It appears common sense may prevail in Australia given the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) have researched and found some non-partisan, non-ideological factors in favour of shared parenting. They have indicated they have found no correlation between violence and shared parenting, there has been a 22% reduction in court cases, and the practice of shared parenting is widely supported.
The review, spread over two years involved 28,000 people, including 15,000 parents and for most people it worked well. It shows 80 per cent of parents are co-operating.
The AIFS is a world renowned organization whose role is to give non-partisan, non ideological advice on family matters. We need an equivalent one in Canada to get us out of the Feminist dominated rhetoric of men being abusers and unsafe to share parenting. The trouble may arise in the legislature where Australia has a socialist bleeding heart government in power who typically bow to the feminist lobby within their ranks for fear of being cast as an abuser and of course whatever voting power they have.
The review, spread over two years involved 28,000 people, including 15,000 parents and for most people it worked well. It shows 80 per cent of parents are co-operating.
The AIFS is a world renowned organization whose role is to give non-partisan, non ideological advice on family matters. We need an equivalent one in Canada to get us out of the Feminist dominated rhetoric of men being abusers and unsafe to share parenting. The trouble may arise in the legislature where Australia has a socialist bleeding heart government in power who typically bow to the feminist lobby within their ranks for fear of being cast as an abuser and of course whatever voting power they have.
In Canada out of a million couples (2 million people) 999,997.7 females do not kill their male spouse and 999,992 males to not kill their female spouse. Do we make laws for the 999,990 plus people who are not a problem or the tiny fraction who present perplexities to the system, and in turn, penalize the majority. If we make laws focusing on the tiny minority very few people could drive, get married, have children, find a decent job, or live any kind of high quality life free of nanny state intervention. It is one thing to take away points on a drivers license for using a cell phone or texting while operating the vehicle, quite another to deny a parent from legal involvement and maximum time with their genetic progeny. There can be nothing more personal or devastating to a rational human to be denied this right because of gender.
In any assessment, if violence is suspected or alleged, an investigation should occur. If the allegation is false the instigator should be charged criminally and primary custody of the children given to the parent who was falsely accused. In Australia as in the USA the person most likely to kill or harm the child is the single mom, either alone or in concert with a boyfriend/new partner.MJM
Posted
Updated
Updated
A Family Studies Institute report found a drop in the number of cases going to court. (stock.xchng: Asif Akbar)
The Federal Opposition has warned the Government against making changes to family law that alter the principle of giving children the right to a meaningful relationship with both parents in the case of divorce or separation.
This week, three reports were released on how the laws were working. The reviews were conducted by the Australian Institute of Family studies, the Family Law council and former judge, Professor Richard Chisholm.
The Family Studies Institute found a 22 per cent drop in the number of cases going to court.
But Professor Chisholm found many people wrongly believe the changes mean that separated fathers were automatically entitled to 50-50 custody of their kids.
The professor says the laws are confusing and troublesome, but Shadow Attorney-General George Brandis disagrees.
"The report by Professor Chisholm does take a fairly tendentious view of the operation of the 2006 reform," he said.
The Government says it is considering an information campaign to clear up misunderstanding, but Senator Brandis says he gives more weight to the report published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
"What the Australian Institute of Family Studies found was that the principle of shared parental responsibility is widely supported; that in general the 2006 reforms have worked well," he said.
"The Australian Institute of Family Studies found ... 'There is no evidence to suggest that family violence and highly conflictual inter-parental relationships are any greater in children with shared care time than for children with other care time arrangements'.
"So there seems to be something of a difference of emphasis, if not a conflict, between Professor Chisholm and Australian Institute of Family Studies."
Senator Brandis says the release of the reports does not justify a change in direction for family law.
"[They] should not be used by the Government as a pretext or an excuse to walk away from the principle that every child has a right to a meaningful relationship with both parents on the occasion of family breakdown, while always maintaining, as has never been in doubt, the paramount interests of the child as the first consideration."
The reviews were handed down nearly 12 months after four-year-old Darcey Freeman was allegedly thrown off Melbourne's West Gate Bridge by her father.
Professor Chisholm has recommended every case before the Family Court should automatically be assessed for violence risks and that the court be given adequate resources to do the job.
The chief justice of the family court, Justice Diana Bryant, issued a statement welcoming that finding.
The Attorney General's office was asked about the recommendation for resources. A spokesman for Robert McClelland says the court already receives $2 billion in Commonwealth funding, but that it will be considered.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/30/2805599.htm?section=australia
2 comments:
Wouldn't it be great if 50% of Canadian Men had some balls and got the opposition or the government to take a stand on the introduction of equal parenting legislation similar to that of Australia?
The problem in Canada is a lack motivation, a lack of political interest, an acceptance that children belong to mothers and to hell with a child's right to have two parents.
Canada has a very dirty legal system, controlled by a Criminal Cartel called the Canadian Judiciary who make profits for their friends, their former partners in law firms who have endless conflicts of interest.
Take any law firm where a former partner is now a judge. Some remove their name from the law firm , others do not. When they don't its a really blatant advertisement of corruption, not cash in the hand but CASH in the hands of friends.
Its done by way or orders for COSTS, legal costs. Take a high priced politicians law firm, getting $400 per hour and more while up against an unrepresented father who has has been destroyed by the same law firm with draconian orders that have absolutely nothing to do with a child's best interests but all about ensuring that their friends, make windfall winnings in costs that often are many many times the costs of what was necessary or reasonable.
Judges simply put a sugar coat of comments and order costs, that go straight into the pockets of their friends.
The Canadian Insurance Industry and the Legal Profession use the Canadian Judiciary as the enforcers of the Legal Cartel.
Canada needs massive legal change, family law, insurance, appointment of judiciary, even down to police legislation that will end the private hiring of police officers to do $10 an hour security work at $90 or more an hour.
www.OttawaMensCentre.comamic
We men are socialized to be protectors of our wives, sisters, moms, children and freedom. When thrust into the position of defendant in Divorce (75% initiated by the wife) we suffer a great deal of dissonance and confusion. The system is set up and designed as a far reaching ecosystem to support females and marginalize men, particularly fathers, who become financial drones for the ex and nanny state.
The Big Pink Machine sets in motion a series of events designed to wear a man down so that many end up destroyed emotionally and kill themselves. In Canada upwards of eight men a day die by their own hand, 3X's more than women. It is not rocket science why. Others are driven to desperation and take the lives of their ex's and sometimes children.
Even at that the single mom is the most likely to kill or harm their children in the USA, OZ and in Canada. (I make the latter assertion despite what the feminist Stats Canada people come up with. They will not separate out biological fathers from other males associated with mom. When Australia did this it became clear mom and her boyfriend were the most likely killers and abusers of children. In the U.S. it is very clear. http://victimfeministcentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/mothers-commit-vast-majority-of.html
I could write a book on this Big Pink machine and perhaps will at some point but I would want to direct you to one man who is fighting back in OZ. I hope he succeeds. http://fathersmensrights.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-oz-dad-launches-criminal-charges.html
If he does this will open the floodgates in Western countries based on English Common law. A recent example in Ontario is the private charge against Julius Fantino, the Ontario Police Commissioner. If we clog the courts with private charges the Politicians and Judiciary will not be able to ignore false allegations and perjury in Family Law. It is both the right thing to do and a form of civil disobedience that complies with our system of laws.
The recent upset in MA was because many independent males went for the Republican candidate as they saw the feminist candidate Coakley was an elitist. More men need to see through the veil of Pinkilicious policies by the Liberals and dippers. The Pink Book III produced by the federal Liberals is simply a book of misandry.
Some day men will see they do have block political power if only they see what is happening to their gender and that day will scare the hell out of every feminist and eunuch politician in Canada. The judiciary will fall into line shortly thereafter. Currently women have more political power because the feminists take our hard-earned tax money and turn it into a hateful gender war. The MSM and all media generators from TV, movies, to the printed page reinforce stereotypes.
It will change but we must be patient. It is either patience or revolution. I prefer the former but do not fear the latter.In
Post a Comment