In OZ ~ 'No excuse' for family law shake-up

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.

Chisholm the ex judge appears to be a chivalrous drone and thinks violence or at least its propensity is worthy of spending more money.  The proportion of violence relative to the population of married couples and even those divorcing is minuscule but these useful idiots of the feminists give it much greater credence that it deserves. 

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

By Sabra Lane for AM

Posted Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:25am AEDT
Updated Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:59am AEDT

A Family Studies Institute report found a drop in the number of cases going to court. (stock.xchng: Asif Akbar)

• Audio: Opposition cautions against Family law changes (AM)

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.

In 2006, the Howard government introduced major changes to Australia's family law system, putting an emphasis on shared responsibility for separating parents.

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

Empowerment through education

Best of Luck with this continuing venture from London to Chatham Dave. Your passion for change has and will continue to assistant men and women who are bewildered by the archaic, expensive, dysfunctional, and gender biased Family Law System.  It's major beneficiaries are  lawyers, whose pockets get lined with cash on the backs of our children's financial legacies and keeps incompetent Family Law Judges employed to perform negative social engineering on our children.MJM

Not All Dads are Deadbeats BOB BOUGHNER The Daily News A free educational workshop sponsored by Not All Dads are Deadbeats (NADAD) will take place Tuesday at the Chatham Central Public Library. Dave Flook of Chatham, founder and president of the organization, stressed it is not just a men's organization - "it's an equal parenting group.'' Flook, who recently moved to Chatham from London to be closer to his daughter, said there is a huge demand in Chatham-Kent for services offered by his group, which is designed to help those affected by divorce and separation. "We are a community oriented support group for proud parents who have been systematically removed from their children by the Canadian family court system,'' he said. Flook said Tuesday's hands-on, interactive workshop will be the first of many educational events scheduled throughout 2010. He said the workshops are focused on providing the practical skills needed to combat court injustice. "They also offer real world solutions to the growing problems of gender bias in the courts, radical feminist agendas and government and institutional corruption. "Tuesday's event will be an interactive workshop and participation in the proceedings will be strongly encouraged,'' he said. A former professor of graphic design at Fanshawe College, Flook is in the process of establishing a web design studio in Chatham. Flook said he created NADAD to reach out to others who have had their roles as fathers revoked by the state. "There is no reward for complacency,'' he said. "Our children need us now to fight for them and to ensure they do not become fatherless.'' The workshop takes place from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday at the Chatham library, 120 Queen St., Chatham. bboughner@chathamdailynews.ca.

Copyright © 2009 Chatham Daily News

http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2240361

Fathers 4 Equality in OZ ~ Investigative journalist or lobbyist? The shared care debate in Australia

Oz certainly has its fair share of those who would be considered to be on the fringe of responsible parenthood, moms in this case, who will believe anything about dads or men as long as it is negative. The most vile I have found are those who have lost custody for the very attitudes they show on comment boards


With them its not about chldren's best interest its loss of status and economics. Can you imagine their difficulty trying to explain how they lost custody and the loss of self esteem. It puts them into overdrive to crusade against dads and all men. In some cases they have the nerve to call themselves protective parents when, in fact, they are the abusers. I see some have visited here already.


One of the usual canards they use is child support and it is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. "Dads just want shared parenting because they don't want to pay child support." It is as fallacious a piece of logic as exists. Dads will always pay for the support of their child but when it is shared custody they pay as any normal parent does. It goes directly toward the children not a second or third party.


The opposite is also true and closer to the real heart of the argument. The dead beat mom who may be relying on welfare and child support because she doesn't want to work for a living can't get all the entitlements she has been told she can manipulate out of the system. This really ticks them off even more so than before.


I have been observing Overington's highly biased and sexist reporting for a couple of years now from way up here in Canada and do wonder how she can get away with it. If she was doing this to anyone but men it would be considered racist, hateful, discriminatory and inappropriate. Her editors may well be eunuchs.


If you haven't lodged complaints with the newspaper itself, Mr. Murdoch personally, and ethics groups associated with the media it should occur. I've certainly complained myself to The Australian over the Canada Model article which was a letter, I believe, from a tiny group of radical feminist lawyers in my country who use the same well worn abuse canards as down under. We shoot them down with great frequency when they surface up here and it has to be frequent to dispel the entrenched mythology.


i wish you well and hopefully reason will prevail although I understand you have a socialist government and they are clearly in the feminist camp. Shared parenting is in the best interest of children and sole parenting, particularly by moms, leads to many negative social outcomes. One can see why with some of the comments by them here.MJM

Posted by Ash Patil on November 17th, 2009 | Category: Exploitation of Family Law

Most people on the street would be quite familiar by now with an avalanche of newspaper articles over the past year condemning Australia's shared care laws and suggesting that they put Australia's children at risk of abuse.

These articles have been so effective that most people actually believe that the current research supports this suggestion.

Articles such as " Courts continue to grant access to violent parents ", " Shared-parenting is 'gobbledegook' ", "'Flaws' in John Howard's parenting law" & " Replace shared care with Canada model " have been so one-sided and misleading in their depiction of these laws, that there is a clear expectation in the community that the 2006 shared parental responsibility laws will as a matter of certainty be repealed by the Rudd government.

This avalanche of articles were primarily the work of two journalists, Caroline Overington from the Australian and Adele Horin from Fairfax, who seem to have closely aligned their message with that of Barbara Biggs, a toxic extremist who promotes the idea that men on the whole are sexual predators and inherently violent, and cannot be trusted in the care of their children.

In response to these articles, I have often been asked by members of Fathers4Equality why I have not made important research available to the likes of Caroline and Adele, in order for them to provide more balanced and informative reporting on this very important issue.

And there is an overwhelming amount of credible research to debunk these stereotypes of men and shared parenting promoted by those who have questionable motives in replacing Australia's shared care laws.

For example, recent research from the WA Department of Child Protection (amongst others) has shown that up to 80% of all child abuse occurs in single mother households, research from the Australian Institute of Criminology (amongst others) has shown that family violence is instigated equally by both men and women, a report from Childline in the UK has reported the skyrocketing of allegations by children against women for sexual abuse, and an article in the Wall Street Journal has reported on a German study highlighting the neurological damage caused to children who are raised without the ongoing presence of a father.

Further articles have highlighted the recent national poll in Canada showing 80% support for the replacement of their sole-custody family law model with shared care family laws, or the unprecedented outburst by UK Lord Justice Ward who spoke out against the sole-custody UK family laws by saying that the courts were powerless to help decent fathers to see their children if vengeful mothers stood in the way.

When one was to view all the research in this area on the whole, the conclusion is unmistakable. That there is a foundation of research and broad recognition within the community that sole custody laws are bad for children, and that shared care on the whole is in the best interests of children. In fact, the natural transparency afforded by shared care provides the best safeguards against the risk of child abuse or neglect.

Now, truth be told, I have corresponded with the likes of Caroline and Adele quite extensively in this past year.

So one would assume that given our history, that both Caroline and Adele would be open to reading and/or reporting on vital information on Child abuse and Shared parenting passed on to them by Fathers4Equality.

Given that Caroline and Adele have devoted significant time and effort in writing article after article suggesting that children's welfare is at stake if they have shared care arrangements with their fathers, then as any credible investigative journalist would do, they would cross-reference their conclusions with the latest research and information on these claims.

Correct?

Well, No, not so.

Fathers4Equality have gone out of our way to inform both Caroline and Adele on very important research that critically undermines the premise that shared care is bad for children. At the very least it provides a strong counter-argument to the repeated mantra from these two.

So have they reported on it?

Well, based on the below return receipts from emails sent to both Caroline and Adele on this very important research, not only haven't they reported on it, but they have also refused to even read it. They simply deleted it from their inbox without reading it.

Let me repeat that. They have DELETED, without reading, emails purporting to contain key information on the very topics they have devoted so much time on. And then they proceeded to write further articles on this topic, and done so in selective ignorance of the facts.

Investigative journalism? I think not! Not convinced? Just look at the emails below and ask yourself why they were deleted without being read.




















http://www.fathers4equality-australia.org/equalparenting/FiDBlog.nsf/dx/investigative-journalist-or-lobbyist-the-shared-care-debate-in-australia-

Comments

1. Mike Murphy
   
   

   @split -"Your reference also to articles highlighting the poll in Canada I am guessing is the rather biased letter that came from a spokesperson for a "Shared Parenting" association in Canada ie, effectively a representative of a "father's rights" group, hardly reflecting the opinions of all Canadians. That would be like saying Edward Dabrowski, in all his ignorance, speaks for all of Australia (God forbid)."

   ____________________________________________________

   You are correct in that you are guessing. The poll was conducted professionally by a polling firm under the auspices of the MP who is sponsoring the equal parenting bill in Canada. It effectively duplicates one taken back in 1998 during a joint Senate/Parliamentary committee study on shared parenting which resulted in the production of a report "For the Sake of The Children" which was never implemented.

   Studies have been done by many reputable scholars on shared parenting outside of OZ and they clearly show children have far more positive outcomes when both parents are in their lives after divorce. It is important when they are doing a week about rotation the parents live close together and which will not interfere with their schooling or friends. As they approach the tween and teen age years friends are far more important than either parent - to them.

   My reference to deadbeat moms living off the system applies more to the earlier comments by women with obvious personality disorders. They have only one thing in mind and that is entitlements and revenge. The children are collateral but important pawns to meet their goals. They are not uncommon here in Canada and they have the same views of ownership of children.

   You seem to be a more reasonable person who understands children need both parents and I wish there were more moms like you. If there are two reasonable parents then appropriate schedules could be worked out in a more coherent and "best interest"

   manner.

   I do recommend F4E keep the comments by the earlier posters to show the decision makers the real truth behind those who shriek loudest and who the likes of Overington is cheerleading.

2. on 19/11/2009 9:01:03 AMPhillip
   
   

   There are no surpises in your article. It goes much further than just demonising fathers as parents. There is a blantant and overwhelming shift in society over the last 5 - 10 years towards anti-male sentiment. Our very government organisataions that are supposed to put children first put the mother first. Watch ninemsn.com.au - almost every day there are multiple anti-male stories. And recently we find a woman who gets off a jail term for two counts of statutory rape.

   I worked 100+ hours per week to keep my ex-wife in the lifestyle she demanded (which were damnded by abuse, threats and violence). I did almost all of the housework, cooking, and extra curricular work, whilst she watched TV and spent time with her mother, and what was shocking is that she is not an isolated or extreme case. Her bahaviour is far more common than you might think. To this day she still uses the children as a weapon with which to direct her anger at me. I won my shared care case, after two years and $35,000 and complete and utter financial destruction. I may have got 50/50 parenting, but I lost my career, my superannuation, my assets and my self esteem, but it was worth it. The kids are happier, performing better in school. Any person who thninks shared care is not approapriate is a fool, is blindsided by continual lies and deception of not just caroline and adele, but by key child related organisations in australia (they know who they are!) Anyone who cares about children supports shared parenting.

3. on 19/11/2009 2:31:06 AMSplit
   
   

   I should also say that I don't support the bizarre views that children should be subject to sole custody either, nor the anti-male sentiment of some female posters here. However, I do not believe for one moment that it is in a child's best interest to be shuttled back and forth between two houses like an object, particularly not a breastfeeding infant, which is happening more and more frequently, as reported recently by Overington and can be substantiated in the actual case files (Farmer v Rogers is just one example).

   The school of thought that says women should "just express" (such as the comment by Edward Dabrowski) or that the father could just use formula, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the process of breastfeeding.

   Each feed effectively "puts in an order" for the next and it relies completely on the premise of supply and demand. Expressing is not in any way a substitute for feeding at the breast and while it might suffice for a feed or two, it certainly would not allow a woman to maintain supply over a period of days or a week. Some women who breastfeed find expressing excruciating or impossible. Further to this, "comp" feeding with formula would simply cause the mother painful mastitis as the only way to maintain supply is to properly drain the breast. Yes, there may be women who prolong feeding in order to gain an advantage, but I would argue that most do not. Most women breastfeed because of the uncontested health benefits to both child and mother, because it is cheaper and more convenient. Do not make all women and children suffer because of the behaviour of a few - sound familiar? You guys don't all want to be tarred with the same brush because of a handful of deadbeats, so don't do it to us either.

   The reason I raise this particular issue is that any reasonable father who had his child's best interest at heart wouldn't try to interfere with this process. Any reasonable mother would accept this sign of respect and do her best to facilitate as much time as practical with the father without compromising the baby's health, or the breastfeeding relationship.

   If we want to take this whole thing further, why not find a way to allow men to gestate and breastfeed. I wonder then if they would be so prepared to hand their babies over for extended periods of time, causing themselves pain, discomfort and extreme inconvenience? Come on guys, most of us do it out of love for our kids, not to make your life difficult.

   Unfortunately, as we all know, we are often not dealing with reasonable people, as if we were, the courts would not be being asked to decide cases like this. In my humble opinion, any man who would seek 50% custody of a breastfeeding infant (under 12mths of age), or in fact any over nights does not have his child's best interest at heart.

   I would just like to point out that there is a very strong anti-female sentiment in many of these sites, unless of course it is reference to current partners who are obviously in favour, or ex partners who simply agree to whatever the father asks for.

   I would argue that what is in the child's best interest might not necessarily be what either parent is asking for. Actually, like I said in my previous post, what is in the child's best interest is for the parents to remain together in the first instance. Already in separating at least one parent has put their own interests above that of their children.

   I would also like to take the opportunity to object to comments about mothers on welfare. I have found myself in this category as a result of the unplanned pregnancy of another child of our now defunct marriage. My ex is the one who ended it for no real reason, he kicked us out of the house, is paying scant child support, I no longer have an income and am reliant for the first time in my life on welfare. I am an intelligent, educated and mostly reasonable person and I am deeply offended by the comments of one of your posters to the effect that I am a dead beat because of this.

   As much as possible, I have done what is in my power to be as reasonable as I can, but for every guy out there who has been wronged, I can assure you that there is a woman or two who is suffering more, simply by virtue of her biology.

   Honestly, I do not know what the answers are to this issue, but I do know that slagging women off or accusing all men of being abusers is not productive. Both parents should be involved in raising their children if it is possible. Neither one is more important than the other, but I reject the premise that this makes them equal. Men and women are different and they parent differently. The relationship is a complementary one and one can not readily be replaced with the other as the failure of sole custody has shown us, but that doesn't mean that children need equal time with both parents.

4. on 19/11/2009 1:44:43 AMSplit
   
   

   I think your German research article from WSJ was actually about degu pups and voles, not human children and in fact, the researchers themselves cautioned against extrapolating their results to human populations.

   Your reference also to articles highlighting the poll in Canada I am guessing is the rather biased letter that came from a spokesperson for a "Shared Parenting" association in Canada ie, effectively a representative of a "father's rights" group, hardly reflecting the opinions of all Canadians. That would be like saying Edward Dabrowski, in all his ignorance, speaks for all of Australia (God forbid).

   I have read extensively on this subject and I can safely say that your own representation of "research" is not without bias. Clutching at straws is not a robust way to further your cause. These two women have reported on real cases and real issues that our Family courts are messing up. I have read the actual transcripts of the cases they refer to - have you? So in 20 years time when the real research comes in and we find that we have a whole generation of children with mental and emotional problems related to homelessness, health problems like diabetes from a massive reduction in numbers of children breastfeeding, an inability to bond and form stable relationships, creating even more broken families that the courts have to deal with, will you say "sorry" to us for using our children as guinea pigs and destroying their lives? Sorry, but you only get one chance at life. The research needs to be done first, not the other way around. There have been nothing but debacles and screw ups as a result of these amendments and the wording of them is ambiguous. They are clearly not working.

   I would dearly love to know how much parenting John Howard did of his own children to make him such an authority on the subject. Amusingly it obviously didn't win him the votes he thought it would. It is widely accepted in legal and academic circles that the 2006 amendments were not based on research, but simply on pressure from lobby groups (ie men's groups), so I find it a bit rich for you, as a lobbyist to be so prepared to hang these reporters for doing what you perceive to be the same.

   Perhaps if more fathers strove for equality in parenting and domestic tasks prior to separation, there would be a lot fewer separations to begin with and then our children could have what they truly deserve - both parents together in the same home. If it weren't so sad, I would probably find the whole notion of men striving for equality to be completely absurd. You want relevant statistics? Check out the Australian Bureau of Statistics HILDA survey and you will find that women still do 76% of the parenting and domestics tasks in Australia, despite often being in paid employment. If you think that is equal, your maths is worse than mine.

   It is hardly surprising that we have such major issues when so many men are so focused on self promotion and what their own perceived rights are that they lose sight of what children need and have a right to and they simply resort to attacking women in the process. Incredibly juvenile and not very good role models. So too, the genuine fear I feel when I read some of the nasty, ignorant, vindictive and hateful comments written about women by men in these forums on these sites. Yes, there are some women who write nasty things about men too and I'm not condoning that, I have just found the vitriol and hatred towards women by men to be far more sinister.

   It would do many of you good to just grow up and instead of looking for ways to discredit, abuse and denigrate women, try looking for ways to work together for the sake of your children.

   After all, you get more flies with honey

5. on 18/11/2009 11:47:09 PMRon deMouilpied
   
   

   It is sad that a power war exists between parents "using" children post separation and divorce to what advantage. For $$$? For property??? To maintain and extended control of a former spouse??? I used to sit sadly and watch my step children checking every car that past by waiting for their weekend once a fortnight sleepover at Dad's home. "Is it Dad"? Anguishing if he happened to run ten minutes late. I was just as saddened to hear that my children became high as 'their fortnightly sleepover' with me drew closer. Bags packed days in advance. A new toy or teacher's praising comment or star in a school book proudly shared with me IMMEDIATELY upon arrival.

   Time with Dad that was denied! Facts that were hidden! It was a torrid, emotionally draining period. Then as the universe unfolds so did they, all of them into young adulthood. No longer could they be controlled for a vested interest and the facts poured out. I could only listen. And hear I did! All the discourse strengthened their resolve for 'Dad' to be a part of their life. And the those with vested interest by their own doing, cling to the outer fringe to where they have been banished.

   When will parents learn to truly demonstrate love of their children they promote a healthy relationship with a former spouse: even in an extended family. The rewards when they start to flow are insurmountable as 'Father Time' has revealed to me.

6. on 18/11/2009 9:03:29 PMDavid Lam
   
   

   It is the child's right to able to spend time with both parents.

   Neither parent should prevent the child from seeing the other parent.

   The child does not owe the mother bacause she gives birth.

   The child did not asked to be born but to be loved by both parents. Why should the mother or the father prevent the child from being loved and cared for the father.

   It is precisely the attitude of some mothers who think that they own the child that share care and control is important to prevent abuse of sole custody rights.

   Our prime minister has recently apologise for taking away the child from the parents. I hope our legal systems will not make the same mistake of taking away or allow the child to be taken away from the father

7. on 18/11/2009 8:56:36 PMLiam
   
   

   I just read the survey Ash. I am stunned that there is so much support for equal parenting in Parliament.

   It tells me that this anti-shared care campaign is being driven by a few zelouts only.

   The far majority support shared parenting.

8. on 18/11/2009 7:14:54 PMAsh Patil
   
   

   Michael,

   Log into the below section of our website and read.

   You will find that we did do such a survey of Parliament in 2007.

   The results were very interesting.

   { Link }

   We also sent 1 and a half million emails to parliament via the F4E megaphone. We may need to re-install the Megaphone again going by how successful it was last time.

9. on 18/11/2009 6:34:51 PMdavid aldridge
   
   

   Michael. A very good idea you bring up as far as lobbying of MPs is concerned, and finding out what they think on the issue and i'll certainly be doing a bit of this myself now. As regards the press council, i believe F4E have put in complaints to the press council regarding bias and inaccurate reporting by the aforementioned journalists, and i know that i put my own complaint in regarding this issue, all to no avail. This is NOT to be taken as a political statement but perhaps since he is lagging in the opinion polls, and as he was brought up by a single father himself Malcolm Turnbull may be brought onside. He may not gain any of the feminist vote but as they are nearly all voting labour he won't lose any either, he could however win thousands of alenated fathers votes if he could be persuaded to take up our cause.

10. on 18/11/2009 6:09:42 PMMichael
    
    

    What are the positions of all the members of Parliament?? Both Federal and State Members.

    Lobbying would be an effective educational tool.

    maybe these Parenting stories and a few of the offensive biased comments should be packaged and sent to them?

    - can someone in this "group" help automate sending responses to MP's and other organisations?

    These "journalists - columnist" should be reported to the Press Council and the complaints sent to overseas equivalents, of the Press Council. along the with breaches of the UN Charter on Human Rights.

    Overseas Publications may also be interested in knowing about the "bias of reporting" on this issue?

    The issue of the Safety of Indian students is an explain of the Presses interest in Accurate reports - from and of Australia.

    The safety of our Children and well being of our society, now and in the future depends on the Shared Care Laws being extended and the "racism and bias in the media" stamped out.

11. on 18/11/2009 6:04:39 PMAsh Patil
    
    

    Scott,

    You may be shocked at the level of cyber-bullying, cuber-stalking and email threats generated from these so called women's groups.

    These bizarre postings on this blog, along with the threatening and astonishingly hostile private emails are one thing, but the online stalking of innocent fathers and posting of inflamatory and innacurate allegations against 'named' individuals is quite another.

    It is in fact illegal activity, but they engage in this activity behind the protection of anonymous postings, in order to prevent decent people from excercising their right to freedom of speech.

    This is the real face of the toxic mothers clan, as they are sometimes referred as.

    Really nasty people who are full of rage and hatred.

    They really are the WRONG type of people to be involved in such a child-sensitive issue as this.

12. on 18/11/2009 5:46:01 PMdavid aldridge
    
    

    Thankyou paulette and maureen.I'm well aware that most women/mothers are not like this. My own fiancee and her ex husband were also able to put together their own parenting plan without the need to go to court, despite their differences, and all their 3 children have thrived and are achieving well. One is currently doing her phd, the other daughter has done a baking trade and is now happily married and presented my fiancee with her first grandchild and her son who is still at school has plenty of certificates for high academic achievment.My fiancee gave her husband pretty much all the time he wanted with the children and he in turn paid her the required child support as is right and proper the result has been 3 well adjusted and achieving young adults. Unfortunately it is mothers/women like the first few posters on this thread who currently have the ear of the government and who are intent on taking us back to the bad old days which saw my own daughter end up as a half feral child in a class for slow children after only 3 years with her mother. Just as mothers get emotional, so do fathers when we see our children getting abused and neglected and the family court and social workers being complicit in children ending up as my own daughter did.

    Welcome and i hope you put your own submissions and stories in.

13. on 18/11/2009 5:01:16 PMMaureen Jennings
    
    

    Wow! I am shocked to hear some of the women's opinion's as a woman myself. I can only presume its emotional, rather than logical. We are rather emotional beings aren't we. It does give us women a sad reputation. I know guys aren't perfect but hey, nor are we.

14. on 18/11/2009 4:43:26 PMScott
    
    

    Ash,

    Maybe a useful addition to the "Fathers Stories" we are compiling for the A-G would be a collection of the hate-ridden posts from the likes Florin, Cynthia J and Jill McGee.

    To me, they and their messages are the strongest and most powerful reasons for maintaining the current shared parenting laws. Not one of them even mentions the best interest of the children, its all about them getting revenge on their ex'es.

    Which is what the old system assisted them to do.

15. on 18/11/2009 4:09:07 PMLou’s daddy
    
    

    I think its obvious from the posts on this blog who the abusers are.

    Rather than put forward arguments, these spiteful mothers can only make offensive remarks.

    If this is the extent of their ability to reason, then I can understand why they have lost custody of their children.

    Ladies, engage in good faith in this discussion. making abusive posts is helping no one, least of all your kids.

16. on 18/11/2009 1:29:18 PMdavid aldridge
    
    

    Cynthia, How stupid are you. There are many reasons a child might be bed wetting. You can't be much of a mother if you don't know this. If you read on the internet that the world was going to end tomorrow i suppose you would believe that too. If a doctor doesn't believe you then i know who i would sooner believe.To your friends florin, l mont and jill, you have been allowed to post here, yet if i posted the poisonous lies and dribble that you have posted, on a feminist site, i would be deleted and banned from the site immediately. Guess that shows who the bullies really are.

    Ian, feminists such as have posted on here are not exactly renowned for mature discussion or well reasoned arguments. On almost every forum i visit they almost always resort immediately to the denigration of ALL men, and the rationale that mothers and only mothers have rights, children have virtually no rights and men have no rights at all, only responsibilities.

17. on 18/11/2009 11:35:46 AMPaulette MacDonald
    
    

    Shared Parenting It Should be the Norm

    By Lisa S. Ebert, JD

    My marriage ended almost five years ago. And of course we share the parenting of our two children equally. I say “of course” because I can't imagine it any other way. I am often astounded at the parenting arrangements I see that are anything but shared.

    { Link }

    I would urge all you moms out there that don't agree that shared parenting is indeed in the best interest of the child to read the above write up!

    My comments;

    I am a divorced woman, mother... when my ex and I decided to divorce we agreed to put our children first and life went on. My ex husband and I never stepped foot inside a court room. My ex remarried a wonderful woman that loved and nurtured my children (then 4 and 5 years old) right from the start and I loved her for loving my children. My children are now loving, caring adults and I have 4 beautiful grandbabies with number 5 due any day... my daughter and her husband are celebrating their 10th wedding anniversary on the 19th of November.

    I had no idea that this CRAP! Was going on in our so called 'Family Law System'...

    I met my partner and his two young children in 2005 and sadly, that is when we were all introduced to this shamefully flawed, family law system and parental alienation...

    It was my partner's ex that ended their marriage for her lover, who was also her boss. Her income is double that of my partners so you know that her current husband's income is at least double that of hers. We have been to court 6 times since May 15, 2007. They can continue the fight indefinitely...

    My partner and I on the other hand have been forced into an emotional, mental, physical and financial nightmare from hell and we are on the verge of losing everything because of it.

    The saddest part of all is that, whatever my partner and I are feeling and suffering through, it is ten fold for our innocent children who wanted more time with Daddy!

    How sad for all children!

1. on 18/11/2009 9:54:08 AMMike Murphy
   
   

   Oz certainly has its fair share of those who would be considered to be on the fringe of responsible parenthood, moms in this case, who will believe anything about dads or men as long as it is negative. The most vile I have found are those who have lost custody for the very attitudes they show on comment boards

   With them its not about chldren's best interest its loss of status and economics. Can you imagine their difficulty trying to explain how they lost custody and the loss of self esteem. It puts them into overdrive to crusade against dads and all men. In some cases they have the nerve to call themselves protective parents when, in fact, they are the abusers. I see some have visited here already.

   One of the usual canards they use is child support and it is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. "Dads just want shared parenting because they don't want to pay child support." It is as fallacious a piece of logic as exists. Dads will always pay for the support of their child but when it is shared custody they pay as any normal parent does. It goes directly toward the children not a second or third party.

   The opposite is also true and closer to the real heart of the argument. The dead beat mom who may be relying on welfare and child support because she doesn't want to work for a living can't get all the entitlements she has been told she can manipulate out of the system. This really ticks them off even more so than before.

   I have been observing Overington's highly biased and sexist reporting for a couple of years now from way up here in Canada and do wonder how she can get away with it. If she was doing this to anyone but men it would be considered racist, hateful, discriminatory and inappropriate. Her editors may well be eunuchs.

   If you haven't lodged complaints with the newspaper itself, Mr. Murdoch personally, and ethics groups associated with the media it should occur. I've certainly complained myself to The Australian over the Canada Model article which was a letter, I believe, from a tiny group of radical feminist lawyers in my country who use the same well worn abuse canards as down under. We shoot them down with great frequency when they surface up here and it has to be frequent to dispel the entrenched mythology.

   I wish you well and hopefully reason will prevail although I understand you have a socialist government and they are clearly in the feminist camp. Shared parenting is in the best interest of children and sole parenting, particularly by moms, leads to many negative social outcomes. One can see why with some of the comments by them here.

   I will put your post in my blogs on top of the world to give it wider distribution.

2. on 18/11/2009 1:04:19 AMIan Mc
   
   

   Its a real shame Ash that the facts aren't being debated but are simply being obscured by these self-interested parties.

   And what's with all the personal attacks? This is a forum for discussion not for abusive behaviour.

   Girls, if you want to make denigrating comments then do it in your own private forums. This blog is for mature discussion and well reasoned arguments.

3. on 18/11/2009 12:45:37 AML. Mont
   
   

   Caroline is the most honest and wonderful journalist in this country.

   She is doing this to help our kids.

   Stop whinging and start paying your child support, and leave the parenting to those who really care about our kids.

4. on 17/11/2009 5:57:14 PMJill McGee
   
   

   Reporters like Adele Horin and Caroline Overington know you Father Rights guys like to manufacture your own statistics and cannot be relied upon to provide any type of intelligent recourse. You have revealed too much over the years and have exposed yourselves as the misogynistic bullies that you are. Your time has come to an end and the era of the Fathers rights bullying is over.

5. on 17/11/2009 5:53:25 PMCynthia J
   
   

   I reported my ex for child sex abuse but no one believed me. They all said that I made it up.

   Everyone knows that mother's don't make these things up. My boy wet his bed. On the internet it says that if your child wets his bed its because he was sexually abused.

   I did not make it up. The doctor and DOCS were jelos of me that's why they said I lied.

   If the laws are changed I will get my child back and people will have to believe me.

   John Howard was stupid to make these laws. Father's should never be believed.

   I left him because he was jelos of me. Now he has stolen my child with the help of John Howard.

   Thanks to Caroline and Adele I now know that I will get my son back and stop him from seeing that sex abuser forever.

   Thank you girls. Yeah girl power!

6. on 17/11/2009 5:36:05 PMFlorin
   
   

   I can't wait for the old family laws to come back.

   Then I will stop my ex from seeing my kids ever again.

   Its my right and these shared care laws are bad.

   I am the one who gave birth to my kids and only I should be able to decide where they go and what they do.

   Hooray for Caroline and Adele. You go girls!

Equal Shared Parenting Seminar ~ Ottawa ~ PMB C-422

PARLIAMENTARY BREAKFAST SEMINAR:

EQUAL SHARED PARENTING

FOR

SENATORS AND MPs

Did you know:



80% of Canadians support Equal Shared Parenting

Equal Shared Parenting would pass in a free vote



Equal Shared Parenting - Coming to a Parliament Near You.


DATE: NOVEMBER 19,2009

TIME: 7:45 AM – 8:45 AM

PLACE: 253-D Centre Block



REFRESHMENTS: Coffee, Tea & Muffins


1.INTRODUCTION/INTRODUCTION

2. THE SOCIAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE/ PERSPECTIVE DE LA SCIENCE SOCIAL

3. WHAT’S THE ISSUE/ QUEL EST L’ENJEU?

WE HAVE ALL SIGNED ON TO THE SOLUTION/ NOUS AVONS TOUS APPUYÉ LA SOLUTION

WHERE DO PARLIAMENTARIANS STAND/ QUELLE EST LA POSITION DE NOS PARLEMENTAIRES?

4. Q&A/PÉRIODE DE QUESTIONS

And in the evening the Canadian Equal Parenting Council and the Canadian Council for Co-Parenting are proud to do a presentation with Professor Edward Kruk on Equal Parenting and Why it Matters, Thursday, November 19th @ 7PM at the Bronson Centre, Rideau Room. No admission.

RSVP: email: kristin.titus@canadianepc.com

or telephone: (905) 987- 5777


Seminar hosted courtesy of Madame Raymonde Folco MP and Mr. Maurice Vellacott MP

In OZ ~ Family Court in the dark over violence, says judge Diana Bryant

The discussion is interesting and confusing just like family court. The feminists and maternalists want it both ways. They raise the issue of abuse, often falsely, in their court affidavits but then advise people like Chisholm they didn't raise it because they didn't think any one would listen. Which is it? Is Bryant or Chisholm starting to see through the smokescreen they put up to maintain ownership and possession of children at the expense of loving dads.MJM

Michael Pelly | November 02, 2009

Article from: The Australian

FAMILY Court judges are not getting enough information to make a proper assessment about the risk of violence in divorce proceedings, judge Diana Bryant says.

However, Chief Justice Bryant says it is a "cop-out" for people to say they do not raise violence issues in the belief nothing will happen - or that it will work against them.

It has been a difficult year for the court, with the death of three-year-old Darcey Freeman in January leading to criticism that it is not attuned to the risk of violent parents.

There has also been criticism of the shared parenting laws, which require the court to presume a child's best interests are served by a continuing relationship with both parents.

The Chief Justice said those who shift blame to the Family Court for their troubles should instead look to the litigants when things go wrong.

"We get the cases where no one is going to be particularly happy," she said. "In children's cases, mostly they have got substance-abuse issues, mental-health issues, family violence - significant family violence or child-abuse issues.

"I don't think that things are caused by decisions. I think people's personalities and motivations drive them in the end."

She said violence cases were the most difficult in family law.

"They are all about risk assessment," she said.

Six inquiries into the shared-parenting laws are under way, with former Family Court judge Richard Chisholm likely to report to the government first.

Chief Justice Bryant said she had had "informal discussions" with Professor Chisholm.

"One of the things he has said to us ... is that many people say 'we don't raise these allegations because we don't think anything will happen'.

"But the judges say they do raise them. They are in every affidavit." She described it as "a circular argument which gets you nowhere". "If you don't raise it, you are never going to find out what the result's going to be and so I don't accept that argument," Chief Justice Bryant said.

"I hear it but I think it's a cop-out. If you don't raise it, then you can't expect an outcome."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26291437-17044,00.html

In OZ ~ Spotlight on shared parenting laws

Caroline Overington | October 20, 2009

Article from: The Australian

IF you are a separated parent, and your children are living in a shared-care arrangement with your former spouse, who should pay for their school uniforms?

Who should pay for the travel between the two homes?

Who should pay for the annual beach holiday? Is it only the person who goes with the children or should the cost be split between both parents, if that's the only holiday the children will have?

These are some of the questions from a federal government survey of separated parents in shared parenting agreements.

The study, Survey of Shared Care Arrangements for Children after Divorce or Separation, is designed to ascertain exactly how shared parenting is working by quizzing those parents who have entered into such agreements, either willingly, or by order of the Family Court.

The survey seeks to discover how well the arrangements work for parents and children.

The study is funded by the Attorney-General's Department, but the research is being conducted independently of government by researchers from the University of Sydney, the University of NSW and the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

The Howard government passed shared-care legislation late in 2006. It requires the Family Court to presume that the best interests of children are met by having a relationship with both parents after separation, unless there is violence.

The shared-parenting laws have made it more difficult for parents to relocate after separation. They have come in for harsh criticism from Family Court lawyers, and by others at the coalface of family law.

Six separate reviews of the law are under way, with change expected by the end of the year.

In order to recruit separated parents to the survey, researchers have contacted divorce lawyers, seeking clients who may be willing to take part.

"We'd like to ask you some questions about what arrangements you have and how well they work for you and the children," the survey says.

"The research will help the Attorney-General's Department in deciding whether any changes need to be made in the law."

The survey starts by asking the basics: age, gender, and how long have you been separated from your ex-partner?

It asks separated parents to explain how they came to the current arrangements with their children. Did they reach an agreement on shared care with the help of lawyer or did a judge or magistrate set out the terms?

It asks whether shared parenting is what they wanted and, if not, what arrangement they would have preferred, including "child live with me all the time".

Researchers also want to know how much of a say the children had in the arrangements now in place, and the survey asks whether the arrangement has held, or failed, and why.

Parents are asked whether they believe the other parent is bearing their fair share of the costs, and how often they disagree with their ex-partner about basic child-rearing issues.

"Can you talk to your former partner about child-related issues?" it asks.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26233727-2702,00.html

The Australian ~ Real sharing the key

This is the first time I've seen something quite this balanced in this newspaper publication on the Australian amendments to their 1975 Family Law act, entitled the Shared Parental Responsibility Act (2006). Good on them.MJM

October 20, 2009

Article from: The Australian

Parenting rules must be addressed, not dumped

WHEN about 40 per cent of Australian marriages end in divorce, it is not feasible to entertain any return to past practice on custody arrangements, under which women were perceived to have the first claim on their children.

Not feasible, and not fair. It has always been the case that fathers have equal rights - and responsibilities - in the care of their children. But if there was any doubt about this, the enormous social changes of the past 20 or 30 years mean that fathers cannot be sidelined in Family Court matters. With men required by both law and social expectations to play an active, key role in the financing and parenting of children, it would be absurd to deny them equal access when their marriages end.

But there are emerging problems with the shared parenting law introduced by the Howard government in 2006. The requirement that Family Court judges decide access arrangements based on the presumed value of shared parenting except in abusive or violent situations has created some unhappy outcomes. At the extreme, shared parenting has meant babies shuffled across town so that mothers can breastfeed and fathers can change nappies. As The Australian reported yesterday, there are claims that cynical fathers are demanding more access not because they want to share parenting but because this means they can reduce the support money paid to their former wives for the care of children.

None of this is a real surprise to the architects of shared parenting rules: the Howard government knew that the new system would have to be tested and possibly refined. It built in a mandatory review after three years of operation and that review - along with five other inquiries - is nearing completion. Changes seem likely in this area, which is so fraught and so potentially dangerous for children, given the passion among parents who consider they have been wronged by decisions. The stakes are high, and no government can hope to devise perfect outcomes. But government has a responsibility to the children caught in the middle of divorces. Our politicians must create a policy framework that offers the best possible living situations for children.

Any changes to shared parenting rules should restate the primacy of children's wellbeing, while addressing the prescriptive nature of the law. It may be that Family Court judges should be given some scope to judge individual cases within a strict framework that continues to be dominated by the right to shared parenting. It is vital that in both perception and practice, fathers are not shortchanged by the system. There can be no return to the past, but it may be time for judges to have more freedom to interpret shared parenting when it is clear a black-letter law approach could harm the child.

Divorce is deeply saddening to adults and children alike, but the vast majority of families find a way out of the dark times and create strong, flexible arrangements under which parents and children can rebuild and flourish. Only a small proportion of cases are fought over in court, and of these fewer still are intractable.

Laws that are clear and compassionate are needed to deal with the cases that cannot be resolved by the parties. These rules also create a climate of expectation about how all parents should behave in access issues. In this sense, they create parameters society considers fair for children as well as for parents. It is for this reason, too, that the government must ensure it gets the shared parenting rules right.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26232403-16382,00.html

In OZ Overington Declares "Shared parenting laws on way out"

My observations submitted to the newspaper below on the discussion in OZ with respect to shared parenting.

I find it incredibly interesting how feminist ideology drowns out any semblance of logic. We have mums on here decrying having to do what occurred in the relationship with the dad where both were equal but somehow now think they own the children and ought not to have to share them. The hue and cry about violence - the majority perpetrated on children by mum - seems to somehow get targeted at the dad? How is this logical? In North America it is also mums more likely to kill and abuse their children than dads by a wide margin.

Let me put this in a manner that is the case in Canada. Stats show DV is pretty much equal between partners. About 8% of women and 7% of men are affected. Lets turn that around. 92% of women and 93% of men are not affected. If we do this on the basis of per million couples what we have is 920,000 women and 930,000 men are not violent toward one another and it is even less toward children especially where the biological child is concerned. Do you make laws to fit the 925,000, on average of both genders who are not affected or the 75,000 who are? It would appear laws are being reviewed and possibly rolled back because a minuscule minority of people are abusive - many of them women - but a vaster majority of over 90% are not. It seems such an odd thing to me. Would you restrict every bodies driving licence because a small minority of drunks create dangers for the majority of the population. No you would not. Think about it people. It makes no sense at all to roll back these laws that all research shows, at least in other countries, that having two fit biological parents in a child's life on a 40% or greater basis is good for them. It is not only good intrinsically for the child it reduces friction between the parents - if they are mature and fit enough. I see some moms on here who may not fit that bill.MJM

Caroline Overington | October 19, 2009

Article from: The Australian

THE Rudd government is planning to roll back the controversial shared parenting law passed in the final term of the Howard government, enraging men's groups, which say the laws have finally given them access to their children after separation.

Six inquiries into the shared parenting laws are now under way, which men's groups have interpreted as a sure sign that change is under way, too.

In a message to supporters, Sue Price of the Men's Rights Agency, has described the planned rollback as the "most sustained and concerted attack" on shared parenting that she has seen in 15 years.

Ms Price said the laws did no more than encourage "reasonable contact between perfectly good fathers and their children" and she is urging supporters to "convince the Rudd government that there are a million votes at stake" if they roll back the shared parenting changes.

"War has been declared and now is the time to protest the changes," Ms Price said, adding that planned changes were an attempt to "deny children shared parenting" and "an attack on a child's right to be loved and cared for by a dad on a shared-care, equal basis".

Attorney-General Robert McClelland, in concert with the Minister for the Status of Women, Tanya Plibersek, flagged a change to the law after a small child, Darcey Freeman, died after allegedly being thrown from the Westgate Bridge in Melbourne earlier this year. Her father, Arthur Freeman, has been charged with murder. In a committal hearing, the court heard that the mother had been terrified of her former partner, and told neighbours and others that he was certain to kill one of her children.

Of the six inquiries into the law under way, the Family Court Violence Review, also known as the Chisholm report, for its chairman, former Family Court judge Professor Richard Chisholm, is likely to report to Mr McClelland first.

Submissions to the Chisholm inquiry closed on Friday. In one submission, the National Council for Children Post-Separation, which largely represents the interests of separated mothers, has examples of women forced into contact with violent partners, after those partners won the right to see their children in the Family Court.

The council says some men are approaching the court, asking for years-old parenting agreements to be modified so they can pay less child support. Under the Howard government reforms, men can pay less, in exchange for seeing their children more.

The submission says: "Parents are saying they don't want money. They would be happy to forgo maintenance payments if it saves their child from having to spend half the week with a parent who does not really want to parent them, but whose main objective is to avoid child support."

The submission also calls on the Family Court to consider the parenting roles played by each parent before separation, before deciding on shared or equal care after separation.

"Some parents abandon their spouse while pregnant and years later seek shared care when the child does not even know the parent," the submission says.

"One nine-year-old boy who considered he already had a father, since his mother married his stepfather when he was a baby, was told he had to spend every second weekend with his biological father.

"If there is no existing emotional bond between a child and a parent, why should the court force one on a child who may have an emotional bond with a step-parent?"

More than 3500 parents have signed a petition calling for the changes to the shared parenting law.

A submission from men's groups was not immediately available yesterday. The Shared Parenting Council says the six reviews of the law were placing "significant pressure" on the groups, which are "holding the line against a dismantling of the 2006 Family Law changes".

Besides the Chisholm review, the Attorney-General has commissioned the University of South Australia, James Cook University and Monash University to investigate the impact of family violence during and after parental relationship breakdown. This review will be overseen by professor Thea Brown.

The Social Policy Research Centre at the University of NSW is also conducting a review, as are the Australian Institute of Family Studies and the University of Sydney.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26228074-601,00.html

Your Comments:

30 Comment(s)

Vanessa of Sydney 11:38am today

It's about time it was recognised that children are not Time share, nor a User Pays system. The current rulings make it more about money than quality parenting.

rjs of Perth 11:07am today

THANK YOU to the Rudd Government. I am so grateful that someone is finally taking action to protect our children.

michael pitt of kapunda 10:40am today

Yes all child infanticide is tragic; around thirty children lose their lives every year to infanticide. The majority occur in the custody of the mother, a third by the mother herself, a third of them by her new partner and a third by their father. How is this justification though for the repeal of a law that benefits literally hundreds of thousands of children who crave both parents? A labor government concerned with child abuse? When the majority of child abuse occurs in single parent families, who are in the vast majority are women. Seven out ten of those on parenting payment were previously on the dole and over half of them go on to have more children whilst on benefits; around 200,000. This is one of the many child abuse issues that an honest government would address; those parents who choose to raise children in poverty.

canberra chick 10:39am today

I feel for all parties concerned in any marriage breakdown but most of all the children. What disappoints me in regards to this inquiry is the fact that there are a large number of fathers out there who do want to maintain a healthy relationship with their children but are unfortunately being blocked by their former partners and the system that supports them. I am not naive enough to think that their aren't the dead-beat parents out there who are just trying to opt out on supporting their kids financially but for those who actually enjoy their relationships with their kids and want to maintain that - why should they be deprived and have their rights in effect stolen??? Every child who wishes to have contact with their parents, (mum & dad), should be able to do so and have those healthy relationships fostered not severed by the supporting bodies of government.

John 10:35am today

This is a total retrograde step. If the government does this then it shall loose my vote. Fathers have been highly discriminated in the family courts for years. The shared parenting arrangement was fair for most parents. Neither parent should have access to a child if they are violent. But what are we saying this is a male only thing? Women are capable of violence too. Women are capable of only wanting children so they can receive higher CSA payments. This law must be kept to allow fairness for both parents. If we want to make up for the discrimination over the last 40 years it should be changed so father become the sole carer by default. Is this fair? No...just like it's not fair making the woman the primary carer either. Children need full access to both their parents. As long as this fosters a healthy environment for the child.

suze 10:29am today

I just cannot express how grateful i am to the Rudd Government for taking this matter seriously. This has to be the greatest news I've heard in years. Finally, hopefully we may be able to protect our children. This is not an attack on good fathers but it is a clear message that a child's best interest comes first. The men's rights movement fails because they put their own agenda before the rights and protection of children. Ms Price seriously needs her head examined if she's going to proclaim this as a declaration of War.

John of Adelaide 10:28am today

This is all smoke and mirrors. More kids get maimed and killed by Mothers because of the simple fact Mothers in the majority of cases get custody. This is just a ploy driven by the Family Law Courts to claw back some power. Even under the current laws the Mother still has more rights than the Father, where's the equality in this? My ex put me through the wringer, for no other reason than she could, she found it amusing, she was able to and she did financially and emotionally destroy me. She refused access to my own flesh and blood, she played all the games in order to cause me maximum pain, for what? Revenge, that's what. But at what cost? Due to her greed and utter cruelty she stripped me bare and almost killed me. I was in and out of hospital for clinical depression for over ten years. The denial of access, the blatent rip off that is child support which leaves nothing left to live on. The CSA and family Law Court encourages the game to be played so there is more conflict and therefore more 'business'. The problem is that John Howard's family law reform hardly went far enough, that is the problem. If Ruddy does this it will cause a hurricane backlash by Fathers and will almost certainly lead to more violence as Fathers get pushed over the threshold, beyond any human being can unexpectedly endure!

amanda of nsw 10:23am today

My 5year old son has to live in a 50/50 shared custody arrangement.Since this agreement was started,he has had ear,throat and lung infections almost every week!He says to me every Saturday that he doesn't want to go to his dads.Many times he has physically clung to me,screaming not to get into his dads' car.How is this ok for a child,just because he is his dad?Real men and fathers would see that the child is not coping and would not want to enforce such barbaric custody arrangements.I support a new fairer system.My son would like to see his dad every second weekend.Why is that so unreasonable?

Mere Male of Gosford 10:00am today

Mothers are just as likely to murder their own children as their fathers and there are recent cases in Australia of that. There are always unbalanced people in any society, and picking on one group, or favouring one group, at the expense of another is discrimination of the worst sort. And I thought that the Australian Labor Party was against discrimination in all its many forms. Only when it suits it, right?

SteveH. 9:57am today

I doubt the stolen generation or many adults who were adopted would support the argument that parenthood can be completely defined as an emotional relationship where the biological connections are irrelevent. Separated parents of either gender are notorious for providing self interested evidence against their former partners.

Ross Mitchell of Newcastle 9:56am today

To reveiw the safety of children in Family Law based on the Freeman case alone is farcicle. James Topham, Dean Shillingsworth, Oliver Garcia (whos mum killed herself and him 4 June 2008 prior to Freeman at westgate bridge), Tom and Mathew Fitchett and Lachlan and Sophie Ariyaratnam, are among numerous cases that need to be included in this review. Australian Institute of Criminology data shows that 50 percent of child homicides are committed by the mother.

ww02 9:53am today

How can you force children to have contact with their father when the children did not want to have contact with their father. Having left a violent partner with whom I had two children to, at the time of seperation they were 16 and 12 years old, after our separation for approximately two years the children did not want to have even short visits (2hrs) with their father this was enough to have the children in such a distressed emotional state hours prior to the contact visit and for at least 2 days afterwards. Shouldn't we be looking after out children's emotional well being?

Colleen of QLD 9:41am today

The submission says: "Parents are saying they don't want money. They would be happy to forgo maintenance payments if it saves their child from having to spend half the week with a parent who does not really want to parent them, but whose main objective is to avoid child support - Correct. I agree with these changes. While there are alot of dads out there playing an active role there are FAR more that are doing it all for the wrong reasons. I also agree that a parent should have a heavier weighted arguement in the arrangements of a child if the other parents has been violent at any stage eg: restraining order. Very happy to see this happening.

adad 9:38am today

does this vital (to a significant number of our children) situation have to swing from one extreme to the other. Cant these clowns who write the legislation and pass it apply some common sense. In this example the application of a filter to prevent (yes prevent, try that laggard brigade) the wrong parents taking advantage for the wrong reasons and if both parties cannot or will not act maturely and in the best interests of the children then onto the next provision- another story

Ausfire of NSW 9:36am today

I have collected quite a number of news articles where the mother has been the one that has killed the children post-seperation. Recent research from Western Australia (the only Australian state to collect data on the gender and relationship of the offender in this type of research) that states that children are 3 times more likely to suffer abuse while in the care of the mother. When fathers kill their children they suffer the full force of the law and all fathers are vilified by the press. When mothers kill their children, they are pitied by court and press alike. IF Australia wants to protect their children, then the government needs to stop sticking it's head in the sand and catering to the anti-male or anti-father (generally pro-feminist) groups and individuals.

Tony of Brisbane 9:32am today

I agree the law should be repealed, but not for the reasons outlined here. The worst aspect of it is that it encourages mothers to discourage access to children in order to save money. As usual, the men are unfairly demonised.

Roscoe of Brisbane 9:23am today

Won`t matter whether the laws are changed or not if judges in the Family Court fail to enforce Court orders. What was the record for applications to have a judgement enforced to no avail--40? 60? 80?

kids rights of rockhampton 9:19am today

Thank goodness the Rudd government is reviewing these laws. In all of the arguments for men's rights where are the rights of the children to live an organised life .... to have all of their 'stuff' in one place and to have a secure base to start the day from and to come home to during the week. I don't know how these kids cope particularly in high school where the demands of study can be extreme and to have to placate parents that are looking after their own needs first as well as the difficulty inherent in adolescents . I don't know if I could demand all of that from my children. I doubt if anyone has the right to demand all of that of a child. How about we start thinking of what is best for the children .. here is a thought we could even ask the kids themselves.

Markus of Adelaide 9:16am today

It's only controversial to womens groups. This is not the first article Ms. Overington has written bashing the shared parenting laws. Good male partners SHOULD be given 50% access to their children. Violent and abusive men should not, and the legal system should address this. These laws should not be re-written to appease the male bashing minority. Thankfully my ex-wife is an intelligent and thoughtful mother who sees the need for her child to have a father in her life. I pity some of the men I know whose partners have made their childs life miserable to punish the male partner. If Labor change these laws, they have lost my vote, and I'll bet many many others.

WorkingMum of Canberra 9:00am today

As a single mother, I've endured 6 years of enforced facilitation of sending my child to see her father. She doesn't want to go and understands her own mother can't help her. She feels helpless and resentful. The law is on her father's side. If I don't facilitate contact, I'm in contravention which is a criminal matter. Who is on the side of the child then? Shared parenting laws are not in my experience in the best interests of the child.

Jim of Victoria 8:51am today

It concerns me greatly that parental rights for fathers continues to be linked to domestic violence. The abuse of children is more often done by women than men yet we don't univerally remove their rights to be a participating parent. Domestic violence is abhorrent and the men and women who participate should face the full wrath of the law but to establish laws that presume guilt before innocence is unjust to all those good fathers whose only mistake was who they married.

Anthony of Montrose 8:47am today

Hopefully reason will prevale against ideology in this important social arena. As a separated father, the laws have been invaluable to me, not that I have used them. In my case, knowing the disposition of the Court if we had to resort to the law, enabled me to successfully negoatiate a 50% custody with my three children. I have successfully parented them for six years now & enjoy a full parental relationship something I could not do if I had partial access. Pleae join this fight to ensure a balancec access for all parents, not just the womens lobby.

Gillian of Adelaide 8:38am today

I understand something of the grief and loss that is often experienced by men post separation and divorce but surely there has to be a better way than the current modality. It seems to me that it is the children who currently pay the price for the benefits to fathers of shared parenting. When a child is trundled around like a parcel or shipped huge distances to meet the needs of adults it seems there is truly something wrong.

Sydney Dad of Sydney 8:23am today

The shared parenting laws have improved the lives of children and fathers throughout Australia. I voted for Labor in the last Federal elections and I am likely to do so again. But I will not vote for Labor if they roll back the shared parenting laws.

SB of Gungahlin 8:16am today

At what point in time does the real needs of the children kick in? All the kids I know that have been forced into shared care seem to be much worse off for it. Yet the kids who whilst experiencing divorce but are not ordered through the courts to spend time with a parent if they don't want to, seem to cope much better. I also feel deeply for the parent who wants to share the nurturing of their child but at the same time most children yearn stability and having to sleep here for 1 night and there for 2 nights and back here for 2 nights and back there for 2 night does not provide stabilty or allow a true support structure for any child. Any adult who thinks it does is kidding themself. Is there an answer to this issue that will satisfy everyone? I don't think so. The children must always come first.

Concerned father of Randwick 8:09am today

Because one father did the wrong thing all fathers are to be penalised. There have been circumstances where the mothers have neglected their children so why don't you also use this as evidence. As for the child who only knew his stepfather, all I can say is that the mother had no right in the first place to the place the father out of the childs life. When I was 4 my parents separated, my mother remarried and my step father became my father and my surname was changed to his. I was unable to see my father and my mother did not pass on his letters, birthday cards etc. I did not see my father for over 20 years and when I did my mother refused to talk to me for 6 years. I did not bond with my father and in fact could not relate to him as my father. I am angry that I did not grow up knowing my grand parents, aunts and uncles and cousins. Not only did my father suffer but so did his mum and dad. The sad thing is that I am now angry with my mother for being selfish and after 40 years I have been unable to talk to her about it. Please don't change the laws to deny fathers the right of shared care just because of the few bad ones.

Charles Pragnell of Australia 8:02am today

The Family Law Act is solely concerned with parent's rights and treats children as mere possessions to be divided up with the other goods and chattels. The child does not have the right to contact nor to refuse contact, but is fored into arrangments which are not necessarily of their choosing and their human rights are frequently violated by Court Proceedings and decisions. Adultism is often worse than racism and sexism and is nowhere more apparent than in the Family Law and its application..

Daniel Kisliakov of Frenchs Forest 7:42am today

To suggest that the tragic event in Melbourne has anything to do with shared parenting is a manipulation of the facts by those who really don't care about the rights of fathers, or the rights of children to have a father. That this could happen has far more to do with inadequate risk assessment than anything else - this is obvious. Truth is, that we have a generation of fathers who are discriminated against, called "deadbeat dads", discriminated against, and a generation of young boys who do not have adequate male role-models. Indeed, the problems of male psychology are complicated, and these sorts of discriminatory laws aren't going to help address these issues. I wonder if such discrimination would be tolerated were it have been perpetuated to women or racial minorities.

m of brisbane 6:55am today

There is overwhelming evidence that share care does not work. To ignore this evidence would be irresponsible.

Maggie of Childers 6:33am today

I am hoping this legislation includes violent parents who use and abuse children to get back at the other parent.