Child protection trumps rights of divorced parents

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”

by Anthony Sharwood

110
The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

by Tory Shepherd

210
Cash mobs aren’t so flash

by Daniel Piotrowski

310
If we wanted reality, we’d turn off the television

by Jason Tin

410
The temptation of forbidden fruit: Why I can’t Dukan

by Emma Jane

510
Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

by Daniel Piotrowski

610
New speaker’s slack clobber, old speaker clobbers slackers

by Malcolm Farr

710
Snappy 60th birthday to our most fun newspaper

by Lucy Kippist

810
There’s no evidence sex-for-cab-fares is a trend

by Tory Maguire

910
Stop expecting Facebook to be your friend

by Anthony Sharwood

1010

by Tracey Spicer

09 Feb 05:49am

Must Reads

New speaker’s slack clobber, old speaker clobbers slackers

Snappy 60th birthday to our most fun newspaper

There’s no evidence sex-for-cab-fares is a trend

Filed under: Child Protection, Dirvoce, Family Law, Shared Parenting

127 comments

Six-year-old Naomi wants to kill herself after being repeatedly sexually abused since the age of two.

Illustration: Paul Newman, Daily Telegraph.

Her mother Debbie says the bright and bubbly toddler has become a violent and aggressive girl who wants to throw herself in front of a car to end her suffering.

Last week, I interviewed Debbie on Radio 2UE. It was harrowing. Heartbreaking. But instead of expressing sympathy, talkback callers were angry.

Angry at women, like Debbie, who are trying to stop fathers seeing their children.

You see - Naomi’s plight is exacerbated by the controversial Shared Parenting Laws.

And whenever the media broaches this subject, it sparks gender warfare.

The children – who in one-in-five cases are the victims of sexual or physical assault – are forgotten.

Ten days ago, one of three reviews recommended major changes to the laws, brought in by the Howard Government.

They were alleged to be a factor in the tragic death of Darcey Freeman, who was thrown from the West Gate Bridge.

Her father is facing a murder charge.

The report, by retired Family Court judge Richard Chisholm, found that the so-called 50/50 parenting provisions were putting women and children at risk.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said women had become reluctant to raise allegations of violence, because the court could now punish them with the entire bill for proceedings if the claims were not proven.

And it’s not just a financial risk.

Debbie fled interstate with her daughter after doctors found that she had sustained injuries to her genitalia following a weekend stay at her father’s house.

But the Federal Police forced her to return, or risk losing custody.

Now, every second weekend, Debbie leaves her six-year-old in the care of a man who rapes her.

This is one of hundreds of cases that the Attorney-General says are merely “misunderstandings”.

The problem is that Men’s and Women’s Rights groups have turned this debate into a replica of ugly custody battles being fought out in Australian homes every day.

The men’s groups are well organised, with coordinated campaigns involving websites, talkback, blogs and letters to the editor.

They now plan to form a coalition to lobby the Senate and marginal electorates.

I can understand their anger.

My heart goes out to anyone who’s been wrenched from their beloved children.

But in cases where violence is alleged, surely the safety of those children comes first?

Yes, there are some women who make false claims. But these are in the minority.

Every allegation must be thoroughly investigated, without the children being exposed to further harm.

Now – that doesn’t mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In a review by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, more than 70 percent of couples in shared parenting arrangements said it worked well.

The laws simply need to be amended. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen in an election year.

As Adele Horin wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald, “The Rudd Government is unlikely to risk re-igniting the bitter shared-care debates of the Howard era by embarking on law reform, even if the task is to tidy up a sloppily worded act that has sown confusion, raised false expectations… and put some families at risk.”

Lawyers back this up: Around 62 percent of them believe the laws favour parents’ rights over children’s needs.

The National Council for Children Post-Separation is mobilizing thousands of people in marginal seats to withdraw support from the Labor Party, if it fails to act on the reviews’ recommendations.

As for the talkback response, it makes me wonder – what kind of a society do we live in, where the plight of a suicidal young girl is met with cries of “what about me”?

Tracey Spicer and Stuart Bocking are filling in hosting Mornings on 2UE.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Share post:
Print page:
- Print Article

Most commented

342Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to

301It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age

249Gillard's mapping a route but will probably still be routed

209Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

200The sun is shining but storms lie ahead for the surplus

177Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal?

168The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

163Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone

127 comments

Show oldest | newest first

- Eric says:
  
  06:07am | 09/02/10
  
  Yet another feminist campaign against men, using a tiny, tiny minority of bad cases to take away equal parenting rights. It would be just as valid to point out the cases where women abuse children - and there are plenty - to justify denying custody to mothers.
  
  The vast majority of shared custody cases go well. But greedy feminists want control of children, and the money that comes with it. So we have sexist articles like this polluting the media.
  
  Reply
Jeremy says:

10:35am | 09/02/10

What’s sexist about it? She says that allegations of abuse should be investigated thoroughly, and children not returned until they are certain to be safe. She does say it from a women’s perspective at one point, but there’s no reason it wouldnt go both ways.
Chris says:

01:32pm | 09/02/10

I agree with Eric the article is most definatly written to promote a female over male case.

Personally I think all allegations should be investigated and the child removed from harm - by being placed in secure care unti the veracity of the allegations can be proved that way the abusive party (if allegations are true) has no unsupervised access and the lying manipulative party (if allegations are false) cannot corrupt the child and try an manipulate the child against the other parent.

I’m all for equal rights - I just want them to actually be EQUAL and Equal all the time not just when convenient politically.

PS Could I please sit in my allocated seat on a plane without being forced to move if the airline allocates an unsupervised child to sit next to me because I’m male - if you insist on the policy allocate seats so that it doesnt happen embarressing the staff and passenger involved or better yet equal rights have all unescorted children in a special chuildrens section were adults (male and female) can’t molest them and may actually have a more peaceful flight.
protect our kids with truth says:

04:30pm | 09/02/10

Children’s welfare should be the number one consideration in all situations. However, this story has the ring of a 2UE beat-up about it. Having worked in law enforcement for many years I cannot believe that the Federal Police forced someone to send their child back to a “man that rapes her”. If a doctor had identified damage to the girl’s genitals he or she would be required to report it. Let’s look after the children and even err on removing adult rights where there is any doubt, but supporting “evidence” should at least have the ring of truth.
cats says:

02:14pm | 10/02/10

STFU Eric. Tracey clearly stated that 70% of shared parenting agreements go well, so there should not be an overhaul of the system. What do you suppose we do with children similar to the little girl in this article? Give her back to her rapist dad? Yes that’s a fine bloody thing to do. Men’s rights activists such as yourself would see this as a great leap forward. This is NOT got anything to do with feminists or whatever. Of course the article is from a female point of view - IT’S WRITTEN BY ONE. Never did she say that all men should have no access to their children. It’s just something you make up in your head because you have come to believe that all women are evil because you’re old and bitter about no woman choosing you for her partner. Either that or you’re just a troll, but i think somehow you have to have some belief in what you say.
Eric says:

05:18pm | 10/02/10

cats, I suggest that the police check out the allegations. If, as the mother claims, there is medical evidence, then the father should have been charged by police. The lack of any such action makes me question the whole story.

But, like a typical misandrist, you believe that any accusation against an innocent man must be true. Why do you hate men so much?
- Eric says:
  
  06:09am | 09/02/10
  
  P.S. Tracey, you do like to raise fear and loathing on your hot-button issues. What happened to all the race violence on Australia Day that you worried about in your last article? Or was that just another hysterical beat-up, like this one?
  
  Reply
- Eric says:
  
  08:34am | 09/02/10
  
  The safety of children and their right not to be abused has to come first every time regardless of who’s wrong or right, ‘to blame’.Cases need to be judged individually and proper arrangements made that proect children properly.The law needs to reflect that care of children and legislation needs to be made to function in the interests of children.
  
  Reply
idiots everywhere says:

02:18pm | 10/02/10

So says you, who believe that men who abuse are a “tiny, tiny minority”
- Mike says:
  
  08:37am | 09/02/10
  
  Tracy, you say that many women make false claims but that those are in the minority. What study are you quoting to back up that claim? What peer-reviewed publication published that? Or is that something you just have a feeling for?
  
  Perhaps you haven’t accounted sufficiently for the ‘hell hath no fury’ factor when you make that statement.
  
  Reply
Eric says:

09:04am | 09/02/10

When ‘hell hath no fury’ there’s a;ways a good reason, possibly about the protection of vulnerable children.
Mickey says:

11:28am | 09/02/10

Well said Mike. Children must be protected if there is any hint of violence. But this merely becomes another tactic in spiteful divorces. Then the father must prove his innocence or lose contact. Agree, the number of false claims seems to be understated by the author.
Robert Smissen says:

03:12pm | 09/02/10

I’m with you Mike, Tracey please back up your claims about the “minority” of false claims, this sounds more like a rant than reporting. When my first wife was violent towards my children, NOBODY wanted to know, as somebody who works with damaged young men, a consistent complaint was nobody would listen when they said their mothers sexually abused them. Tracey, put up or shut up
DocBud says:

04:06pm | 09/02/10

While she is backing up that claim, may be she could back this one up as well:

“The children – who in one-in-five cases are the victims of sexual or physical assault – are forgotten.”

I don’t understand why people think that it is appropriate to conduct interviews such as this on the radio. If the father has a case to answer, let him answer it in court, and if he is guilty, throw away the key. But trial by media is wrong.
Happy says:

08:15pm | 09/02/10

There are 4 research studies in Au and many o/s including a large study in Canada in 2008. They all consistently point out that false allegations by mothers are rare. In Canada the reasearch into intentional false allehgations in FC was:
“Results: Consistent with other national studies of reported child maltreatment, CIS-98 data indicate that more than one-third of maltreatment investigations are unsubstantiated, but only 4% of all cases considered to be intentionally fabricated. Within the sub-sample of cases wherein a custody or access dispute has occurred, the rate of intentionally false allegations is higher: 12%. Results of this analysis show that neglect is the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment, while anonymous reporters and non-custodial parents (usually fathers) most frequently prompt intentionally false reports. Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the CIS-98, custodial parents (usually mothers) and victimized children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.”
‘False Allegations of Abuse and Neglect When Parents Separate’, Trocmé, Nico
University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work, Bala Nick, Queen’s University Law School
Child Abuse & Neglect, May 28, 2004.
- Not fair says:
  
  08:47am | 09/02/10
  
  What a slanted view, so you are saying that good fathers, should have to give up their right to there children, that is totally unfair.
  
  I seen a point where you say the finanical implication to women, there is none, they do lose some money but that is because the father is looking after the child, and therefore recives the funding, they dont lose any money, as money given is for the child.
  
  Tracey you seem to be taking the female perspective, and dont seem to care how fathers must feel, basically you are saying in all instances mothers make better parents
  
  Reply
James says:

10:40am | 09/02/10

Who ever told you that life is fair?
cats says:

02:21pm | 10/02/10

“so you are saying that good fathers, should have to give up their right to there children, that is totally unfair”

i’m sorry, but what’s wrong with you?
Happy says:

10:08am | 11/02/10

No -one has said that ‘good fathers’ should give up their “right” to “their” children. That language betrays an undercurrent of ‘ownership’ of children, the very dynamic of a parent that abuses a child.
For the record, the cases in the Family Court (FC) have been shown to consist of child abuse that is “real, severe and serious” Brown et al, Au Institute of Criminology, 1999. Therefore, given that non-custodial parents (probably fathers) more frequently are the ones that intentionally fabricate false allegations against custodial parents (mostly mothers), and the cases in the FC are more often the worst sort of child abuse seen, ‘good fathers’ will most likely not end up in the FC. It is more likely that fathers ( and some mothers but not many) that have been abusive will end up in the FC.
What would one expect to hear from fathers in FC that have in fact abused their own children? Confessions to the fact that they have abused their own children or claims that they are innocent and are just victimised ‘good fathers’ like those that are not in the FC????
By the way- the ‘rights’ to contact do not belong to “fathers’ or non-custodial parents. Those “rights” belong to the children. Children have a right to safe and meaningful contact with non-custodial parents. It is the obligation of non-custodial parents to provide safe and thus a meaningful relationship with that child. A parent that has abused a child, and this includes domestic violence to the mother, cannot provide a safe and meaningful relationship to that child. They actually do more harm and damage.
Robert King says:

02:02am | 16/02/10

@Happy;

I’m not entirely convinced that your attribution of ‘right to contact’ to the child exclusively is correct. I am in a situation where, in the absence of a Court Order, my ex-partner’s continued denial of access to my children constitutes a federal offence; ‘unlawful parental abduction’. It seems that the ‘right to contact’ between non-custodial parents and their children is actually more reciprocal than you think. Women who, like my ex-partner (for reasons best known to themselves) deprive children and their fathers from contact with each other according to their own whims, may well be acting criminally.
- Grace says:
  
  09:17am | 09/02/10
  
  We can never never generalise about this subject.
  Some work well some don’t.
  We must put the children first.
  In Debbies case the drs should have reported their findings to the dept. and the dept should be forced to note every report and act on it.
  Mums and dads are not the proity here, the child is.
  
  Reply
Chris says:

01:37pm | 09/02/10

Something seems odd in the example in her story - surely with all this evidence a complete investigation would have been undertaken and the father charged after the several years since the Dr’s noticed the abuse if the abuse was due to him.

I’m not saying I think it’s true or not but it seems odd.
- Helen says:
  
  09:20am | 09/02/10
  
  greedy feminists want control of children, and the money that comes with it
  
  Haha! Hahahahahaha…..
  Oh dear I need a new keyboard.
  You’ve all seen those estimates of how much it costs to raise a child to young-adulthood.
  Take my two kids Eric, please!
  They’re costing me a fortune!
  You really don’t know much about anything, do you.
  
  Reply
- Gerard says:
  
  09:28am | 09/02/10
  
  Typical wimmin’s rant. Wimmin are all victims, men are beasts ... Look at the thousands of trans-generational “ferals” for the real truth about motherhood without male influence.
  
  Reply
Donna says:

06:19pm | 07/08/10

Who are these “wimmin”? and I think you’ll find a lot of it come from bad parenting in general, not just “wimmin”...
- Martin G says:
  
  09:35am | 09/02/10
  
  “But in cases where violence is alleged, surely the safety of those children comes first?
  
  “Yes, there are some women who make false claims. But these are in the minority.”
  
  You’d be surprised how much this happens, actually. You’d also be surprised how often they get away with such lies. Whichever way you look at it, the Family Court system is a shambles.
  
  Reply
Martin G says:

10:19am | 09/02/10

In addition to my first post, there are allegations of rape in this article, surely this is a matter for the police and not Family Court???
- DG says:
  
  09:51am | 09/02/10
  
  “But in cases where violence is alleged, surely the safety of those children comes first? “
  
  So if the father says the mum hits the child and the mother makes the same claim against the father who looks after the kids? Not only that, in this case Debbie’s ex husband has no opportunity to defend himself but you are willing to stand on the roof tops and scream “Now, every second weekend, Debbie leaves her six-year-old in the care of a man who rapes her.” What an emotive horrific picture to paint with no evidence what that the father has ever done anything illegal to the child. Defamation any one?.
  
  Of course such claims should be the subject of a thorough investigation. BY THE POLICE. You allege that he has been systematically raping his child over 4 years yet not once in those years has he faced criminal charges despite his ex-wife claiming to know about these offences? Great parenting there if the mother does know about these things but is unwilling to go to the police incase it makes her look bad or she has to pay some bills. Who is she putting first herself or the interests of the child?
  
  You are talking about a serious sexual assault here and making it a “civil issue” in the family court rather than the serious criminal issue it appears to be.
  
  So unless you are willing to throw out the presumption of “innocent until proven guilty” you must accept that the accused has done nothing to alienate the child from their parent.
  
  Not only that it is incredibly easy to make a child fear the other parent without that other parent doing anything wrong. Basic psychology will get you over the line - especially if one parent has more access to the child than the other. The best method is to convince the child that it happened once when they were too young to remember and that you are afraid that it’ll happen again. The great result is that the child will pick up on the fear and will respond as if the alleged event actually occurred (If I recall correctly, they proved this theory with respect to the spare of “repressed memory” sex assault claims made in the early 90s). The child will develop anger towards the accused and there is nothing that the accused can do to appease the alleged victim. How can you prove that you didn’t do something 4 years ago when you were alone with a baby, to a child who, despite being too young to remember anything else in that ear of their life, seems to recall it in vague general “details”?
  
  Again, I agree entirely that allegations against either parent should be pursued. But they should be pursued in the criminal court rather than raising them in a court that has no “Standard of proof” in considering those allegations.
  
  Who is really doing the child an injustice here? The person who refuses to lodge the complaint or the person who is accused with no chance to defend themselves.
  
  Reply
Chris says:

01:41pm | 09/02/10

Well said - I agree completely with everything you’ve said.

Rational and well thought out writing with no gender bias - wish the article had been of the same quality
Robert Smissen says:

11:09pm | 09/02/10

How true,, my first wife & mother of my three oldest children was a very violent person (mostly directed at me) When I tried to get family counseling all they seemed concerned about was HER feelings not the children. Her last 3 acts of violence were in one day including ripping a great hunk of my 15 yo daughter’s hair by the roots & almost biting her ear off.I laid a complaint on my 9 yo sons behalf & on my own behalf, my daughter laid a complaint on her own behalf. There was an independent witness to all 3 assaults. Guess what? the police contacted me & said they had interviewed my wife (now ex) & because she said that she was OK as the Dr. had given her tablets. the police refused to charge her even though a credible witness had seen all 3 crimes. HMMM, no charge, no conviction & no statistics.
Jane Evans says:

02:21pm | 12/02/10

It seems a reality comment is needed her. A very young child, less than 7, is unlikely to be able to fit the stranger-danger model of criminal cases as a witness. The Doctor cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that any genital damage was done by the father, or by sexual, rather than other type of incident. Even if they are sure it is sexually caused (like STD) they cannot say ‘it is impossible for the injury to have happened as claimed. The allegation is changed to fit the charges, the charges rarely reflect the crime. The Doctor has to be prepared to put up with the b/s of defence haranguing / abuse(way over reasonable examination), to create doubt - which is all that is needed. And many will not expose themselves. Who loses? The victim - who of course is NEVER entitled to legal representation.
It isn’t about ‘who dunnit’, its about prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Then DoCS may not see the child as ‘at risk’ because it lives with the other parent. The mother is not an eye witness, and even if she were, her testimony would be ‘tainted’.

All this talk about ‘innocent until proven guilty’ when the latest ‘darg’ from the legal eagles is ‘it is better for 99 GUILTY MEN (I ASSUME PEOPLE) to GO FREE than 1 innocent to go to jail. Better for whom? the victims of the free-guilty? For police to cut back on resources? for the DPP who is broke, the courts?

It is difficult to get the topic discussed. Too many holes, too much embarrassment for important people.
- Helen says:
  
  09:53am | 09/02/10
  
  This entire thread is a farrago of misinformation, some of which I suspect is deliberate.
  
  1. The original post was about cases which make it to the family court. Most cases don’t. The ratio of cases which are amicably resolved to the number of cases that end up at the family court is roughly a ballpark figure of 90% - 10%.
  
  2. Therefore, the cases that end up at the family court are naturally the ones where there are additional difficulties and issues on a scale from increased hostility to violence, abuse and incest.
  
  3. It’s only the cases that end up at the family court that the article is about, but the whining comments following make it seem as if we are talking about all children of separated parents. In some cases this is simply ignorance, in others, quite deliberate.
  
  I wonder how many of the commenters here are MRAs acting on action alerts via email from their grubby organisations.
  
  The vast majority of separated mothers want their children to have their father in their lives, both for the childrens benefit and theirs (to share the parenting load). If the commenters here were as concerned with fairness and equity as they claim to be, they’d be mentioning the many mothers who beg and plead with and enable their ex-spouses to take an interest in their offspring, without success.
  
  Finally, the “rebuttable presumption” of joint custody has been tried and found wanting. The FC court has woken up to the fact that the Howard government forced this on families because of pressure from selfish MRAs and they are now reconsidering this policy. Good on them.
  
  Reply
Bob says:

11:28am | 09/02/10

Sorry to be obtuse, but what is an MRA?
Chris says:

01:48pm | 09/02/10

why are MRA’s (Mens Rights Associations i pressume) grubby? I find it sad that you feel the need to belittle organisations that a merly trying advocate fair treatment for a portion of society. Womens Rights groups have been around a long time and if those opposed to them had been succesful would the world have been a better place? I think not.

Thats the problem with equality/fairness things are apparently never equal/fair enough.
AJ says:

08:47pm | 09/02/10

Ah, but the point is that there’s a call to abolish 50/50 based on the statistics of the 10% which make it to family court. Because 50/50 is letting down a small percentage of that 10%.

The cry bring back the old system reeks of ‘punish the non-custodial parent (and the children) by denying access just in case until they prove they’re innocent’.

It’s not logical to change an entire legal system based on less than 1 in ten cases.
- Nathan says:
  
  10:32am | 09/02/10
  
  What misandrist pap! Tracey, you’re proving the point you’re trying to defeat. In far too many divorces, the kids are used as weapons. Usually by the woman to the detriment of the man. You’ve just launched into a long tirade about how women should get custody, because men are child abusers, and suggested that women should be able to allege sexual and violent abuse without any consequence! If you were saying this about one man, you could be sued into the dust for defamation, but because you’re saying it about all men it’s somehow o.k.
  
  Here’s an example: “The men’s groups are well organised, with coordinated campaigns involving websites, talkback, blogs and letters to the editor.” RUBBISH! Show me an article as biased as yours, from someone on the men’s side. Are there any men’s shelters out there? No. Are there women’s shelters, where legal advice about snatching the kids, doing a runner and taking the lions share of assets is available at the drop of a hat? Yes, there are thousands of them in every state. Plus, the women’s lobby has the likes of you, clogging up our opinion pages with your vile misandrist nonsense.
  
  The child suffers when it is used as a weapon. This article simply encourages it.
  
  Reply
- Tim says:
  
  10:33am | 09/02/10
  
  Helen,
  “grubby organisations” and “selfish MRA’s”?
  watch out, your bias is showing.
  Would you like to refute any of the points DG has made in his comment above?
  
  Reply
- Ray says:
  
  10:39am | 09/02/10
  
  Two initial issues her. Firstly, statistics show mothers abuse their children more than fathers; secondly women do lie about these issues and charges and investigations are based on guilty until proven innocent. The largest factor of concern for feminists here though is not children, it is that if there is shared custody then there is shared assets. implied, ie no need for any child support, plus even split of assets., rather than the 70-30% split at the moment. The most appalling aspect is that women will use the ‘in the best interests of the child’ cliche to pursue their own personal financial bonanza. Tracy, you also refer to well organised men’s rights groups. Well excuse me the Family Law Act was concieved along with the Family Court at the behest of well organised women’s (feminist) groups with no input, I repeat no input, from men’s groups regarding fathers interests. After recently thinking on this matter, the parents should have a neutral residence that they attend to their child on some rotation basis. The child then has a ‘home’, the parents do the shuffle - not the child, and each parent is responsible for their own accommodation and life. Women can’t grasp that because it means not being entitled to some life long benevolence just because you married some poor sucker in the past. Bottom line is don’t set up the law on selective incidents. Also no every second weekend away as a cougar at the snow, funded by your ex’s payment with complimentary child minding to boot.
  
  Reply
Lou says:

12:19pm | 09/02/10

Statistics may ‘show’ that mothers abuse children more than fathers, however if you actually look at the statistics from the source you will see it is a simple failure to report correctly. In cases of abuse (the majority of which are neglect) caregivers are listed in separated columns, the mother is usually first as they are often the primary caregiver., therefore are often represented as the abuser. Request the information from the Department for Child Protection, we did that very thing last year when statistics were used in a way to push the medias agenda instead of the truth.

Another reason for this phenomenon is the classification of domestic and family violence as abuse. Therefore the mother is reported for not providing a safe place for their children. Yes men are sometimes victims, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, a male is the perpetrator. Where is a woma and children to go? This is discounting the power and control (often financial controal as well, and the alienation from social supports) that exists in the relationship.

Get informed about what you are sayig before you make broad statements. Unfortunately you canot just rely on a few examples from people you know.
Happy says:

10:37am | 11/02/10

Ray, you have no evidence to back up your assertions. The evidence actually is against your comments. Let me deal with these:
1. “Firstly, statistics show mothers abuse their children more than fathers,”- This is a direct quote from the researchers of a major study misused by ‘fathers rights’ campaigners…
“So, it is the case that physical abuse by parents/carers is far more common than sexual abuse perpetrated by parents/carers. However, our study never claimed or attempted to prove that ‘mothers are a greater danger to children’. In considering these findings about physical treatment at the hands of mothers and fathers we would make the following points:
o Despite the proportion of mothers involved in violent treatment, a fifth (20%) of the sample were ‘sometimes really afraid’ of their fathers. In comparison, only 7% of the sample were ‘sometimes really afraid’ of their mothers (Cawson, 2002, p. 27) According to our study: ‘These are interesting results, as it seems surprising that fear of fathers should be more common when mothers and fathers were both implicated in physical and emotional maltreatment, with figures for mothers’ involvement [in physical maltreatment] slightly higher than for fathers. Nobes et al (1999) suggest that fathers are slightly more likely than mothers to inflict severe punishment. One possible explanation for the greater fear of fathers, could be that fathers’ violent behaviour to the child might have been more serious, even if not more frequent, and another that fathers were violent to mothers’ (Cawson, 2002, p. 27).
o Featherstone makes the following point in relation to the above findings (i.e. 49% mothers, 40% fathers involved in violent treatment): ‘These figures need to be located in the context of the gender division of labour in relation to child care. Women are much more likely to be involved in the day to day care of children than men, so it would appear that given men’s relative lack of involvement in such care, the figure of 40 per cent is high and replicates similar findings (Featherstone, 1996 cited in Featherstone and Evans, 2004, p. 28).
o These figures also need to be located in the context that 10% of sample had never lived with a father (including step- and adoptive fathers), and one fifth of the sample had spent at least part of their childhood and 13% most of their childhood in a lone parent family (predominantly headed by a mother) (Cawson, 2002, p. 9 and 25).
o The study also found that ‘there was a strong relationship between domestic violence and child maltreatment’ (Cawson, 2002, p. 37).
o A quarter (26%) of respondents said that physical violence sometimes took place between those caring for them. For most, this was occasional or rare (21%) but for 5% it was constant or frequent (Cawson, 2002, p. 37).”
2. Next assertion you made Ray was, “secondly women do lie about these issues…”- From the largest study done into the question of whom is actually intentionally making false allegations on the Family Court…”
“Results of this analysis show that neglect is the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment, while anonymous reporters and non-custodial parents (usually fathers) most frequently prompt intentionally false reports. Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the CIS-98, custodial parents (usually mothers) and victimized children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.” Trocme N, Bala, N, ‘False Allegations of Abuse and Neglect When Parents Separate’ Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect, May 2004.

3. Next you wrote that “charges and investigations are based on guilty until proven innocent.” Wrong again. The Family Court operates on the Briginshaw principle and the ‘friendly parent’ principle. Both operate against a protective approach to children until the allegation is proven. However, evidence of child abuse by its very nature is almost impossible to prove. Hence, we end up with what has been coined as “perverse reversal” by Pragnell (2000) where children end up being given into the custody of a parent that probably abused the child.
Unfortunately, the rest of your statements are more congruent with the rhetoric that has created the non-protective approach to children in the Family Court. This has resulted in a growing number of dead and abused children by an abusive parent whilst under court orders.
- Ray says:
  
  11:01am | 09/02/10
  
  Tracey, please, if I may be excused for just one further comment on ‘the well organised men’s groups’, implyig some underhand operative. The women’s groups are either in parlliament; ie Minster for Women, Office for the Status of Women, Sex Discrimination Commissioiner, - funded by Parliament ie WEL, or enshrined in legislation Act for Discrimination Against Women, Family Law Act. etc - Just the tip of the iceberg. Women are so indoctrinated to their special treament enshrined in our culture that they are incapable of digesting egalitarian principles upon which demiocracy is reportedly based. Cheers.
  
  Reply
Wendy says:

12:32pm | 09/02/10

Ray, you are eminently correct. The female social groups from which I now distance myself have a single minded agenda to trash talk males, husbands/partners and develop pathways to maximise their self interest outcomes, through deceit and misrepresentation with which they have been successful. I find men have far more integrity.
- Mike Tyson's Stolen Boxing Glove says:
  
  11:03am | 09/02/10
  
  Bwhawahhahah! You had me until, ‘Yes, there are some women who make false claims. But these are in the minority.’ Heee hee hee hee hee! That is an hilarious statement! Aussie mothers (from what I’ve seen mate) are some of the most abusive women in the world! Go by your local shopping centre right now and watch some ‘lady’ bashing a toddler or telling her youngin’s to ‘shut the f**k up’ or ‘f**k off’. It’s like Aussie ‘ladies’ have taken Mike Tyson’s in (and out of ring behaviour) and applied it to children (one cry deserves a ‘good bashing’). Bwahahahaah! Making false claims, dude - there are sheila’s in this country who make a living out of making false claims (ask the poor police who have to deal with these femmi-bozo’s) Please continue making sweeping generalisations to support your claims, they make me giggle inside.
  
  Reply
James says:

11:28am | 09/02/10

Do you live in Frankston? My local shopping centre is nothing like that.
- Voxpop says:
  
  11:20am | 09/02/10
  
  Tracey - you must have known you’d get the same ugly response here as you did on talk back radio. Both mediums are filled with hate and loathing and many are just from the same ‘narrow view’ audience.
  
  Reply
- bec says:
  
  11:37am | 09/02/10
  
  Amazing. I love it how the threads in this post seem to confirm your point, Tracey.
  
  Reply
Tim says:

12:13pm | 09/02/10

How?
If someone wrote an article about whinging feminists and you complained would it be proving the point of the article?
- Lauren says:
  
  11:36am | 09/02/10
  
  I don’t understand.
  
  If the two year old daughter is being raped, why aren’t the police involved?
  
  Reply
- For the kid's sake, the real truth for a change. says:
  
  11:42am | 09/02/10
  
  Child abuse allegations in the context of family law proceedings have been analyzed in four Australian studies. These examinations find that allegations are rarely made for tactical advantage, that false allegations are rare, that the child abuse often takes place in families where there is also domestic violence, that such allegations rarely result in the denial of parental contact, and that fathers are at least as likely as mothers to make false allegations.
  
  Such findings are corroborated by other international studies. For example, in a landmark Canadian study of 7,600 child maltreatment investigations, Trocme and Bala (2005) found that only 12% of allegations in cases involving disputes over custody and access were false, whereas most unsubstantiated allegations were made in good faith.
  
  Anonymous reporters and nonresident parents (usually fathers) were most likely to make intentionally false reports, whereas resident parents (usually mothers) and children were least likely to do so.
  
  When fathers are subject to allegations of abuse, their chances of being denied contact with children are remote even if these allegations are substantiated, and the number of parents falsely accused of child abuse are tiny compared to the number of children who are being abused and about whom the Family Court never hears (Young, 1998).
  
  Fathers” rights advocates further contend that women’s allegations of abuse are asuccessful weapon in family law proceedings.
  
  Again, the evidence suggests otherwise.
  
  Examination of cases in Western Australia found that the alleged abuser’s contact with the child(ren) was suspended in only a handful of cases (Young, 1998). In practice, the Family Court tries to determine whether the abuse took place using a far higher standard of proof
  than the formal, civil standard criminal code of standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  
  In a more recent study< children going through the West Australian Family Court expressed frustration that their disclosures of abuse and their preferences for no contact with abusive fathers were minimized and rejected as maternal influence (Hay, 2003). Qualitative research among single mothers documents that of women who left violent relationships and then used the Family Court system, none was able to prevent their children’s continuing exposure to abuse through court-ordered contact (McInnes, 2002).
  
  Reply
Tim says:

12:39pm | 09/02/10

Yes,
there’s the truth and then there are biased studies from self interested groups and researchers.
I could just as easily provide links from reports commissioned by MRA’s that show the opposite.
How many reported cases of abuse are found to be unsubstantiated?
Davido says:

12:32am | 10/02/10

What a joke your quasi-statistical ill informed comment is.

Here is just one example of a false sexual abuse allegation: Wesley & Hunt [2009] FamCA 1158

And another: Sonner & Butin [2009] FamCA 1306

There are heaps. Check em out. Or are you scared to find out the truth?
- Steve of Cornubia says:
  
  11:45am | 09/02/10
  
  You should have a show on afternoon TV, Tracey, with the spiteful nonsense you so copiously spew forth.
  
  The misfortune of illness has meant that I have, for the first time in almost 40 years of full-time graft in support of my family, all of whom I love more than life itself, found myself at home during the day. And what a revelation it has been.
  
  It seems that daytime television is the feminists war zone, wall to wall propaganda promoting the honour of women and the evils that men do. Whether it’s Dr Phil, or The View, or Oprah or whatever, you can bet that the overwhelming theme will be Wonderful Women and Bastard Men. Dr Phil in particular, presumably knowing his audience is mainly women, is very fond of trotting out the stuff you replicate above, prompting inevitable indignation from his 99% female audience. Cheap and easy.
  
  On my part, I have great difficulty aligning what I see here and on TV with what I see in the real world. Hand on heart, I can say with total honesty that NONE of the many couples my wife and I have befriended over 35yrs of marriage have included a bad husband or father. To a man, they have worked hard to provide in the traditional sense. They reliably perform the ritual organisation and support of saturday sports/scouts/guides/Taekwondo/whatever. They protect their little chicks fiercely. They support their wives career choices. They share every cent they earn. None have ever beaten or abused their family. In fact, in almost every case, Mrs Wife has been very much in charge of the home, with Mr Hubby as her 2IC.
  
  I imagine you’re not interested though, as none of this fits your lefty feminist agenda. Just as Dr Phil cynically feeds the feminist in most women with anti-male garbage, so do you. Meanwhile many women’s magazines will carry the same tripe, adding to the problem - one magazine even has a regular section entitled ‘Mere Males’ ...........
  
  Reply
- Ted says:
  
  11:52am | 09/02/10
  
  Tracey, imagine being told by your son that you don’t love him anymore because you don’t love his mother. I have a new partner now and my ex-wife will not let me see my son - my ex-wife is using my son as a weapon. I pay for all of his schooling and provide funds 3 to 4 times more than required by law. I have never abused my son in any form. Yet, I am being forced to go through the legal processes to have access to my son and my only “crime” was that I don’t love my ex-wife anymore. It breaks my heart. My case is not the minority, all the men that I met at a recent Family Relationship Centre introduction night shared similar experiences. I know that I have hurt my ex-wife but that does not give her the right to hurt the relationship between my son and I. It would appear that some mothers hate their ex-husbands more than they love their children.
  
  Reply
- Helen says:
  
  12:33pm | 09/02/10
  
  Commenter “Ruth” on a similar discussion on another forum:
  
  I also find it odd, to say the least, that disgruntled fathers groups choose to give the impression that this is an issue that touches a vast number of men’s lives. In fact, the majority of separating couples don’t use the family court, and don’t have disputes about children. They deal with the issues themselves, in a reasonable way. The tiny minority of couples who use the Family Court should not be seen as a group that can function at the level of the rest of society. They can’t. They need help. That’s why they’re there.
  
  That sums it up pretty well.
  
  Reply
Chris says:

01:57pm | 09/02/10

Sadly a majority of seperating males probably accept their “fate” rather than fight a biased formerly biased system that may have resulted in them having less access.
- Sick says:
  
  12:43pm | 09/02/10
  
  Sadly we live in a world of double standards on this topic. Biased is engendered in each of us from the very outset not matter who makes the comment and every claim is validated by a case to back it up.
  
  Being logical for a second, lets see the facts (in no particular order btw):
  
  1. In some children are used as weapons for child support or a greater slice of assets. In other cases it is simply for spite.
  2. In some cases men abuse their children. It will probably be more physical.
  3. In some cases women abuse their children. It will probably be mostly mental and emotional.
  4. In some cases domestic violence in a valid issue
  5. In some cases domestic violence is falsely accused
  
  I pity the family lawyers and federal magistrates whose job it is to accuse, defend and cast judgement in light of this; having to wade through evidence both true and false and accusations of inappropriate conduct by both sides.
  
  The overarching mandate of the family court is to look after the best interests of the child. In order to achieve this I propose a mandatory polygraph test of both parents in light of any accusations made. This is non-invasive and filters out false allegations. Of course it is not a fool proof technique but it has to be better than courtroom mudflinging that wastes both time and money and prolongs the suffering of the child.
  
  Children need frequent contact with both parents wherever possible. This fact is beyond dispute. We need to ensure that every child is given this opportunity and if a parents temporary waiver of their right to refuse a polygraph test is what is required then it is a small price to pay. We suspend far more human rights to people we suspect are terrorists, yet we have a system that lends itself to leaving the door open for children to be physically, mentally and emotionally terrorised and traumatised as parents play a harmful tug of war with them.
  
  Reply
- Waz says:
  
  12:59pm | 09/02/10
  
  I feel for the poor child who’s been subjected to the alleged sexual abouse however I also think that this artical is as bias as the laws that obviously need to be to amended. Mothers have been known to murder their children, mothers have also been known to offer their children up to be sexually abused. I’ve yet to encounter a father that’s been accused of sexually abusing his children, however I’ve encountered plenty of parents (more so the mothers) who mentally abuse and use their children out of pure spite to attack the father. Any lawyer will gladly inform you of instances where the mother not only mentally abuses the children but also uses them as cash cows in the family law courts. Once settled the mother meets a new partner only then to demand more child support because she cannot support both her old (the children) and new (the boyfriend) lifestyles. I like many males were extremely relieved when CSA adopted a more fair approach when it came to paying child support. Kevin Rudd has not only made metion of change when it comes to parenting rights but he has also mentioned change when it comes to fathers being expected to hand over fists full of cash and then some all because they often go without rather than to see his children suffer at the hands of the greedy mother. Family law is the only law that defies common logic and sense, therefore people need to grow up when it comes to raising their children, and remember it’s your children who will be your judges once they mature into adults.
  
  Reply
- SM says:
  
  01:08pm | 09/02/10
  
  I saw a channel nine house ad the other day spruiking the hard nosed, never say die journalistic credentials of Peter Overton.
  
  Made me think my God, he’s a newsreader, not a journalist.
  
  This is a very poor piece Tracey
  
  Reply
- BeenThere says:
  
  01:31pm | 09/02/10
  
  The circumstances as presented in this article do not fit with what actually happens at the Family Law Court. First of all the police cannot tell a woman that she has to handover her child or she will lose custody. The police can only enforce orders when ordered specifically to do so by the court. For the police to be ordered by the court, the mother would of had to be contravened by the court on application by the father. This is a long long long process. However is it relatively easy to front up for radio and TV interviews and make all sorts of claims that your ex rapes your child.
  
  It is amazing that police would sit back and do nothing if this is what is really happening.
  
  My personal experience comes from going through to a full trial. The mother married a meth injecting drug addict that beat her in front of my husband’s children and the police were called to the home over 4 times. This “stepfather” had a criminal history in every state (testimony of the mother and subpoena documents). The mother had a history of non-compliance with court orders, family violence and keeping the children home from school (over 30 days in one term). My husband has a high paying job, no criminal history, no violence, own home and demonstrated constant devotion to the children and their best interests.
  
  My husband was only awarded 5 nights a fortnight and the judge only ordered it because he HAD to because of the new laws. The family report remarked on what a great Dad he was, but the children were to afraid of what Mum would do if they lived more with Dad. The judge went with that. Not what was best for the kids.
  
  Two years after final orders were handed down, The mother has has illegally moved the children to another state. The children have no family where they are. The eldest child is now “homeschooled” at 14. The children missed 3 weeks in July of school and all of December. Not enough for DOCS to get involved.
  
  My husband could of spent another $50k to have children hate him for taking them from their mother. So he gave up. He pays child support, sends gifts and vainly attempts to contact the his children. However if the judiciary actually applied the “family violence” provisions correctly and made a bolder decision to do what was right for the children, not what would make Mum happier. I know these children would have a much brighter future.
  
  I can attest that there is no Father bias at the courts. If Dads want to see their children after a divorce, it is an uphill battle. Anything where parents are seen as equals from the start helps.
  
  Reply
- Ben says:
  
  01:32pm | 09/02/10
  
  I personally find most of Tracy’s posts typical of ‘Dr’s wives’ soft left middle class drivel. On this occasion Tracy’s point that the rights of the child are lost in a debate primarily populated by views from both extremes (she specificially mentions both Men’s and Women’s Rights Groups) has been proven by the response on this blog.
  Eric just can’t ever seem to moderate his comments in order to strengthen otherwise valid arguments. I’m no fan of femanazis but I cringe every time I see specious attempts to imply that women are just as likely to be perpetrators of abuse of children as men. It’s not fact.
  Eric also seems to lack any sense of irony when he lambasts Tracy for getting fired up about her hot button issues when he has four posts on this one thread so far. How many people familiar with this site wondered if Eric was who Penbo was referring to in his comments about verified identity for bloggers on the weekend?
  Mike wheels out the old ‘woman scorned’ chestnut - it’s pretty clear that there are plenty of blokes fired about their ‘scorning’.
  Gerard wants to have a go at feminist generalisations about men and then procedes to generalize about ‘trans-generational ferals’, the mothers responsible and the fairly tiny and brief feminist sub-group who flirted with elimination male references from the language - no generalisations there mate!
  I have some sympathy with Helen’s views having witnessed the appalling behaviour of men who refuse to pay child support and run all sorts of scams to minimise what payment they do make. But I have also seen great reluctance on women’s part to allow fathers to have genuine access and continue to moan about issues of child support non-payment. These women need to get real - they contributed to the breaksdown of the relationship, willingness to pay child support and an ability to have a real relationship with children go hand in hand. And Helen I’m sure for every MRA responding to a news alert there is a WRA doing exactly the same.
  
  I could go on and on. It’s just amazing that both sides of this debate are so blinded by their sense of grievance that they lose sight of children’s rights.
  
  Reply
James says:

02:25pm | 09/02/10

Thanks Ben. The prize for sanest comment of the thread should go to you for this one.
- Ian Matthews says:
  
  01:31pm | 09/02/10
  
  “doctors found that she had sustained injuries to her genitalia following a weekend stay at her father’s house.” - And when Debbie’s local police were informed of this, they did what? And, the doctors?
  
  Reply
- Eloise says:
  
  01:32pm | 09/02/10
  
  Oh Tracey…you’ve obviously never spent a great amount of time at Domestic Violence court or with police. It is a MYTH that the ‘mother’ is usually the better parent. What rot!! After 11 years transcribing electronic records of child abuse interviews and four years working within the Domestic Violence court, it astounds me that people still hold the fantasty that ‘mothers only ever love their kids’, and that ‘it’s usually the man who is the perpetrator or at fault’. But then again, I’m not a tabloid journalist, so I clearly don’t know what I’m talking about….
  
  Reply
- JH says:
  
  01:46pm | 09/02/10
  
  Tracey, you do no even try to hide your biais. Eg, mens group are ‘well organised’. Why single them out in a negative context as I am sure womens groups are equally well organised, but hey, they don’t get a mention. Your biasis is the very reason the laws were changed. Each parent has the same rights. If there is any harm being directed towards the child by the wife or the husband, then yes, this right should be challenged. Until then you and everyone else should mind your own business
  
  Reply
- Carolyn says:
  
  01:51pm | 09/02/10
  
  All of these comments are confusing the facts. The reports are not saying anythnng about taking good fathers or mothers away from kids. The reports are questioning their applicaiton in the cases where violence and abuse are an issue. These are the ones that fall through the cracks. Most rational mother and fathers will work out an agreement without the courts. They are not the ones using the courts. The majority of cases in court have issues of mental problems of 1 party, abuse and violence and drug and alcohol problems. These are the kids that the laws are failing and these are the kids that mostly need the protection. Now come on people stop all this gender warfare and lets start looking at our children and ensuring them the best future.
  
  Reply
Ray says:

02:23pm | 09/02/10

Stop the gender war Carolyn?. Women were and are the architects of such war in which men have been censored. But I get the feeling most men have had a gutful. Can’t cop men standing up for their case! The change is for ther better rather than bland subjegation to feminist ideals to which we have been ransomed for decades,
DG says:

03:04pm | 09/02/10

I agree that this should not be a gender war - but the suggestion that an allegation of criminal activity should be considered in a family court is ludicrous at best. We have police and criminal courts for these things.

I agree that we are dealing with a small number of cases where one person is abusive - but the point is it’s time to stand up and make a decision. “Victims” need to decide either make the formal allegation or sit down and shut up. I say “Victims” because if the person doesn’t make a complaint what evidence is there that they are the victim of anything more than believing their own lies?

How does acting on unsupported allegations help the child? It simply helps the person who is willing to make such an unsupported allegation. It’s not perfect but this is the basis of “innocent until proven guilty”.
- formersnag says:
  
  02:12pm | 09/02/10
  
  The sad facts are, that almost all of the child abuse & neglect is perpetrated by mothers. So by all means lets protect children, by putting all of them with their biological fathers, unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is defective in some way.
  
  Reply
- Kathy says:
  
  02:14pm | 09/02/10
  
  What I want to know is what percentage of allegations of violence/sexual assault claims are found to be false or do not make it to court due to falsehood compared to what percentage are found to be based on fact. What I am asking is - if women making false allegations are in the minority does this mean they are in the minority of all women with children or in the minority of all women who go to court with an allegation?
  
  Because children seem to have been victims in 1 in 5 cases .... which would mean that the vast majority of cases are unproven or false allegations - that in fact, in 80% of cases the custodial parents are making false allegations. Or is my confusion due to a rather ridiculous grouping of vaguely referred to statistics designed to create or maintain a bias? Not sure, and also not sure that anybody else could be sure, seeing as this article is so emotive and vague.
  
  Reply
- H of SA says:
  
  02:26pm | 09/02/10
  
  Tracy, when I read the title of your article I thought simply, spot on.
  
  Sadly I see people in the comments have missed the point and turned this into the gender wars.
  
  Let it be said if you can’t put a child’s needs ahead of the gender wars - perhaps wage your gender wars somewhere less harmful for the status of children.
  
  Reply
MK says:

04:02pm | 10/02/10

Great Title, cant argue that
Of course child protection should come first

Did you happen to read the article that comes after the title?
that is where the people have the issue,
In Fact it was a full pre-emptive salvo by Tracy,
it wasnt the commenters who turned this into Gender wars
- Bitten says:
  
  03:02pm | 09/02/10
  
  Children should come first. Always. The problem is that people who understand this and implement it throughout their lives are not usually getting divorced. So you’re always going to be starting from behind when dealing with this population.
  
  Reply
- suze says:
  
  03:09pm | 09/02/10
  
  So the fact that I’m a female, a mother does that make my concerns regarding unsafe shared parenting laws part of the “gender war” so therefor invalid?
  The only people making it a gender war is the fanatical and self serving men’s rights lobby group who can’t get their heads out of their own behinds to see what they are full of.
  The laws need to change not because mothers, feminists, women say it should but because it is S.. I ..M ..P.. L.. Y putting children and “mostly” mothers at risk of harm/and or death.
  As for the mother allowing her child back to the pedophile raping her precious child I’d rather be in jail for life then let the chauvinist law dictate to me how to protect my child.
  Where are the good men, the good fathers putting their kids before their agenda?
  
  Reply
James says:

03:33pm | 09/02/10

But if they have their heads in their behinds, wouldn’t that give then a perfect angle from which to view the things that they are full of? I would say, if they want to see what they are full of, instead of removing their heads from their behinds they should keep them there and get a torch or something…
Bob says:

03:53pm | 09/02/10

Suze in the eyes of people like you and most other bitter Australian females there are no good men or fathers. Self serving men’s rights groups? Don’t make me laugh. They’re nothing compared to the feral hatred of men by women’s groups of which your honorary membership is guaranteed. Chauvanist law? You have got to be kidding. The law unashamedly favours women in all aspects, to the extent feral females see nothing but their own conceited space. Women have a get out of jail card issued at birth. I respond with the same reciprocal vitriole that you have demonstrated, over which women seem to have sole domain through social indoctrination.
Chris says:

04:10pm | 09/02/10

I still don’t see how 50/50 parenting laws put people at risk? It sounds perfectly fair to me - so long as allegations of abuse etc are taken seriously and the child’s welfare ensured while allegations are investigated.

Agree on the case with the mother If i knew someone was raping my son I would probably do whatever was necesary to stop it and face whatever consequences came of whatever actions I took.

Also since I have now posted several times to this article I will illustrate my situation so that people can look at my posts and know where I’m coming from. I am in a happy relationship with my partner and we have 1 child so I have no immediate personal vested interest in the subject however I do fear that should my relationship breakdown I will not have as much access to my son as I’d like - as I have seen with other parents in my social circle and at work etc. The previous system to be honest I thought was blatently unfair and probably kept men in sad failing relationships just to be with their children (growing up watching a failed relationship limp on can’t be good for children however in my opinion).

My considerably more than 2 cents worth - sorry for long and numourous posts.
- Ironside says:
  
  03:34pm | 09/02/10
  
  You say one of three report was critical of the laws? What about the other 2 reports? Why did you not mention them, and why should someone who brings charges before a court that cannot be proven not be billed for the courts time? I have a friend who was dragged through the courts 4 times on malicious charges by his ex wife that had no proof, and he had to foot the bill each time, when the law changed she stopped because she didnt want to pay for it.
  Also it is sensationalist to claim one in five children is subject to sexual or physical abuse, they are very different things however the method of writing and puting sexual abuse first in the context of this piece indicates that the author is trying to make us believe that one in five children of divorced parents suffered from sexual abuse.
  I dont believe that if there is any proven abuse that the party involved should have access to the children but the default position of 50/50 custody is the right one
  
  Reply
- 6clegs says:
  
  04:05pm | 09/02/10
  
  To “Helen” @9.53am—- thanks for taking the time to post that. Pity that most of idjits too busy engaging in Gender warfare somehow managed to totally miss your post… meanwhile, the usual suspects, “Eric” etal-probably one of the same - bang their drum about how terrible, hateful, money grubbing and cruel all women across the world are… *yaaawn* & *ahem* if ya hate females that much why are ya even reading an article written by one?
  
  This site (Punch On) has become the equivalent of those woeful “current affairs” programs on commercial telly. Is having an opinion on ‘the news’ the new definition of Journalism?
  Honestly, *who* ‘interviews’ the mother of an alleged rape victim on morning/afternoon (am not a 2ue listener) radio about “divorced parental rights’’ and an alleged rape of a toddler is treated as a side issue?!?!?!
  The author asks “... what sort of society does that?...”
  look in the mirror, Ms Spicer, then ask yourself how the way *you* presented this story, twice now, has helped the **child** in question ???????? or does having to think about her get in the way of thinking about your next pedicure?
  
  - will be more surprised if my post is published. seems that most of my replies get ‘‘lost’‘
  signed: giving The Punch another week before i don’t bother…
  
  Reply
- snuff says:
  
  04:30pm | 09/02/10
  
  How about you all stop thinking about yourselves. What can be done to stop this little girls pain and abuse, that is the issue. How about the revolting judge ask the little girl what is happening, why is society just allowing this girl be raped on demand from the courts. The mother obviously cannot do anything legally but society can. Dont just report it on this.. Tracey what is being done to stop it.
  
  Reply
Eric says:

04:44pm | 09/02/10

Do you really believe that story? A child being raped for four years, there is medical evidence, but the police have done nothing?

This is not a credible story.
DG says:

05:21pm | 09/02/10

I think that’s really the point.

There is no proof that anything is going on - the mother gets her say and the father is given no chance to defend himself. The Dr’s obligation as a mandatory reporter resulted in what?

Isn’t it equally possible, from the above allegations, that the mother assaulted the daughter and blamed the father? If not, why not? All that is required, apparently, is the allegation.

As for any change of a fair hearing -

You’ve proven it yourself:
“What can be done to stop this little girls pain and abuse, that is the issue” - you have already agreed that the abuse is happening. You have already convicted the father. You are happy throwing away the father’s right to a trial, right to to face his accuser, to defend himself and the right to be acquitted. Are you really comfortable convicting someone of such a serious offence on nothing more than the mothers say-so?
- Lou says:
  
  04:34pm | 09/02/10
  
  One in four children and young people eperience family and domestic violence (this includes witnessing and being subject to violence, both of which have a extremely detrimental effect on the child). Domestic violence is considered abuse.
  
  Reply
Eric says:

06:33pm | 09/02/10

And half of that domestic violence is perpetrated by women.
Jack Thomas says:

09:17pm | 09/02/10

That’s right Eric, damn stupid women pushing their face into a bloke’s fist ey? Same with those damn kids, it’s their fault for being abused by the old man…

Just take your bitter and twisted women hating drivel elsewhere Eric. Preferably back to therapy.
Eric says:

07:39am | 10/02/10

Get some facts inta ya, Jack.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 271 scholarly investigations: 211 empirical studies and 60 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.
- AliceC says:
  
  04:43pm | 09/02/10
  
  I think everyone here is missing the point.
  
  What Tracey is trying to say, is that the safety of the child is paramount to any parental rights. Whether the father or the mother is abusive, the child should never knowingly be placed in a dangerous situation. She’s not saying that’s always with the mother, it is to be whoever will not harm the child. If both parents are violent, put the child in a safe foster home (not the perfect solution, I know, but safer).
  
  “Every allegation must be thoroughly investigated, without the children being exposed to further harm.” If a 6 years old is having suicidal tendencies, then something if definately wrong, and needs looking into.
  
  I pray that she when she grows up she can get help and move on from this terrible situation.
  
  Reply
- Bob says:
  
  05:22pm | 09/02/10
  
  For those referring to a gender war. A point of order. There is no gender war because a war is when opposing forces are in conflict can both fire salvos. In gender issues only females can fire salvos while men’s input is censored to the extrent of terminology of misogony. A further point is even the English dictionary does not have an antonym for misogony ; that is for women who hate men. Misandry is a hater of mankind. So please ladies recede to your protected species haven and just accept that despite the professed interests of the child you will stop at nothing to vent your venom vexaciously if the need arises. Aussie women have lost me with their deceit and self centred paranoia. If yoiu know South American or Italian women ours have a lot of ground to make up class and appearance.
  
  Reply
- Davido says:
  
  08:42pm | 09/02/10
  
  1. Rudd would be risking political suicide by reversing the presumption of shared parenting.
  
  2. the children are not forgotten. Their interests should come first but often come second to those of the mother. The father’s interest is NEVER put before the childs.
  
  3. child abuse is primarily the domain of mothers. Check the statistics.
  
  4. the family court has zero credibility. The justices are reknowned for their subjective opinions. They rely on counsellors (invariably female) who are can only be desribed as partisan. There is no presumption of innocence and the normal rules of evidence do not apply.
  
  Reply
- Helen says:
  
  12:46am | 10/02/10
  
  I work for a lawyer and let me assure you, it is not as cut and dried as ‘the police being involved’. They can’t just waltz in and take the bad man away, especially when the evidence of a child can be so sketchy. And the alleged offender can simply say ‘I didn’t do it’ - then what do the police do??
  
  We have a similar case going on at the moment. Mother, alleged victim and the siblings say it happened, father says it didn’t. The children’s reluctance to see their father at the mandated visitation time says otherwise, and so does the evidence of self harm and suicide attempt BY AN 8YR OLD GIRL! Now come on - is that the norm for an 8yr old? I dont think so. But it is the fathers word against the mothers and the childs and he HAS to see the children as mandated by law.
  
  if it was as simple as ‘the police being involved’ then it would have been dealt with before it got to trial and save a damn lot of the taxpayers money on legal costs.
  
  Oh and Gerad? Your comment about boys growing up without a male influence? My ex left us when my children were quite young - my sons are now 17, 14 and 10. They can all cook a meal and do their own washing. They are polite to others and know how to treat a woman with respect. They are well read and can hold their own in conversation about anything from music to the war in Afghanistan. My boys can also change a tyre, sparkplugs, brakepads and the oil in a car (yes, even the 10yr old). They can change a washer, fix the lawmower and the washing machine. Two of them play soccer at rep level and they all have been rockclimbing since they were toddlers. My eldest has his sights on the Army, my middle son - RAAF. The youngest wants to be a cop.
  
  Who taught them all of this? Me. No one else. Me.
  
  My boys see their father for 6 weeks of the year, in 3 one week blocks and one 3 week block. This was not my decision. It was their fathers. God knows I would love it if he saw them more. Lets be honest, getting out there to meet people is kind of hard when you have the children 24/7. And I don’t believe in palming my boys off to other people so I can go out - they are my children, I chose to fight for them, ergo, they are my responsibility.
  
  So before you generalise about children growing up without one parent - think about what you just read.
  
  Reply
Eric says:

08:15am | 10/02/10

Are you the same “Helen” who earlier claimed that domestic violence was the number one killer of women in Australia? If so, why should we believe anything you say?
- 6c legs says:
  
  01:56am | 10/02/10
  
  can’t help but LOL @ the comments from the many floggers of all things female.
  
  one can’t help but wonder just what deciet they visited upon their ex wives for the ‘‘ex-wifey’’ to turn on a (hopefully) once loved husband…
  oh - the imagination is in overdrive! bwhaaaahaaaa
  
  as for 1 of the comments further up where the writer says that : He hasn’t met a man whose sexually abused his child…’’
  oh man, i dunno whether to laugh or cry! Does that doofus really think that any of his (and his “wife of 28 (?) years) acquaintances are going to mention over coffee/beer one saturday arvo that ‘he’s just——- his daughter?!
  unfortunately most commentators on this site DO KNOW someone who is sexually abusing a child. It’s just that the abuser will never tell YOU! But abused children DO HAVE WAYS of ‘telling you’ - YOU just have to pay attention!—- the trouble is, most s. abused children are GIRLS. and you women haters all know that GIRLS are just ‘‘baby women’’ all waiting for the day they can rip off every poor innocent male they come across, so cannot be trusted to be telling the truth about whats happening to them…
  
  going by some of the comments it’s no wonder that the marriages failed. I pity their daughters - their fathers obviously hate them for being born female…
  
  cue “Eric”
  
  Reply
Steve of Cornubia says:

04:54pm | 10/02/10

Hi, I’m the ‘doofus’ who can’t possibly know who is or isn’t abusing children. But somehow you and your imaginary friends can? That’s so cool!

Is it the drugs, or were you born with amazing mind-reading powers?

I would up your dose today. The world seems to be bothering you even more than usual.
- Helen says:
  
  08:49am | 10/02/10
  
  No, a different Helen.
  Domestic violence is a leading killer of women aged 15-44, I should have said.
  And “female-male dv equal to male-female dv” has been refuted again and again and again, but you people know you can rely on many of the commenters here not having much knowledge and being predisposed to believe the MRA version. The originator of the Conflict Tactics Scale has distanced himself from the distortion of his work which led to that factoid being bandied about.
  
  Reply
Tim says:

09:31am | 10/02/10

Sorry Helen,
that is wrong. The study actually found that DV was the major health factor in death, disability and ill-health for women 15-44.
This included factors like depression, anxiety, suicides, drug use, alcohol and tobacco.
Actual injuries and deaths consisted of less than 3% of the total health burden that was attributed to DV. Read from that what you will.
- mog says:
  
  12:23pm | 10/02/10
  
  Readers clearly do not understand that in order for there to be a prosecution for sexual assault of a child aged under 7, there would need to be independent corroborating evidence (eg sperm traces in the child’s vagina) or independent witnesses (and how many child sex offenders do it in front of witnesses?). It is easy for offenders to either use condoms or wash the child after sex. Prosecutions will not occur because young children are deemed by the criminal justice system to be unable to understand the significance of taking an oath and to be unable to distinguish between truth and lies. So if the offender denies the allegations he is home free and he is sure to get family law ordered time with the child because mum and child will be blamed for making allegations. This is not an uncommon scenario. It is normal where children under 7 are being sexually abused by their biological father. Offenders know that the reduce their legal risk by targeting the children when they are very young, so they do. Most of the male posters on this discussion seem to think this is fine - it just goes to show why it is such a problem.
  
  Reply
Tim says:

12:33pm | 10/02/10

Yes that’s all well and good but what do we do about it?
In cases where there is a sexual abuse allegation do we just throw our presumption of innocence out of the window?
6clegs says:

02:13pm | 10/02/10

No, “Tim” - watch the children, and the way they interact with the accused.
But that brings up other issues of psychologically abusing a child of ‘‘making them be ‘‘alone’’ with the accused.’‘

All the whinging on this thread from bleating MRA members continually placing money/themselves above Childrens Rights ( & an alleged abused child no less) shows them for what they are, selfish, bitter and twisted spoilt brats that aren’t getting their own way - aw de poor diddums
Tim says:

02:58pm | 10/02/10

Your joking right 6c legs?
if a child acts funny around an accused person they should not be able to see them?
Maybe instead of this, as soon as an allegation is made the children are placed into state care until the allegations are investigated thoroughly?
Oh, and the majority of whinging i’ve seen on this thread is from people like yourself who wish to throw our legal system and the presumption of innocence out the window because of an extreme minority of cases.
Can you not see the problems you cause if an allegation is all it takes for someone to be punished?
- Eric says:
  
  02:02pm | 10/02/10
  
  Actually, mog, a great number of allegations of abuse are false - probably the majority in the case of children.
  
  Most of the female posters on this discussion seem to think it’s okay to ruin a man’s life with a false accusation, as long as a woman can benefit financially or emotionally.
  
  This just goes to show why it is such a problem.
  
  Reply
mog says:

03:09pm | 10/02/10

Eric the research says you are wrong. Not that you will be bothered by that. Most allegations are ‘unsubstantiated’ which means there is not the evidence to definitively support the claim. It does not mean the allegation was false. Most incestuous child sex allegations are never investigated. If they are investigated the child does not always make clear statements. When young children do make clear statements they are not acceptable witness evidence so there will be no police charges unless there are admissions from the accused. Convicted child sex offender parents are still being awarded time with their children in the family law system. Accusing a man of child sex abuse does not normally result in anything much beyond brief questioning by police. Once he denies it, the focus shifts to blaming the accuser. Eric you imagine that a man’s life would be ruined but it won’t be because the system is set up to protect him all the way. Your fantasy that women are emotionally and financially rewarded by making false accusations is a self-serving victim fantasy. They will be villified by the family law system as an alienating parent and they will face fines, jail and reversal of custody if they resist handing their child over for sex abuse. I have never met a mother who got rich and happy by making false child sex abuse allegations.
Eric says:

05:13pm | 10/02/10

So, mog, you yourself admit that the majority of allegations are unsubstantiated by evidence. Clearly there is a huge problem with women making false allegations against men, and I have yet to hear of a woman being penalised for such behaviour.

But it’s not only men who are scarred by lies. Consider the children, who are brainwashed into believing that they were sexually abused even if they can’t remember it. What effect does this trauma have on the mind of an innocent child? It’s probably as bad as actually being abused.

There need to be tough penalties for false accusations. The penalties for false accusations of a crime should be equal to those for the actual crime.
- julain thomas says:
  
  03:44pm | 10/02/10
  
  nappy rash versus “The Queensland Supreme Court was today told the mother, who cannot be identified, started planning their deaths in October 2002 after being issued with a Family Court order stating they would spend Christmas Day with their father”
  
  Reply
MarK says:

04:51pm | 10/02/10

I am suprised Tracy did use this
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/mum-gassed-kids-over-christmas-day-dispute/story-e6frfku9-1225828779243
as another reason why Men shouldnt get access to their kids,
In the interest of child protection keeping kids from their fathers will reduce the number of murderous vengeful mothers who kill their own children, just to get back at the father
- Chris says:
  
  04:20pm | 10/02/10
  
  Abuse is not a gender based thing - both genders have sick people that do it as shown below:
  
  http://www.news.com.au/national/mum-gassed-kids-over-christmas-day-dispute/story-e6frfkvr-1225828803868
  
  Males and females should not be given advantage in custody disputes etc based on gender - the 50/50 parenting law would seem to be perfectly fair their are always those abusing the system ie false allegations etc from both genders but I fail to see how removing a fair law and replacing it with a gender biased law works? If one day my relationship with my partner breaks down I don’t want to walk into custody talks/mediation etc with an advantage…I just don’t want to walk in with a disadvantage.
  
  Reply
- Garry says:
  
  08:47pm | 10/02/10
  
  I must up front say I am not a parent but I am an observer of the pain and suffering children go through when parents get divorced. Some friends have seperated and the divorce is getting messy, the ‘your father is a..’ and ‘your mother is a…’ are things I have heard and cringe, and once having mentioned the fact that this is wrong had my head bitten off for taking sides. So the kids suffer on.
  
  In cases where the kids hear comments as I heard above, both should equally to be chastised. A mother, or father, who speaks of the other like this in front of a child looses something in the pain they cause a child. Seems the best interest of the child is irrelivant.
  
  I have overheard discussions on either side that really makes me worry about my friends attitudes, the anger is real on both sides. Comments that in front of kids seems intended on saying the worst of their parent, a parent they look up too. The kids are young but they understand.
  
  I beg parents out there, I beg our lawmakers, do not make arbitory opinions based on extremes. Men have killed kids, women have killed kids, why? for a misplaced, warped sense of love. And that is the key word, love, parents still love their kids yet we have to destory the kids further for the sake of what? A pecieved threat that has - in many cases I am sure - no merit other than a word said in anger by an opposing parent.
  
  I hope they do not make this one sided, we will only make Aliens of people who are parents afterall, and I am sure if you are a parent you will know how that feels.
  
  Reply
- Helen says:
  
  08:39am | 11/02/10
  
  All the commenters on here who assume 50/50 is “fair”, because 50-50 is equal, so that must be fair, right?- fail to take into account the disruptive effect on a child’s life, sometimes disastrous in the case of very young children and infants. This kind of application of simplistic adult thinking to care of children is what Tracey means when she says the care of children trumps the wishes (“rights” is the wrong word) of parents.
  
  Reply
Tim says:

09:12am | 11/02/10

Helen,
so now your argument is that a child’s life should not be disrupted during divorce and separation by having to see both parents on an equal basis?
So would you be OK with a law that initially gave 100% custody to father’s during a seperation? I mean this would reduce the disruptive effect you talk about.
Ah, but that would be silly wouldn’t it?
Face it, the 50-50 law is the only fair and correct starting point for custody. For children and parents.
- Happy says:
  
  10:15am | 11/02/10
  
  Not in the Court where the cases of child abuse is the “core business”- Brown et al, ‘Child Abuse and the Family Court’, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Paper No. 91, Au Institute of Criiminology, June,1998.
  
  Reply
- Michael Greene says:
  
  12:23pm | 11/02/10
  
  Studies have shown that during a marriage or de facto relationship, that fathers spend approximately 6 hours a week with their children. They spend more time in the `Shed’ or watching sports or at the pub. Why is it therefore that after separation, fathers suddenly take this interest in their children and want them for 50% of the time and to have a `meaningful relationship’ with them that they never had before.???. It cannot be that they are actually concerned for their children or they would have spent more time with them prior to the breakup. Or is it just a device to get out of child maintencance payments. There are over 125,000 children in Australia for whom their parents (largely fathers) make no financial contribution and the children have to be maintained by the taxpayers. The CSA are quite right to hunt them down and harass them for payments - I am sick of my tax dollars going to subsidise these deadbeats.
  
  Reply
Tim says:

12:35pm | 11/02/10

What studies? Links please.
And have you thought that simply due to the fact that father’s work considerable longer hours than mothers, they would have less time with their children?
Oh and I have no problem with the CSA seeking out deadbeat dads, I don’t want my tax dollars paying for anybody’s children.
Michael Greene says:

01:13pm | 11/02/10

Tim - “...have you thought that simply due to the fact that father’s work considerable longer hours than mothers, they would have less time with their children?”. Precisely!. So why are fathers wanting children for large amounts of their children’s time after separation, when they can give so little time to their care?. That is if they really care. The children are more likely to be spending time with babysitters and other adults who are not their parents or wandering the streets. Is that fair to children?.
Chris says:

01:46pm | 11/02/10

I’d also like to see these studies.

I don’t know if my routine is typical but amoungst my friends it seems to be - it consists of: get up get ready for work pepare bottle leave with other half before going to work….long period of soul sapping work…..get home spend an hour with my son (would be more but he then goes to bed - and deprivating him of sleep for my pleasure would be a form of abuse) rinse wash and repeat until weekend when I try and spend most of the weekend with him aside from doing various household chores.

Would love to split parenting duties daily on a 50/50 basis however reality is that my partner can’t earn anywhere near my income and this would be impractical (that is if I was able to get a 3 day working week or the like in the first place).
Eric says:

05:17pm | 11/02/10

Michael, you fail to consider that maybe the mothers are demanding 100% custody so they can grab the father’s money.
- Grace says:
  
  12:34pm | 11/02/10
  
  I see where Helen is coming from…...
  What happens if parents have moved and the children cant go to the same school all the time?
  What happens if the two homes have differant value systems?
  There are a lot of things that could be a problem with 50/50.
  The children should be in a stable home (with who ever) with constancy in their lives. Just because they live with one doesnt mean the other has to miss out.
  I cant see why people just cant be adult and sensible about it and do WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILD.
  Then again since I am still married to the father of my children and have never had this problem I dont really know, but if people were not so selfish in the first place a lot more of them would have stayed married to their childs father/mother and MADE it work which is the very best thing for the children. Yep, I could easy have walked out, there were heaps of times “I” was upset, angry and cranky, I even had people tell me to “leave” but I chose to stay and after reading all the sadness and hurting and bickering in this lot of posts I am so pleased I did.
  
  Reply
- Brett says:
  
  04:59pm | 11/02/10
  
  Hmmm, after reading through all of these comments it’s interesting to see that there are two sides - there are the “voice of reason” side that point out that this is about the childs rights, thereby changing the shared parenting (?) law to enable children to escape situations such as habitual abuse.
  Then there are a bunch of what seems to be mostly men, shouting at the top of their voices that it’s all lies. But if it really is all lies, then where are the real abuse cases? Men, where are the real abuse cases, and how can they be helped if you insist that it doesn’t exist, and that it’s just the women?
  (And yes, I am a man, LOL)
  
  Reply
Chris says:

06:27pm | 11/02/10

I don’t think anyone has said (from either male of female posters) that it is only women or only men abusing children - I think posters of both genders acknowlege that both genders have child abusers. I also saw no posts in which anyone said an abuser should have ANY custodial rights to a child, posters are simply debating current custodial law (rationally and sometimes irrationally).

I’m also quite sure the current shared parenting laws have provision to remove access to any abusive parent so how does changing them affect abuse cases?

Curious as to why you felt you needed to qualify that you are male? I havn’t met many ladies called Brett recently.
- Brett says:
  
  08:54pm | 11/02/10
  
  Er, Chris, right?
  Haven’t you been reading any of these posts? It’s littered with it mate - take a step back and read.
  I guess I don’t want to be lumped in with the men on here - they seem a bit over the top, crazy views, you know?
  
  Reply
- Tim says:
  
  10:05pm | 11/02/10
  
  Brett,
  There already are provisions to take children out of abusive environments so why do we have to change the current laws to disadvantage one parent?
  I find it strange that you think it is the voice of reason that we should throw out the presumption of innocence.
  Crazy views indeed.
  
  our legal system
  
  Reply
- Brett says:
  
  11:24pm | 11/02/10
  
  Just stating my opinion mate, if what you are saying is right, then why all the hoo-ha? You sound a bit on the defensive to me, but that’s just my thoughts - no need to keep shooting me down just because I’ve stood up to say what I think. But this back and forth is a bit pointless really. Cheers mate.
  
  Reply
- Happy says:
  
  05:00am | 12/02/10
  
  “...so why do we have to change the current laws to disadvantage one parent?” Tim? Because those laws have been changed to suit conditions that prioritise adult ‘rights’ over children’s protection, with devastating results:
  http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/car-crash-dad-was-mentally-unstable-exwife-20090902-f83g.html
  http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/23/1098474932425.html?from=storylhs
  The presumption of innocence does not work when the victim is a child and the accused is a parent in the Family Court. The very nature of child sexual abuse will work against providing the necessary evidence to protect the child. The “core business” of the Family Court is child abuse. Don’t expect accused parents to confess their sins and the necessary evidence that corroborates child abuse will not be easily available, and even when it is, it may not be believed. The meat in the sandwich is the abused child.
  
  Reply
Tim says:

09:30am | 12/02/10

Happy,
this goes to the very core of our legal system.
The presumption of innocence is one of the most important legal principles we have.
I’m not saying that there are not improvements that could be made, whether that be giving the family court extra resources to investigate individual cases or helping the police to investigate quicker and more thoroughly but the idea that we should punish someone on an accusation, I find to be a ridiculous proposition.
And you should know that providing links to individual extreme cases as proof that the laws should be changed is stupid.
Hard cases make for bad law.
- Happy says:
  
  11:12am | 12/02/10
  
  The presumption of innocence is a principle of criminal law, not the civil jurisdiction.
  Tim, I find it ridiculous that children are in the Family Court where there is medical evidence of ‘tearing’, ‘fissures’ and evidence that prima facie is indicative of child sexual abuse. Yet the Family Court has been persuaded that the child ‘did it to themselves.’ In one WA case, the Court accepted the argument by the father’s counsel that the child’s description of oral sex in the shower may have had an “innocent” explanation that the child happened to be kneeling in the shower and water must have just dripped into her mouth after running off his penis.
  This is actually happening. These are not extreme cases, they are the Court’s “core business”.
  These are not “hard cases”. These are cases that the average person in the street would say the child has been abused. The evidence is there. It is instead manipulated to blame the children or blame the protective parent.
  I know of 3 males that were not believed about the abuse of the children including one where the mother and her boyfriend were sexually abusing the children. The court gave them to her despite clear evidence and expert opinion that the children were in fact abused. They accepted her assurances that she was not going to see her boyfriend anymore. She turned around and married him later.
  Nevertheless, the fact remains that the majority of protective parents are mothers.
  As Professor Brown put it, the child abuse cases in the family Court “is real, serious and severe.” (2000) ‘Revealing the Existence of Child Abuse in the Context of Marital Breakdownand Custody and Access Disputes’ Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 24, No. 6.
  One of the biggest problems with severe human rights violations is getting anyone to believe that they are actually occurring. It was the case in the 1st World War when the Armenians were systematically being killed by the Turkish government, it was also the case in the 2nd World War where to this day people choose to believe the Holocaust didn’t occur despite the evidence. It is the case now when Australians prefer to listen to those that have the most to gain by making out that they are the victims of the Family Court and the mythological “false allegation” woman, when in fact they may be the ones violating their own children. They also may claim the “innocent until proven guilty” banner.
  
  Reply
Tim says:

11:38am | 12/02/10

Happy,
If this is the case then surely the issue should be with the judiciary and not with the 50-50 parenting laws.
If cases have obvious and clear evidence of abuse by one parent then the judiciary should obviously remove the rights of that parent.
I can’t believe the family court judges would be that stupid.
- AJ says:
  
  01:41pm | 12/02/10
  
  A child’s rights NEED to come first - and it doesn’t not matter one single bit if the sexual/physical/mental abuser is male of female.
  
  In order for that to happen, unfortunately, people need to ditch the “Mother knows best” BS. Mother doesn’t always know best, neither does Father.
  
  Then again, neither does the courts.
  
  Let trained psychologists and investigators look into matters of accusation and then do what protects the child.
  
  Of course, that will cost money - money which people will scream needs to be used for ‘more important’ matters.
  
  These children are the future, nothing is more important than giving them something to trust in, their safety.
  
  Reply
- Happy says:
  
  01:51pm | 12/02/10
  
  Family Court judges are experts in law, not child abuse. The Family Court was never intended to hear child abuse cases and was never set up to do so. The fact that the court is adversarial rather than an inquisitorial jurisdiction is just one of the many complex problems that do not protect children.
  What may be ‘obvious’ can be re-interpeted as something other than that.
  The judges are not stupid, they have been misled by the wrong experts that may be seen as ‘hired guns’ for practitioners who will fight for their client using questionable paradigms forwarded by non-experts. Anyone can be mistaken and misled, including Prime Minister Chamberlain in the Second WW where he trusted Hitler’s word.
  As I said, this horror is happening now and has been for the past 2-3 decades.
  You would believe it if it happened to you.
  Watch and weep-
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GoWvti0g6M&feature=related
  
  Reply
- silencedvoices says:
  
  05:38pm | 15/02/10
  
  Perhaps some of you people need to actually go and spend the time sitting in the Family Court and listening to the evidence that is put before these Judges and ignored, minimised, and trivialised and see for yourself what a farce it is. Children are routinely removed from protective parents and handed to their abusers.. then try and get your head around what you think should happen and what actually is happening in the world of Family Court..
  
  Reply
- Suzanne says:
  
  09:21am | 27/01/11
  
  The FLC ignores all the signes and puts children at risk constantly. My Child went to school and told a teacher that she hated going to her fathers because he offered his friend money to kill me and he drilled a hole in the bathroom wall to look at her in the shower. Child Safety were called and they told me that I was never to send her there again or she will be removed from me. I was unsuccessful in having the orders changed and Child Safety offered no support for court. I get taken to court every 6 months for contravention. Our daughter is nearly 15 and has some choice now so he takes me to court to try and avoid paying child support of $30 per month.
  This man from Yugoslavia was raped by his own father and has always disempowered our child. He tells me that his father did no wrong. We have been in and out of court for 9 years and he always abandones a trial. He lies about everything but people appear to believe him. I took him to court trying to get some safe resolution and I was told by a magistrate “If you don’t force her to go to her fathers every second weekend I will give him custody”.
  I begged the courts for a psychological assessment so there could perhaps be some resolution. I was always told that he refuses yet told to force my child to go with him.
  The FLC has been a waste of time and never ever put the needs of our child first. The father is put before the child both in court and the CSA. As she gets older my daughter tells me of shocking things that her father has done to her when she was only five and six. He told her that I hated her and that if she told me she would get in trouble by me.
  I think that he is and will remain a very dangerous man. It was a shock to me that I needed to protect my child from her own father.
  Our kids need the courts to treat each case individually and stop using the same rules for every family.
  
  Reply

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Colgo 09 Feb 12 07:40PM

RT @lillithtitania: Pictures show Adolf Hitler practising poses for his speeches - and relaxing in lederhosen http://t.co/7Idp5dWY via @news_com_au

farrm51 09 Feb 12 06:08PM

More gay marriage legislation than you can point a straight stick at. http://t.co/k2SC4xNp

Colgo 09 Feb 12 05:48PM

@c41 yes it is.

drpiotrowski 09 Feb 12 05:43PM

Tomorrow on The Punch: why we're being shafted at the ATM.

See all tweets

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

151 comments

Child protection trumps rights of divorced parents

Must Reads

Most commented

127 comments

Eric says:

Jeremy says:

Chris says:

protect our kids with truth says:

cats says:

Eric says:

Eric says:

Eric says:

idiots everywhere says:

Mike says:

Eric says:

Mickey says:

Robert Smissen says:

DocBud says:

Happy says:

Not fair says:

James says:

cats says:

Happy says:

Robert King says:

Grace says:

Chris says:

Helen says:

Gerard says:

Donna says:

Martin G says:

Martin G says:

DG says:

Chris says:

Robert Smissen says:

Jane Evans says:

Helen says:

Bob says:

Chris says:

AJ says:

Nathan says:

Tim says:

Ray says:

Lou says:

Happy says:

Ray says:

Wendy says:

Mike Tyson's Stolen Boxing Glove says:

James says:

Voxpop says:

bec says:

Tim says:

Lauren says:

For the kid's sake, the real truth for a change. says:

Tim says:

Davido says:

Steve of Cornubia says:

Ted says:

Helen says:

Chris says:

Sick says:

Waz says:

SM says:

BeenThere says:

Ben says:

James says:

Ian Matthews says:

Eloise says:

JH says:

Carolyn says:

Ray says:

DG says:

formersnag says:

Kathy says:

H of SA says:

MK says:

Bitten says:

suze says:

James says:

Bob says:

Chris says: