Comments on: Family law stacked against fathers

By: Asisha

Asisha — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:59:53 +0000

Dave the slave, your comments sound anecdotal and without a foundation, by continuing to blame and generalise all mothers based on your own story, where the mother of your child suffered from untreated mental illness, whilst in a relationship with you, where you overlooked her mental illness. Your statistics is inaccurate on abuse, and perhaps you may want to look at how many pedofiles exist, in fact Australia has the highest abusers frequesnting asian countries to abuse, and it is also amongst the allfuent, I have not come across abusive mothers to the extent that I have with the father’s, abusing the system, and of course there are many normal man too, but a handful of extremist father’s seem to want to tell the world about themselves through abuse of women and children. Look at the abusers in the system rorting the system, holding onto their jobs by abusing children and vulnerable women.

By: H

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:05:30 +0000

Screw rights.. what happened to responsibility? how responsible is it of anyone to say your father or mother isn’t good enough to be in your life? is it any wonder we have teenagers with identity issues… They’ve been told that half of their heritage are low down dirty rotten scoundrels by a system that operates against the rule of law..

Maybe it’s time the court and parents started acting like adults and a little less like children.

By: Ash Patil

Ash Patil — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:53:09 +0000

Raginvoid,

As already mentioned by dave, my comment was that “children need father too!”

This is inclusive of mothers.

I don’t think it is appropriate for you to be misquoting me.

In any case maybe you should take a step back and have a think about how your comments are being perceived. You are not coming across as being of an open mind, nor of being child focussed.

I am not saying that this is who you are, just how your words sound.

In any case, your denigrating comments are not doing this debate any good. Gender profiling is simply not on, and this is the case whether you apply it to males or females.

We are all the same after all, whether we are male or female.

If you start off with this premise, then maybe we can find some common ground, as we both profess to be focussed on our children’s best interests.

**“Sole custody — the highest risk environment for child abuse in Australia” [Dept of Child Protection, WA].

http://www.f4e.com.au/equalparenting/fathers4equality.nsf/pages/mothersandchildabuse

http://www.f4e.com.au/equalparenting/fathers4equality.nsf/pages/childabuserisks

http://www.f4e.com.au

By: dave the slave

dave the slave — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:22:18 +0000

Raginvoid.
You mention the statistics as being highly dubious, despite the fact that they were compiled by a government child protection agency, london to a brick you would accept them if they conformed to your own agendas though. Perhaps you should be asking why other states are refusing to release their own statistics even under FOI requests and who is responsible for the withholding of this information. Fathers rights groups have been calling for and want to see these figures released so who does that leave. Speaking of fathers rights, why is it that when women/mothers fight for their rights it is seen as acceptable to you, but when fathers fight for theirs, it is not. There is a name for that, it starts with a B.

By: dave the slave

dave the slave — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:54:57 +0000

Raginvald. I think you should learn to read properly. There was nothing in Mr Patil's statement which was sexist. He did NOT just say " children need fathers". What he said was "children need fathers too", by implication that means children need fathers as well as mothers. Yet as is the norm with people like yourself, you have tried to twist his statement around to your own advantage by not quoting what was actually said, READ THE POST. There were plenty of sexist comments in your reply though. "FATHERS seeking to evade their financial responsibilities". What about the mothers who seek to minimise the contact with the childs father solely to maximise the child support they receive. "FATHERS who are toxic and dangerous to the children's welfare". What about toxic and dangerous mothers like the mother of my own child. "So many children have been killed by dangerous FATHERS", What about the number of children killed by their mothers who are killing their children at double the rate of fathers, and if you include mums new BF, at 3 times the rate. Also enshrined in the UN charter of the rights of the child you mention is that children have the right to free association with BOTH biological parents, yet true to form you have only cherry picked that part of the charter which suits your own agenda's and ignored the rest. Perhaps it is you who needs to read it properly. People like you are just as complicit in encouraging the GENDER WARS as any of the lawyers etc you mention, because as long as you seek to blame only fathers for the damage done to our children there will always be fathers like me who have seen their own childrens lives destroyed by the childs mother and our so called family law system. There is nothing much wrong with the shared parenting laws introduced in 2006. The law very plainly states that 50/50 shared care should be considered except when one or the other of the parents represents a danger to the childs welfare or is otherwise incapable of nurturing the child. The message enshrined in the legislation is very plain, very clear and very fair. If you think it is not then i must once again call into question whether you are more interested in the rights of the mother or the rights of the child. What is wrong is the way many judges INTERPRET AND ACT on the laws, This is the REAL reason why children are being forced into contact with violent and abusive fathers and why children are being placed in the primary care of violent abusive and neglecting mothers.

By: Raginvald

Raginvald — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:20:27 +0000

Dave the Rave – I mentioned children killed by dangerous fathers because I was responding to the statements of the original writer who mentioned fathers and is a known Father’s Rights activist. I am well aware that the abuse and killing of children is not a gender issue and parents of both genders can be the perpetrators, but your statistics are the highly dubious statistical propaganda bandied about by the Father’s Rights Groups (Note — ‘Father’s Rights’ and no concern for children rights and needs) and which are not supported by independent and governmental research over the last decade. If events occurred as you describe them in your case, then as you rightly say, it is the ‘professionals’ and the Courts which should be held to account for not protecting your child – fuelling the Gender Wars debate just detracts from placing the responsibility and accountability for endangering the lives of children where it correctly belongs. Children are treated by the Family Law and the Courts as mere possessions and ‘Goods and Chattels” to be divided up as the Court sees fit because paramountcy is given to parental rights to residency and contact and a ‘meaningful relationship’ when either or both may be unsuitable parents and the child is not consulted or their wishes and feelings are disregarded. Merely supplying sperm or an egg is taken as the simplistic definition of parenthood when responsible parenthood is far, far greater. The law pays only a token regard to the rights of children to be protected from harm and to have a say in decisions affecting their lives. The same attittudes of adults and adultism prevail in the Family Court system towards children, as prevailed when the Stolen Generation were removed and when children were transported here from Britain and subjected to abuse and forced labour – a callous and uncaring attittude towards their safety and wellbeing and which is leading to another generation of children who are abused and exploited. There is an urgent need for children to be respected and valued by the Family Court system and for their rights to be enforced. Instead of protesting about human rights abuses abroad and the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, the government should be examining the human rights abuses which children are being subjected to within this country. The Family Law (and its administration by Courts) is actually stacked against children!.

By: Raginvald

Raginvald — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:09:47 +0000

My comment was on your bland and generalised, sexist statement — ‘children need fathers’. The Family Court system has become a feeding frenzy for psychologists, psychiatrists, Family Reporters, lawyers, mediators etc etc to make money from disputing parents. Cases can last for 16 years without resolution and many parents have been bankrupted by the costs. Money and greed is driving the whole system and it has become a gravy train for the ‘professionals’ involved. How many psychologists/psychiatrists jumped in to use the now discredited PAS as a readymade tool to throw into courtrooms?. How many of them have since been disciplined for misuse of such a junk-science based and pedophile created theory?. How many have been subjected to legal proceedings for giving misleading evidence to Courts?. How many psychologists/ psychiatrists have given evidence to Courts dismissing allegations of child abuse as false, when they have neither training nor experience in the competent investigation of child abuse and such evidence is outside of their area of expertise?. And of telling Judges that a history of domestic violence, criminal behaviours, mental illness, and drug/alcohol abuse by parents are of no consequence when considering issues of residency and contact and should be disregarded!. Of course these are merely a handful of those who want to continue with the present Family Laws and to oppose any changes, in case any new system reduces their lucrative incomes. And of course they want to encourage the Gender Wars to continue because if parents who are manipulated into disputes were to suddenly agree and see that it is the system they should be fighting in a common cause, rather than each other, then the system will loose out. This is not an issue about fathers or mothers, but about safeguarding and protecting children from Court-ordered abuse!.

By: dave the slave

dave the slave — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:33:01 +0000

Ragivald
Children do not need toxic and dangerous mothers either. The so called professionals also forced my daughter to live with an violent,abusive and neglecting mother for 3 years. Children are being killed at 3 times the rate by their mothers or mums new BF than by biological fathers. In view of this then perhaps we should say that children needing mothers is also naive and irresponsible. Why are you only mentioning children being killed by dangerous FATHERS. When a child is killed by its mother the old mental health card is always played. What about the mental health of fathers who have had their children taken from their lives. We arn’t all violent fathers but we all seem to be tarred with the same brush by people like you, while most abusing and neglecting mothers are seen as NEEDING HELP its pathetic and children are dying because of it.. In 85–90% of cases the courts are placing the children with the mother therefore the courts must also be placing thousands of children in the care of violent, abusing and neglecting mothers who are seen as the primary care giver just as they did with my own daughter.

By: Ash patil

Ash patil — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:07:08 +0000

To ragivald

You should not generalise. Your comments are simply sexist.

By: Raginvald

Raginvald — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:34:35 +0000

Ash Patil — ‘children need fathers”. How naive and irresponsible!. Children need fathers who are reasonable and responsible and interested in their care and welfare and are not simply seeking to evade financial responsibilities by having their child for 35% of the time.. They do not need fathers who are toxic and dangerous to their safety and welfare, as so many psychologists, psychiatrists, Court Reporters, and Independent Children’s Lawyers seem to believe and are constantly telling Courts although many of those professionals have no idea of the basic needs of children. Such ‘professionals’ are largely to blame for putting children in abusive situations and why so many children have been killed by dangerous fathers. The Best Interests of children are to be safe, secure, and protected from harm — that is their primary need and their fundamental human right as determined in the U.N. Charter of Children’s Rights, which again few if any, of those ‘professionals’ have bothered to read.