this thread.

Over here on this thread I posted something really important.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20524#362092

"The way to get to the truth on any issue is to separate the arguments that do hold merit from those that don't.
Policies need to be foolproofed, that is face the scrutiny of every possible argument that holds merit.
It needs to be done this way because there's a lot at stake.
At best 'bad policy' has the potential for people to be treated unfairly;
And at worst the policy is open to exploitation by those who would deliberately do so for their own or others benefit;
- And all the consequences that can result from that"

OK so do you see what we're doing now right?
Were all slowly arguing out the merits of our points of view.

That's this part:
'The way to get to the truth on any issue is to separate the arguments that do hold merit from those that don't.
Policies need to be foolproofed, that is face the scrutiny of every possible argument that holds merit.'

We've already GONE further in the process to get to the bottom of this problem than the experts have.

We've come so far but we're not finished.
I already know the destination.

Big Nana's comment is a good place to ground ourselves and take a breather.

"Personally I think we need somehow to convince young people not to jump into relationships with people they barely know, and certainly don’t have children with them before you are sure the relationship is going to work."

Getting Warmer.

"And I hate to say it, but I have found in general that the women were the most vindictive."

Warmer.

"And whilst I abhor all forms of violence, including the domestic kind, I have seen men literally forced into lashing out by being subjected to a barrage of verbal abuse and denigration, frequently in front of the children."

Hot.

Dear AC,

As I indicated to Jayb -

I also appreciate your taking the time, thought, and
effort to share your thoughts with us.

AC: "And whilst I abhor all forms of violence, including the domestic kind, I have seen men literally forced into lashing out by being subjected to a barrage of verbal abuse and denigration, frequently in front of the children."

Oh yeah. I have come to the conclusion that the reason my wife's first husband committed suicide was because he was verbally & mentally abused. Yes he used to bash her. I've heard all the stories. He was from a family of heavy drinkers & men known to be very macho. Actually I think that she was actually the intended target & he couldn't do it because he'd end up in jail. Aids was the real big scare in those days & jail was where you got.... Well you know. & he could not stand the thought of that.

After 27 years of marriage I know what the poor bugger had to put up with. luckily I'm a lot more laid back & can handle it with ease. Which makes her mad because I don't fight back. I've never ever been able to get angry, & when I do try every-one laughs. Total failure.

You know, "Yes... uh huh... hmmmm." Ha ha ha.

Hey Foxy,

OK Part 2 from yesterday...

I said getting warmer, warmer and hot to Big Nana comment.
I half expected a comment saying I'm defending woman bashers;
- But I'm not.

Let me explain.

"Personally I think we need somehow to convince young people not to jump into relationships with people they barely know, and certainly don’t have children with them before you are sure the relationship is going to work"

I said 'getting warmer' to this, because Big Nana's moving in the direction the sum total of our arguments is supposed to take us.

I said I know the destination, the 'destination' is this:
'1. Prevention is better than cure'

Big Nana said "convince young people not to jump into relationships with people they barely know".

She's on the right track, but not exactly right.
It's isn't 'convince young people to not have relationships';
It is '2. Prepare them adequately for the types of situations relationships will produce'.

- Take 1 and 2 together, that's the destination and that's the answer. -

"And I hate to say it, but I have found in general that the women were the most vindictive."

There's a good reason for this, (You are getting warmer) you just have to figure out what it is, and I'll explain more in following comments.

Now to this, why did I say 'Hot'?
"And whilst I abhor all forms of violence, including the domestic kind, I have seen men literally forced into lashing out by being subjected to a barrage of verbal abuse and denigration, frequently in front of the children."

I told you in the beginning.
'Men are more likely to lash out (sooner) when backed into a corner.
There's a good reason for this, (You are getting hot) you just have to figure out what it is

To be fair both sexes, all people are likely to lash out at some point, if they're being backed into a corner.

Dear AC,

Surveys suggest that each year very large numbers
of couples go through a violent episode in which
one spouse tries to cause the other serious pain or
injury.

Wives assault their husbands , husbands assault their wives
and spouses are equally likely to kill each other.
Although wives are rarely a match for their husbands in a
fistfight, they are more likely to use lethal weapons (notably kitchen knives).

In most non fatal physical violence between the spouses
however wives are very much the victims. Wife-beating is a
widespread and very serious problem.

The sources of this violence may lie in the dynamics of the
family as an intimate environment: close relationships
are likely to involve more conflict than less intimate ones,
since there are more occasions for tension to arise and
more likelihood that deep emotions will be provoked.

Another source may lie outside the family, for violence is
frequently a response to frustration. If the person affected
cannot strike back at the source of the problem - the
arrogance of an employer, say, or the lack of a job - the
aggression may be readily redirected to family members.

Perhaps most important, violence between husband and wife
takes place in a general social context that has traditionally
emphasized male dominance and female subservience.

In any event, the extent of violence in groups whose
members are supposed to love and care for one another is not
easily explained and suggests that the modern family may
sometimes be under greater pressure than it can easily bear.

Foxy: In most non fatal physical violence between the spouses. However wives are very much the victims.

I beg to differ on this point. I find that wives are very good at subtle & not so subtle, very nasty, mental & verbal Violence. Most men have no comeback & put up with it.

There is an old saying, "Angel when out Devil when in." Occasionally, it gets too much & men lash out. The scenario is like the little sister who annoys her brother until he hits her back & guess who gets caught. The same thing happens here.

Foxy: Wife-beating is a widespread and very serious problem.

Yes it is, but Husband Baiting has to be recognized as a real thing also. Still, no excuse for hitting a woman. As they say, "$h!t Splatters" & it's the man that gets covered in it every time.

Jayb's on to it.

Getting very hot now.

"The scenario is like the little sister who annoys her brother until he hits her back & guess who gets caught. The same thing happens here."

This is kind of hard for me to lay it all out, so I might jumble it up a bit.

When kids are really young they learn 2 social behaviors
'Do as your told' (The respect your elders line) and;
'Tit for Tat' (with peers, if you touch me, I'll touch you)

- And Boys and Girls fight differently. -

Think about the difference between boys and girls
Before they even know what their privates were for.

Think about what boys are first;
and then think about how girls are different.

Boys are more inclined to have a physical interaction with other boys sooner.
- Where in comparison girls are more likely to have long running petty squabbles.

Another aspect
Boys bodies are built for physical strength;
Where in comparison girls bodies are built to reproduce.

How the physical or emotionally weaker person fights a physically or emotionally stronger person.

Blokes get backed into a corner and will lash out.
They are more likely to lose their temper and be angry and confrontational, and not hold it in.

Women play a different game,
They play 'fight without fighting'
- Moving the pieces in the background with a smile on their face.
Blokes don't know this game well, it's a blind spot.

The physically or emotionally weaker person will manipulate to even the playing field.
People use whatever they have.

Relationships can be complicated.
Sometimes people can be so tightly wound they self-implode keep fighting because they've been disrespected or their needs aren't being met and they push the people they care about away and cant stop it.

[Cont.]

It's a complicated thing to try and analyse the way in which loving relationships digress to become power struggles;
- And then sometimes all out war.

As well as this, man have an approach mechanism;
and women have a filtering mechanism

Women filter out men they don't like pretty quickly into the 'friend zone'

And whether its some kind of genetics or DNA thing;
Women are more attracted to the types of physically stronger, confident (and ignorant) 'alpha males';
And less attracted to the types of 'beta males' that would probably treat them better in the first place.

Society has been working on this 'equality' basis;
Trying to make men into women and women into men.
Instead of understanding and recognising what makes us different.

If you really want people to have better relationships
- Then teach them how to handle situations that relationships will produce beforehand.

I honestly don't believe that blokes want to deal with cops, go to court or jail and lose their kids;
- Any more than women want to get bashed.

Foxy,

Where there is clear evidence of "broken bones, smashed faces, dead bodies, eyewitnesses and doctor's and police reports" Then I have no problem with courts restricting a father's access to children.

However, where there are no "broken bones, smashed faces, dead bodies, eyewitnesses and doctor's and police reports" as often happens in contested divorces today, then there should not be an automatic acceptance of the woman's claims as fact.

There are also many cases where custody of the children has been automatically awarded to the woman where there is clear indication that she is not suitable.

This discussion is now going around in circles.
We're merely covering ground that's already
been covered. For that reason I'd like to
Thank all who have contributed and I look
forward to our next discussion.

For me this one has run its course.

AC: Where in comparison girls are more likely to have long running petty squabbles.

What I call “Dolly Syndrome” Some little girl played with another little girls Doll & that little girl has never forgiven her, 40 years later the little girl still hates the other little girl for touching her Doll. Women do the same with men too.

AC: - Moving the pieces in the background with a smile on their face. Blokes don't know this game well, it's a blind spot.

Oh yeah, that’s so right on. I have learnt what to watch out for. That makes them even more mad when you call them out. If they can’t get you to be physically Violent then you are accused of being “Passive Aggressive” which I'm told is just as bad. Can't Win. Ay.

AC: I honestly don't believe that blokes want to deal with cops, go to court or jail and lose their kids; - Any more than women want to get bashed.

Exactly.

SM: There are also many cases where custody of the children has been automatically awarded to the woman where there is clear indication that she is not suitable.

Oh, so right. We have a couple of kids up the road in Foster Care. Their mother is a Druggie & has serious mental problems. The kids’ father is a nice bloke, But the Court gave the kids to the mother because they were very young. The mother can’t handle the kids because they interfere with her partying, drugs & boyfriends so the kids are fostered out. Go figure how that works. Talking to the Foster mom this morning on my morning walk with my three little dogs. I think the Foster mom just wanted someone to talk too.

Hi Foxy, Jayb, Shadow Minister and everyone else.

Jayb "What I call 'Dolly Syndrome' Some little girl played with another little girls Doll & that little girl has never forgiven her, 40 years later the little girl still hates the other little girl for touching her Doll."

Ok Now your RED HOT
It's blown the lid off and now the kitchen is on fire.
Call the fireys.
Great Job.

Foxy you spoke on another thread about being picked on when you were younger, surely you know what we're talking about?

Yes I'm done here too.
-But there are some take-aways.

Firstly, in regards to the current protocol there is obviously some issues that hold merit, because otherwise other forum members wouldn't agree with me.

This shows that your experts are not the experts they claim to be,
They're entrenched in their beliefs and they are preventing change for the better.

Secondly I want you to know there is a path to creating better policy.
You just witnessed it, it's a process.

I think I want to close this out with something I wrote earlier.

The way to get to the truth on any issue is to separate the arguments that do hold merit from those that don't.
Policies need to be foolproofed, that is face the scrutiny of every possible argument that holds merit.
It needs to be done this way because there's a lot at stake.
At best 'bad policy' has the potential for people to be treated unfairly;
And at worst the policy is open to exploitation by those who would deliberately do so for their own or others benefit;
- And all the consequences that can result from that.

Dear Ac,

What is a concern is that on the 16 March 2017 a
Committee of the Australian parliament adopted an
inquiry into how Australia's federal family law system
can better support and protect people affected by
family violence. The inquiry was referred by the
Attorney-General Senator the Hon, George Brandis, QC.

The Committee aimed to make recommendations that will
improve the system for ALL participants. 33 recommendations
resulted.

Then the Australian Law Reform Commission Report -
released just this year - made 60 recommendations to the
government.

The government has not responded to either of those reports.

We can argue until we're blue in the face.

However it shall be a government decision as to what action
if any is taken.

See you on another discussion.

I wrote about the ALRC review above, namely,

Recommendations for

(1) the repeal of the Presumption of shared parental responsibility (and thereby the legislative trigger to consider equal, substantial or any time with the children)

(2) that the other biological parent be replaced by significant others, (i.e. the mother's new partner) to be in the best interests of children.

And

(3) 40 recommendations for more funding to the DV industry and litigation profit for lawyers

There's plenty of other feminist goodies hidden in the 500 pages.

Clearly, these thinly veiled sole maternal custody amendments would guarantee more "fight to the death" custody battles and hence the multitude of funding recommendations that Foxy is so concerned about.

The ALRC report is so extreme that the National Parenting Organisation in the USA chose to respond to it in 3 parts.

1. Australian Commission Wants Shared Parenting Law ‘Scrapped’
https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/24308-australian-commission-wants-shared-parenting-law-scrapped

2. Australian Law Reform Commission Finds Shared Parenting Inconvenient – For Judges!
https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/24309-australian-law-reform-commission-finds-shared-parenting-inconvenient-for-judges

3. The Final Report of the Australian Law Reform Commission reads like it was written by opponents of shared parenting. Indeed, it may have been. Chaired by academic feminist extremist Helen Rhoades
Australian Law Reform Committee Report, Part Three
https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/24310-australian-law-reform-committee-report-part-three

If these so called "reform" recommendations were implemented the murder / suicide rate would skyrocket, there would be mass criminalisation / incarceration / pauperisation of men and massive $20BN welfare cost increases to taxpayers dealing with the pathologies of mass fatherlessness.

Most of which goes directly into the war chest of the feminist left for more domestic violence propaganda and electing their preferred candidates …. for more funding for more social engineering through the courts supported by massive commissions to the lawyers of the ALRC

HB: Chaired by academic feminist extremist Helen Rhoades

It's these very people that have an intense Bias against men that should be Bared from having anything to do with Reforms. They are the very reason, & Lawyers, why there are so many with the Family Law Courts.

Foxy,

I read through the 33 recommendations and am not surprised that the feel good waffle was ignored. Also none of the recommendations had anything to do with determining the validity of DV claims.

Secondly, if anyone is serious about gender equality, there should be no assumption that children are better off with the mother

Shadow Minister,

Ideally there should not be any pre-judgement.

But with the current chairs - that is going to be
extremely difficult to accomplish.